ansarthemystic

Just a little more proof that Paul preached a Gospel incompatible with the OT. It also shows Paul to be a liar b/c Jesus(AS) said that he came not to change the law but to fullfill it, yet Paul uses Jesus(AS) as the authority by which he abolishes the Law!hmmm




peace and blessings

ansarthemystic

You aren't really being harsh, but I think you need to understand that there are certain requirements to being a christian. A christian is someone that believes, accepts, and follows the logical consequences of christological doctrines.

Therefore a Christian:
1)believes that Jesus(AS) is God , the Son of God and the Third Person in the Holy Trinity
2)that he was crucified to save all of mankind from Original Sin, on a cross.
3)that he went to hell and was resurrected after 3 days, thereby dfeating Satan and sin.
4)that he will return again to establish the Kingdom of God on the Earth, will banish evil, sin, death, and Satan and the Anti-Christs.
4)that the NT is true and its Laws supercede the OT.
5) that the Hypostatic Union is true dooctrine

Therefore there is a difference between Christianity, which is a religion, and being Christ-like which is a complete way of life.

Also it is expedient to recognize that those that follow the OT only are not followers of Judaism, but followers of Biblical Judaism. Therefore those that believe in the OT and NT in varying degrees among the denominations are "christians", and those that don't believe in at least one of the above criteria are "Christians", such as the Essenes, the Copts,the Nazarenes, The Arians, The Nestorians,Jehovah's Witnesses etc...or "christ-like" similar to some Unitarians and so called "liberal" Christians

peace and blessings

sighhswolf

Hey...Hey....dont be comparing christians to Wolves.!!
Wolves are much more intelligent.
Wolf

HelenM

Originally posted by I ate Pascals Wafer:

Hi Helen. I haven't really discussed things very much with you before, but I did want to jump in on this point.

Hi Nick

I think I can understand your point about the saving grace. Basically, being imperfect beings, we cannot hope to live up to the standards of God. Thus, it is impossible for us to do good all of the time. Since we cannot be perfect all the time, we do not deserve entrance into heaven. God knows this, but takes pity on us and allows us to enter heaven if we repent and put our trust in Him. Am I close?

Sort of. The theology is more 'precise' than that though. God can't let anyone imperfect into heaven but Jesus is perfect and he 'credits' Jesus' perfect righteousness to anyone who believes in Jesus.

As 2 Cor 5:21 puts it: God made him who had no sin [Jesus] to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

God can only let people in who come with Jesus' righteousness. It's not a matter of 'he takes pity on', theologically speaking. It's like, you have to have the handstamp you get when you believe in Jesus. As it were.

The problem I have is that one does not intentionally continue sinning if one is truly repentent.

Well, yes, one would hope that's the case.

Part of the problem is that people don't agree on what is actually sin.

And - theologically speaking - God doesn't remove the ability or desire of people to sin when they are saved although He gives them the Holy Spirit which enables them to choose not to sin.

But they still are tempted and they still can choose to sin.

If Christians know they are not living up to Biblical standards, and do not do anything about it, I doubt they are truly sorry for their sins. I also doubt that God, if he exists, would still admit them into heaven for this.

Well, indeed and I'm sure you can find plenty of Christians who will tell you that someone who has no desire to turn away from sin really is kidding themselves that they are truly saved.

Many Christians emphasize the repent part of 'repent and believe' which means literally not, emotional regret so much as a change of mine - about one's own life. So it ought to entail a new direction for one's life - a commitment to live for God from now on. Not an unchanged life but with 'fire insurance'.

I imagine God can excuse imperfection as long as that person is striving to improve. If that person is content to continue sinning, I imagine that person would be in for a shock when he arrives at the pearly gates.

Again, many Christians would be concerned about someone who has no desire to stop sinning and wonder whether that person is truly 'saved'. Since a real Christian should desire to live in a way pleasing to the Lord, not to be happy to continue in sin.

But I do wonder whether the doctrine of 'once saved always saved' does subconsciously lead to a lot of complacency in Christians. I mean, if you can't lose your salvation...where's the motivation to obey God?

But otoh I don't like the fear-driven theology of "one sin could put you back on the path to hell!"

One could take this outside the realm of theology altogether - to a business environment - or teaching kids - and ask "How do we motivate people to excellence? If we use negative consequences they will tend to do the minimum they can get away with to avoid the consequence rather than be motivated to excellence! But if we have no negative consequences they will be complacent - so how do we motivate people (or children) to excel?"

These seem to be similar challenges to me - but maybe to no-one else here!

Thanks for your comments/questions, Nick . I love your username, btw!

love
Helen

Pitshade

This should be in Misc. Religion.

scumble

But, "Everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand."

Jesus seems to say that faith in him isn't really complete unless you do things like him. That was the whole crux of my point.

I know Paul dwells on being saved by grace, but he has a lot of ideas about issues that Jesus didn't think was important. Paul has absorbed the teaching but tends to put a spin on it that doesn't sit harmoniously with Jesus necessarily. I think Paul has an individual philosophy. Jesus is far less verbose. I am quite skeptical of John as well, as the core teaching seems to have been left out.
I liked Debbie T's point that a lot of Christians like to think certain people aren't true Christians, rather conveniently. It tends to erode the idea that organised Christianity has much of an effect on people.

Where does all this stuff come from? Jesus went to hell? Who invented the trinity idea ("discovered" if you like)? Original sin is another funny one - I don't know why this is held on to, because this can only come from the OT. Jesus doesn't mention it like this.

ansarthemystic

scumble: Where does all this stuff come from? Jesus went to hell? Who invented the trinity idea ("discovered" if you like)? Original sin is another funny one - I don't know why this is held on to, because this can only come from the OT. Jesus doesn't mention it like this.

Personally, I think none of those three doctrines
belong as a part of christianity, but I am told that these criteria make one a Christian.Obviously they come from the Church and not from the NT or OT.Hope you don't think I am a Christian!I believe it is important to be Christ-like.

peace and blessings

I ate Pascal's Wafer

Hey Helen. My apologies for not replying sooner, but I was moving into my new apartment over the last few days and haven't had the opportunity to get online.

Well, yeah. I was trying to sum it up in a few sentences, so I'm sure there were some big points I left out.

This is true. I know God wouldn't expect people to be perfect once they become Christians and repent of their sins. I also know God wouldn't hold sin against the Christian if they slipped up from time to time.

That being said, I don't think God would be very tolerant of people who use Christianity as a get out of hell free pass. I imagine people who intentionally sin and make no effort to change their lives would fall under this category.

<nod> You can't swing a dead cat around here without it hitting one of those Christians.

Right. Don't you think that this is what God had in mind? It doesn't necessarily mean the Christian should live a perfect life. It does mean that the Christian should realize his mistakes and sins and work to correct them in the future.

I imagine it would lead to complacency in some of them. I can't back it up scripturally, but I imagine God would not be very willing to admit such people into heaven if they used salvation as a get-out-of-hell free card. It's almost like they didn't truly repent and allow God in their hearts, but rather only believed because it suited their purposes. As you said earlier, for fire insurance.

Of course. I think there could be some middle ground there. God wouldn't demand perfection and would certainly allow slipups now and then. OTOH, he wouldn't want them to continue sinning instead of trying to live a better life either.

Hmm...this is a difficult situation, eh? I don't know that there is much the motivator can do. It really has to be something the motivatee really desires. I think it would be the most beneficial to reward those who have a desire to achieve excellence anyway, and simply disregard those with no desire. If the kid really wants to excell, rewarding him will serve to motivate him even more. If the kid doesn't want to excell, no amount of negative or positive motivation will work.

Such is the case with God. He might choose to reward those who do strive to make their lives better, and simply disregard those who don't. He won't force anyone to change their lives and do good works. He will simply reward those who do.

When I was in High School I had the job of teaching the younger band students how to play my particular instrument. Instead of telling them flat out that I would reward the people who wanted to learn, and punish those who didn't want to learn, I simply rewarded those who had the desire to learn on a case-by-case basis. I would let those who really wanted to learn play various solos, or I would let them take the first part. I would let them go on break earlier if they needed it, and those students had much more freedom around me. They were the good kids, and I knew I had to keep them around.

I simply disregarded the others. Sometimes they would realize that the students who wanted to learn had much more fun at practice, and they would really try hard to be like them. Of course they were rewarded as well. There were always the occasional few who did not want to learn or care to be there, but they still wouldn't want to learn no matter what I did. They would simply do the minimum to get by, and there was no way to motivate them. Instead of concentrating on the slackers I worked with the good students. It seemed to work for us.

But yes, I have had times when motivation was a challenge as well.

You're welcome. Thanks for your reply and answers.

Why thank you! After various discussions with key theists over the past few months, I think the name suits me.

-Nick