Freethought & Rationalism Archive

diana · 09-24-2002, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenM:
Those who believe it say that those who don't, in fact believe in salvation by works, not grace, because it is their own good works that keep them out of hell, not Jesus' death on their behalf.

Yes, I've heard this before. I am a bit befuddled that the same people who argue that three beings equal one cannot acknowledge that a combination of faith/works/Jesus' death save them from hell. (If you harmonize the scriptures, it would seem that all of these are vital--not just one of them.)

Quote:

Both groups agree that repentance is part of saving faith. Repentance in the Bible means 'a change of mind about one's own sin and a turning to God', not 'an emotional regret', btw.

I concur. It is the first sense in which I meant it, as it makes little sense to me that God would forgive someone who has not turned from his sin.

Ah. I see what you're getting at. One who has truly repented will not arise, go forth, and commit evil deeds even though he's been forgiven for them. To do so would suggest that he didn't mean it when he "repented" in the first place.

Gotcha.

I still question the repentance clause in light of bible teaching because the bible suggests that we can't help sinning. This would presumably continue after we are "saved." So I begin to wonder how it is possible for anyone to "turn from his sin," really.

Quote:

As you may know, people who believe 'once saved, always saved' might well resolve the dilemma of someone who is sinning with abandon yet claims to be a Christian, by saying they probably aren't really saved, else they'd have a God-given desire to obey God, from the Holy Spirit, which they don't seem to have.

Yes, I'm sure the problem is solved somehow by them rationalizing that anyone who would commit a sin after being saved is only claiming to be a Xn. But doesn't this allow them to conveniently write off anyone who does something of which they disapprove, although their doctrine clearly states that their belief has netted them Jesus' redemption for all their sins?

It just looks too much like the "not a True Xn" escape clause to me.

I may be missing something, though. While I'm always prone to error and misunderstandings, I'm at the tail end of a particularly long day.

cheers,
d

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]

HelenM · 09-24-2002, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by diana:
HelenM:
Those who believe it say that those who don't, in fact believe in salvation by works, not grace, because it is their own good works that keep them out of hell, not Jesus' death on their behalf.

Yes, I've heard this before. I am a bit befuddled that the same people who argue that three beings equal one cannot acknowledge that a combination of faith/works/Jesus' death save them from hell. (If you harmonize the scriptures, it would seem that all of these are vital--not just one of them.)

When they harmonize them their end result is that works are important but salvation is by faith in Christ, not by works.

Quote:

HelenM: Both groups agree that repentance is part of saving faith. Repentance in the Bible means 'a change of mind about one's own sin and a turning to God', not 'an emotional regret', btw.

I concur. It is the first sense in which I meant it, as it makes little sense to me that God would forgive someone who has not turned from his sin.

Interesting. Have you read <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=45&t=001147" target="_blank">Janaya's thread</a> re: since Jesus died for me, why am I not saved? Why is there a condition on it? (Or, that's my summary of it)

Quote:

Ah. I see what you're getting at. One who has truly repented will not arise, go forth, and commit evil deeds even though he's been forgiven for them. To do so would suggest that he didn't mean it when he "repented" in the first place.

Exactly.

It's possible to feel sorry for oneself that one is suffering the consequences of one's sin, without repenting over the sin, for example. I.e. a person can be upset they were caught stealing, which is not the same as being sorry that they stole.

Quote:

Gotcha.

I still question the repentance clause in light of bible teaching because the bible suggests that we can't help sinning. This would presumably continue after we are "saved." So I begin to wonder how it is possible for anyone to "turn from his sin," really.

Theologically speaking, nonbelievers do not have the power not to sin; but when a person receives Christ as savior, he/she is then born again of the Holy Spirit which means he/she now has power through the Holy Spirit to choose not to sin.

He/she can still sin but now he/she also has the power not to sin, through the Holy Spirit.

So there's a difference. Someone who is born again of God's Holy Spirit would be expected to have the desire to please God and not to sin, although they will still be tempted to sin and most likely will give in to the temptation, at times.
quote:

Quote:

HelenM: As you may know, people who believe 'once saved, always saved' might well resolve the dilemma of someone who is sinning with abandon yet claims to be a Christian, by saying they probably aren't really saved, else they'd have a God-given desire to obey God, from the Holy Spirit, which they don't seem to have.

Yes, I'm sure the problem is solved somehow by them rationalizing that anyone who would commit a sin after being saved is only claiming to be a Xn. But doesn't this allow them to conveniently write off anyone who does something of which they disapprove, although their doctrine clearly states that their belief has netted them Jesus' redemption for all their sins?

It just looks too much like the "not a True Xn" escape clause to me.

Well, it is the 'not a True Christian' defense so that's why it looks like it!

The question is, is it valid or not?

Quote:

I may be missing something, though. While I'm always prone to error and misunderstandings, I'm at the tail end of a particularly long day.

I think I understood what you said but I suppose I won't know, without your feedback, whether I really did or not!

take care
Helen

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: HelenM ]

NFLP · 09-24-2002, 08:41 PM

Helen,
I can tell you're not the typical neurotic Born Again---I have met so very few of you---so please, shed any inferrence of contempt from me.

You wrote:
"If asked, Christians would say that if [there]had been another way to save people, God would have chosen that in preference to the death of His Son..."

So are you saying that God sacrificed Himself to Himself to pay a debt for which He is the creditor/rulemaker, yet powerless to handle it any other way?

FYI: I don't want to make Christianity go away; I want to see it rescued from the pharisees who historically prevent it from rising-fully on noble legs.

Dominus vobiscum,
Alexandre

lunachick · 09-25-2002, 02:30 AM

I have a question...

Helen, you said: "It is for God to decide when it's time for someone to leave this life and go to heaven. Not for people to take matters into their own hands."

Why, then, do medical practitioners, specialists and researchers work so hard to keep people alive long after 'God' has pretty much said "it is time for you to die, and through this means of death (be it disease, accident/"act of God", whatever) you will learn much to prepare you for the afterlife/pay penance/understand what it is you were meant to learn, etc, etc"?
And this interference of 'Gods will', if you like, is via the most unnatural of ways - huge machines, synthetic drugs, transplants, and now cloning and other genetically engineered means.

Many of those "acting as God" in the delaying of death would no doubt claim to be Christians, yet they won't let the natural process of death occur without 'fighting' God over it. Surely that must be taking matters of life and death into their own hands? It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

HelenM · 09-25-2002, 05:22 AM

lunachick, Christians do find it hard to know where to draw the line.

I suggest you read this if you're genuinely interested in the Christian perspective on when efforts to preserve life should cease...

<a href="http://www.moodymagazine.com/articles.php?action=view_article&id=996" target="_blank">Why Is It So Hard To Decide</a>

take care
Helen

HelenM · 09-25-2002, 05:30 AM

NFLP

Ok, this is where I'm at - I'm sure your fiance would love to discuss the Christian faith with you - and so I'm confused as to why you're asking me questions that I'd rather you asked her.

If you've asked her already then tell me what she said because I don't want to be inadvertently disagreeing with her. If we're from different traditions we may not agree on everything - I understand that. But I'd like to know what she's already said to you on an issue. And if you haven't asked her, I'd much rather you asked her first before you ask me. It seems unfair to her, in my opinion, to take questions about Christianity elsewhere...

take care
Helen

NFLP · 09-25-2002, 06:26 AM

Helen,
Well, I just called her at work and she said "No, no, Sweetie, tell her it is ok to answer any question."

She trusts my ability to think for myself. She believes that God is working with me in His own way. She knows that I respect Christians who admit to discrepancy in logic. So don't be afraid of "leading me astray" with an inadvertant error.

It was your statement for which I requested clarification; I repeat the request.

Be well; be wrong, but be good...

HelenM · 09-25-2002, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by NFLP:
Helen,
Well, I just called her at work and she said "No, no, Sweetie, tell her it is ok to answer any question."

D'OH - so much for that excuse then...

Quote:

She trusts my ability to think for myself. She believes that God is working with me in His own way. She knows that I respect Christians who admit to discrepancy in logic. So don't be afraid of "leading me astray" with an inadvertant error.

Oh, I don't make 'errors'

I just didn't want it to appear that we couldn't agree with each other...

Quote:

It was your statement for which I requested clarification; I repeat the request.

Then...yes. Don't ask me to explain it though; Christians accept on faith that the way God does things is the best way possible.

Quote:

Be well; be wrong, but be good...

I'm trying very hard to be well but I'm not sure it's entirely under my control; I try not to be wrong when being right is feasible; I plead the fifth on being good...

take care
Helen

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: HelenM ]

Mad Kally · 09-25-2002, 12:18 PM

Helen,
I'm a little confused. When did you give up your agnosticism?

Theli · 09-25-2002, 12:26 PM

Ofcourse a religion must have a rule that prevents people from killing themselfs.
If you could (within the rules of religious dogma), confess all your sins, do a couple of good deeds to get on the right side of "right", kill yourself and then live (?) happily ever after, the religion could not grow and expand wich is one of the key objectives of any religion.
How could a religion survive if all the members kill themselfs?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-24-2002, 08:41 PM	#43
NFLP Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Southeast Posts: 150	Helen, I can tell you're not the typical neurotic Born Again---I have met so very few of you---so please, shed any inferrence of contempt from me. You wrote: "If asked, Christians would say that if [there]had been another way to save people, God would have chosen that in preference to the death of His Son..." So are you saying that God sacrificed Himself to Himself to pay a debt for which He is the creditor/rulemaker, yet powerless to handle it any other way? FYI: I don't want to make Christianity go away; I want to see it rescued from the pharisees who historically prevent it from rising-fully on noble legs. Dominus vobiscum, Alexandre

09-25-2002, 02:30 AM	#44
lunachick Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: NZ Posts: 7,895	I have a question... Helen, you said: "It is for God to decide when it's time for someone to leave this life and go to heaven. Not for people to take matters into their own hands." Why, then, do medical practitioners, specialists and researchers work so hard to keep people alive long after 'God' has pretty much said "it is time for you to die, and through this means of death (be it disease, accident/"act of God", whatever) you will learn much to prepare you for the afterlife/pay penance/understand what it is you were meant to learn, etc, etc"? And this interference of 'Gods will', if you like, is via the most unnatural of ways - huge machines, synthetic drugs, transplants, and now cloning and other genetically engineered means. Many of those "acting as God" in the delaying of death would no doubt claim to be Christians, yet they won't let the natural process of death occur without 'fighting' God over it. Surely that must be taking matters of life and death into their own hands? It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

09-25-2002, 05:22 AM	#45
HelenM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Ill Posts: 6,577	lunachick, Christians do find it hard to know where to draw the line. I suggest you read this if you're genuinely interested in the Christian perspective on when efforts to preserve life should cease... <a href="http://www.moodymagazine.com/articles.php?action=view_article&id=996" target="_blank">Why Is It So Hard To Decide</a> take care Helen

09-25-2002, 05:30 AM	#46
HelenM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Ill Posts: 6,577	NFLP Ok, this is where I'm at - I'm sure your fiance would love to discuss the Christian faith with you - and so I'm confused as to why you're asking me questions that I'd rather you asked her. If you've asked her already then tell me what she said because I don't want to be inadvertently disagreeing with her. If we're from different traditions we may not agree on everything - I understand that. But I'd like to know what she's already said to you on an issue. And if you haven't asked her, I'd much rather you asked her first before you ask me. It seems unfair to her, in my opinion, to take questions about Christianity elsewhere... take care Helen

09-25-2002, 06:26 AM	#47
NFLP Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Southeast Posts: 150	Helen, Well, I just called her at work and she said "No, no, Sweetie, tell her it is ok to answer any question." She trusts my ability to think for myself. She believes that God is working with me in His own way. She knows that I respect Christians who admit to discrepancy in logic. So don't be afraid of "leading me astray" with an inadvertant error. It was your statement for which I requested clarification; I repeat the request. Be well; be wrong, but be good...

09-25-2002, 12:18 PM	#49
Mad Kally Banned Join Date: May 2001 Location: LALA Land in California Posts: 3,764	Helen, I'm a little confused. When did you give up your agnosticism?

09-25-2002, 12:26 PM	#50
Theli Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,567	Ofcourse a religion must have a rule that prevents people from killing themselfs. If you could (within the rules of religious dogma), confess all your sins, do a couple of good deeds to get on the right side of "right", kill yourself and then live (?) happily ever after, the religion could not grow and expand wich is one of the key objectives of any religion. How could a religion survive if all the members kill themselfs?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.