diana

David,

You still have not answered my questions. Here or elsewhere.

I found this in another thread you started, and I'd like to comment on it:

Among the most beautiful thoughts in the Scriptures and of special relevance to theists and atheists alike is John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." The next verse is not as well known unfortunately, "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved."

I always thought John 3:17 was unnecessary and boneheaded theatrics. I mean, it sounds nice, but what does it say that isn't already obvious? "For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world...." Do you suppose that's because--according the Xn doctrine--God himself already did that way back "in the beginning"? Duh. And of course, the rest of that verse is just reiteration of 3:16.

I suppose it is possible that God might save some of you....

Once again, I ask you to explain away the verses that say there are specific things you must do to be saved (hear, believe, repent, confess, be baptized). You clearly do not see these as imperatives, but the scriptures from which you draw support for your beliefs are unequivocal on these points.

So, David Matthews...how do you explain away the verses that plainly state there's more to being saved than the "grace of God?"

d

diana

David,

I see you posting prolifically in the forums. I know you know this thread is here, and addressed directly to you, yet you continue to ignore my questions. Why?

If you have answers to my questions, it should be but a simple matter to provide them. Yet you do not.

If, on the other hand, you cannot explain away the plethora of verses in the bible that clearly delineate requirements for salvation (such as "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be condemned"), you have two choices.

1. Simply admit you pick and choose which verses you want to believe and ignore the rest, or

2. Ignore the questioner in the hopes she'll give up and go away. (This technique is invariably a mark of the person who knows he's trapped but is too proud to admit it.)

You appear to have opted for the latter.

Comments?

d

David Mathews

Hello diana,

David: I do not deny any of these commands regarding the plan of salvation. If an atheists wants to become saved, this is the path that they must follow.

The question regarding the fate of those people who are beyond the realm of the gospel (those who never heard the gospel) and those who are immersed in their own religions/cultures and therefore not amenable to the gospel message (Hindus, Muslims, and some atheists) is not resolved by the Scriptures.

That God can and does save people outside the Judeo-Christian faith is suggested by Paul in his address to the Athenians in Acts 17:30: "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked ..." I don't suppose that God's overlooking the errors of the pagans would allow for the eternal punishment of those who remained faithful to their religion.

Another evidence that the standard applicable to the non-Jewish and non-Christian world may not be severe as some Christians have supposed is found in Romans 7:7-11, "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, 'You shall not covet.' But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death."

Given that Paul would not have known sin without the commandments forbidding sin, those people who are isolated from the law cannot possibly be judged according to the same standard as those who are born immsersed (as it were) in the law.

Passages such as the above give me some hope that God's grace will save those who are outside the faith, those people who follow non-Christian religions and even some of those people who do not know or believe in God.

I don't guarantee the salvation of any of these people. If an atheist is concerned about his/her salvation, he/she should actively seek salvation by believing and obeying the gospel.

Love,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello diana,

David: I missed your post. I have answered the question and look forward to your comments.

Best Regards,

David Mathews

diana

I do not deny any of these commands regarding the plan of salvation. If an atheists wants to become saved, this is the path that they must follow.

But you just said you think atheists can be saved without following that path. Which is it? Do they need to hear, believe, confess, repent and be baptized or not? You can't have it both ways.

The question regarding the fate of those people who are beyond the realm of the gospel (those who never heard the gospel) and those who are immersed in their own religions/cultures and therefore not amenable to the gospel message (Hindus, Muslims, and some atheists) is not resolved by the Scriptures.

If by this you mean that the scriptures do not specifically make a call that "those outside the realm of the gospel" will or will not be saved, in those words, you are correct.

The scriptures do, however, say, "He who believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he who believeth not shall be condemned." And "Those who come to him must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him." ("Him" being God, of course.)

It looks to me as though the Xn Bible clearly does make a call on those who have not heard, and it does require belief and baptism for salvation. Is there a passage that allows for exceptions to this policy?

If not, by what authority do you determine that it applies to some people and not others?

If I did believe in your loving god with his lake of fire and worms that die not, I'd be mighty nervous about volunteering my services as his Modern Quality Assurance. "Make your calling and election sure," y'know.

That God can and does save people outside the Judeo-Christian faith is suggested by Paul in his address to the Athenians in Acts 17:30: "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked ..." I don't suppose that God's overlooking the errors of the pagans would allow for the eternal punishment of those who remained faithful to their religion.

But wasn't he talking about things that occurred before Jesus got nailed? That is, he spoke of God's attitude toward pagans under the Old Testament, which apparently didn't have the global salvation provisions of the New one (i.e., Chosen People versus "preach the gospel to every creature").

The only way you can apply this verse to God's attitude toward unbelievers now is to ignore the hear/believe/confess/repent/be baptised dictum. Which is why I keep coming back to those points.

You can't have it both ways. Either it's necessary to do the Xn Two-Step (one step forward and two steps back...nobody gets too far like that...) or it isn't. Which is it?

Given that Paul would not have known sin without the commandments forbidding sin, those people who are isolated from the law cannot possibly be judged according to the same standard as those who are born immsersed (as it were) in the law.

I'm rusty at this, but this looks like your argument to me, as you've outlined it above:

P1: The commandments forbid sin.
P2: Paul had the commandments.
THEREFORE:
C: People who don't have the commandments cannot be judged by the same standard as those who do.



I believe that's a non sequitor.

(This is my way of saying, please try again, as the argument you just offered makes no sense to me.)

Also, since "sin" is a concept that differs from one culture to the next, it is merely tautological to say that Paul wouldn't have known sin without commandments forbidding it. Duh.

Passages such as the above give me some hope that God's grace will save those who are outside the faith, those people who follow non-Christian religions and even some of those people who do not know or believe in God.

...despite the fact that the hopeful conclusions your draw from these verses are mutually exclusive with the myriad of verses that clearly state the necessity of hearing, believing, confessing, repenting, and being baptized for the remission of sins.

I appreciate the difficulty you have in reconciling a loving God with the unfairness of condemning those who walk away from belief due to their trust in reason and those who were simply born into the "wrong" culture, but wishing the Bible was more accomodating doesn't make it so, David.

Two things:

1. I still do not see a scriptural reason to disregard the clear commands to hear/believe/confess/repent/be baptized and if you don't you'll roast.

2. Even if your "hopeful" verses made sense (and so far, they do not, for reasons noted), you'd still have to explain the contradiction they'd introduce. To wit: anybody may be welcome in heaven regardless of belief vs. only Xns who follow the rules will be admitted.

I don't guarantee the salvation of any of these people.

You needn't keep saying this. I do understand the bible well enough to accept, based on Xn doctrine in the scriptures, that you can't even guarantee your own salvation. Furthermore, no one has asked you to guarantee anyone's salvation. We've asked you to scripturally justify your beliefs.

If an atheist is concerned about his/her salvation, he/she should actively seek salvation by believing and obeying the gospel.

We weren't discussing our "concern" for our own salvation, either. I'm betting this is because we don't believe anything awaits us after death but decomposition.

We were discussing your comment that you think atheists may be welcome in heaven, and how you scripturally justify that belief.

Thank you for continuing our conversation. I await your reply.

d

NOGO

Would it upset you if God allowed all these sinners and unfaithful in and left most the obedient and well meaning Christians out?

God may well be quite upset that you fell for such a shameful cult which pretends that a man is He.

diana

NOGO,

I know it's practically irresistable, but please try to avoid falling for Mr. Mathews' red herrings.

The question of how anyone would feel about admittance into heaven has absolutely nothing to do with what the bible says about the issue, and he knows it.

I'm not certain if is possible to have a meaningful dialogue with Mr. Matthews, but it's decidedly more difficult to keep him focused when everyone allows him to so easily lead them from the trail with the aroma of stinky fish.

d

[Edited because I just realized I've been spelling his name wrong. Sorry 'bout that, David.]

[ July 29, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

David Mathews

Hello Diana,

David: Those people who hear the gospel have the option of accepting or rejecting it. Those people who do not hear the gospel do not have that option. Upon what basis then could those who do not hear the gospel be judged in the same manner as those who did hear & reject the gospel?

David: God's options are not limited, not even by the gospel.

David: The gospel applies to all people, but some people live and die without hearing the gospel, and some people hear the gospel but never comprehend its implications.

David: You can be nervous about whatever you want to be nervous about, Diana.

David: Certainly Paul's message to the Athenians was heard only by a small number of people and there yet remained millions of humans who had not yet heard the gospel. Today there remains billions of people who have either not heard or have not comprehended the gospel, they certainly fall under the provisions of ignorance which have existed from the beginning.

David: Diana, if you do not obey the gospel you will most certainly go to hell. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.

David: You are evidently rusty, Diana.

P1: The commandments identify which words, thoughts and behaviors are sins.
P2: The Believers have the commandment.
C: The believers know what sin is.

And the corollary argument:

P1: The commandments idendify which words, thoughts and behaviors are sins.
P2: Without the commandments there is no knowledge of what words, thoughts and behaviors constitute sin.
C: Therefore, those without the commandment may sin but they can sin only in ignorance.

David: Have you made a great discovery here, Diana? I believe that religious people have known this for thousands of years.

David: Perhaps so, but then again your interpretation of these Scriptures is somewhat doubtful.

David: Do you "trust in reason", Diana?

David: God can save whomever He wishes. The principle is illustrated by the Thief on the Cross.

[quote]I don't guarantee the salvation of any of these people.

David: Well, it is good that you look forward to nonexistence.

Love,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello NOGO,

David: Perhaps, but God can do whatever He wishes with my soul after I die.

Love,

David Mathews

diana

David,

YOU: I do not deny any of these commands regarding the plan of salvation. If an atheists wants to become saved, this is the path that they must follow.

ME: But you just said you think atheists can be saved without following that path. Which is it? Do they need to hear, believe, confess, repent and be baptized or not? You can't have it both ways.

David: Those people who hear the gospel have the option of accepting or rejecting it. Those people who do not hear the gospel do not have that option. Upon what basis then could those who do not hear the gospel be judged in the same manner as those who did hear & reject the gospel? (emphasis mine)

That is my point, actually. They're your scriptures. You explain:

The verse doesn't say, "But those who don't hear will be let off the hook," nor does it even suggest this is the case. It says, "He who believeth and is baptized shall be saved. He who believeth not shall be condemned."

The problem with the second part of that verse is that it clearly says that, without belief, you will be condemned. And how can you believe, unless you hear? You can't, because you don't know what you're supposed to be believing in. So, if you don't hear, you cannot believe; ergo, you will be condemned.

Again, I ask you to SHOW ME THE SCRIPTURES that back up your doctrine. So far, you've essentially argued that God wouldn't be that unfair. My point is that the scriptures don't make sense when it comes to this and are monstrously unfair, and in your efforts to make your god seem fair, you are ignoring the scriptures' very clear commands that certain things are required for salvation.

I await scriptural support for your doctrine. For a fisher of man of your calibre, I'd think it would be but a small matter to satisfy my curiosity.

ME: It looks to me as though the Xn Bible clearly does make a call on those who have not heard, and it does require belief and baptism for salvation. Is there a passage that allows for exceptions to this policy?

David: God's options are not limited, not even by the gospel.

David, I ask again: Is there a passage that allows for exceptions to this policy? That was a yes/no question. Please address it.

ME: If not, by what authority do you determine that it applies to some people and not others?

David: The gospel applies to all people, but some people live and die without hearing the gospel, and some people hear the gospel but never comprehend its implications.

David, I asked, "If not [that is, if there is no passage that allows for exceptions to the h/b/c/r/b policy], by what authority do you determine that it applies to some people and not others?"

You appear unable to simply answer the questions that are put to you. Rather than assume you are intentionally being evasive, I suspect you may have a problem with reading comprehension. Please slow down and read the questions carefully before answering, then, if time allows, reread the question after you've answered to see if you've actually answered it.

You might try rephrasing the question in the form of a statement, as follows:

Question: "By what authority do you determine that it applies to some people and not others?

Answer: The authority I use to determine that the verse you cite applies to some people and not others is...."

Then just fill in the blank. Simple.

ME: If I did believe in your loving god with his lake of fire and worms that die not, I'd be mighty nervous about volunteering my services as his Modern Quality Assurance. "Make your calling and election sure," y'know.

David: You can be nervous about whatever you want to be nervous about, Diana.

I'll take the blame for this misunderstanding. I should never assume the person with whom I'm talking understands nuance. My bad.

You missed the word "if" in my statement. I was suggesting that, as you are the person claiming to believe in this god and his fiery revenge, I'd think it would be in your best interest to make damn sure (pun intended) that your "take" on the scriptures is the right one.

I haven't read enough of your posts or interacted with you enough to be sure, David, but it appears thus far that you're beginning with the assumption that you are correct and ignoring anything that might contradict the way you've already decided it should be.

"Making your calling and election sure" doesn't mean "prove you're right." It means "make sure you're right." The difference is that in the latter, you remain open to the possibility that you may be wrong. That is, if someone pops up with a verse that contradicts what you want to believe, you alter your belief so it accommodates the verse logically. You do not appear to have done that.

ME: The only way you can apply this verse to God's attitude toward unbelievers now is to ignore the hear/believe/confess/repent/be baptised dictum. Which is why I keep coming back to those points.

David: Certainly Paul's message to the Athenians was heard only by a small number of people and there yet remained millions of humans who had not yet heard the gospel. Today there remains billions of people who have either not heard or have not comprehended the gospel, they certainly fall under the provisions of ignorance which have existed from the beginning.

Right, David. And if you haven't believed and been baptized, which you can't possibly do unless you've heard, you're condemned. I agree that it's terribly unfair, but the verse is unequivocal.

ME: You can't have it both ways. Either it's necessary to do the Xn Two-Step (one step forward and two steps back...nobody gets too far like that...) or it isn't. Which is it?

David: Diana, if you do not obey the gospel you will most certainly go to hell. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.

Once again, I note with interest that you haven't even pretended to answer my question. Why is that, David?

And have you decided finally that it is necessary to "obey the gospel" to avoid hell? Please make up your mind.

YOU: Given that Paul would not have known sin without the commandments forbidding sin, those people who are isolated from the law cannot possibly be judged according to the same standard as those who are born immsersed (as it were) in the law.

ME: I'm rusty at this, but this looks like your argument to me, as you've outlined it above:

David: You are evidently rusty, Diana.

Au contraire, mon ami. You left out the bit about "those people who are isolated from the law cannot possibly be judged according to the same standard." Where does that fit in? And what does it have to do with Paul not knowing sin without the commandments?

Let he who is without rust cast the first stone.

ME: Also, since "sin" is a concept that differs from one culture to the next, it is merely tautological to say that Paul wouldn't have known sin without commandments forbidding it. Duh.

David: Have you made a great discovery here, Diana? I believe that religious people have known this for thousands of years.

Hence the "Duh" at the end. I was merely outlining the pointlessness of the verse you quoted to me. Thank you for agreeing that Paul's discourse on needing the commandments to know sin was, indeed, pointless.

ME: ...despite the fact that the hopeful conclusions your draw from these verses are mutually exclusive with the myriad of verses that clearly state the necessity of hearing, believing, confessing, repenting, and being baptized for the remission of sins.

David: Perhaps so, but then again your interpretation of these Scriptures is somewhat doubtful.

For example? If you wish to cast doubt upon my interpretation of scripture, please come to the table bearing more than accusations and innuendo.

David: Do you "trust in reason", Diana?

But of course. Until something more reasonable comes along. But wait...wouldn't that still be reason?

Please note how I answered your question. You asked, I answered, straight out and to the point. Simple. Now see if you can do it.

ME: Two things:
1. I still do not see a scriptural reason to disregard the clear commands to hear/believe/confess/repent/be baptized and if you don't you'll roast.

2. Even if your "hopeful" verses made sense (and so far, they do not, for reasons noted), you'd still have to explain the contradiction they'd introduce. To wit: anybody may be welcome in heaven regardless of belief vs. only Xns who follow the rules will be admitted.

David: God can save whomever He wishes. The principle is illustrated by the Thief on the Cross.

Again, David: please provide your scriptural support for disregarding clear and unequivocal commands, then explain away the contradiction I outlined above. Simply spewing more of your doctrine does not answer my questions.

By the way and off the subject, the Thief on the Cross was an incident that (presumably) took place before the New Testament (Will) was in effect, because--Christ wasn't dead yet. If you wish to pursue this, please do so on another thread.

ME: We weren't discussing our "concern" for our own salvation, either. I'm betting this is because we don't believe anything awaits us after death but decomposition.

David: Well, it is good that you look forward to nonexistence.

What does this have to do with anything?

d

[ July 29, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>