The Exclusivity of Salvation Through Christ
At church today my pastor was discussing the following from Luke 13:
22 And He went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem. 23 Then one said to Him, “Lord, are there few who are saved?”
And He said to them, 24 “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25 When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open for us,’ and He will answer and say to you, ‘I do not know you, where you are from,’ 26 then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.’ 27 But He will say, ‘I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.’ 28 There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out.
Now this particular pastor is the “nicest guy” of the three pastors we have; he was saying that these passages are admittedly uncomfortable to grapple with. Nonetheless, he went on to say, we are simply ignoring what Jesus said if we deny that there really is a hell, and that many people are going there.
Now here’s what’s interesting: The pastor went on to say that we Christians shouldn’t be afraid to say that yes we have the “right religion” and others are wrong, because (he continued) Jesus didn’t say, “I’m here to start a religion.” No, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through Me.”
But hold on a second. Jesus Himself, in the excerpt from Luke that we were discussing, says matter-of-factly that Abraham and the Jewish prophets are in heaven. Presumably they never acknowledged that Jesus died for their sins. (We can quibble with some of the prophets who arguably predicted that the Messiah would die for their sins.)
So isn’t it possible that however we explain that these giants of the OT were saved, might also apply in some fashion to (say) a God-fearing Muslim?
To reiterate, I’m not trying to evade what Jesus’ plain words were. I’m pointing out that His own words suggest that there are ways to be saved without believing the standard thing that modern evangelicals prescribe.
Last point: I’ve made the analogy before, but I will repeat it here… I wonder if the warnings of Jesus and the other Biblical figures about hell are analogous to a parent walking to the car from the park, and saying to her 4-year-old, “OK Jenny, I’m leaving. I hope you don’t get left behind…” Of course I don’t mean the analogy too literally, but I think it surely must be the case that we really have no clue how to comprehend exactly what it is that heaven is like, and that hell is like, and so it would be hard for Jesus to break it down for us. He is clearly telling us what is good for us–just like the 4-year-old really needs to get in the car with her mommy–but it’s possible that the literal interpretation of hellfire isn’t really accurate, because Jesus knew nobody would understand Him if He explained it more accurately.
Very nice post. Two thoughts:
1) “I am the way.” Yes, just so, but the thing is, someone might traverse that “way” without ever having heard of Jesus, just like you don’t have to know the name of the Khyber Pass to use it.
2) Eternal damnation: A single second feeling totally separated from God is an eternity. Believe me, I have felt it: it is hell. Eternity is not a very, very long stretch of time, but is open to us every instant of our lives.
Right Gene, I am thinking along both of your points here… Regarding #1, I mean, it would be silly for a Christian today to say, “Oh yeah, God the Father took up Elijah but Jesus had nothing to do with it.” I.e. if you think that Old Testament people were saved (subject to the caveats that Joel Poindexter raises with the Romans quote) then they were still saved by Jesus, since He and the Father are one.
“if you think that Old Testament people were saved (subject to the caveats that Joel Poindexter raises with the Romans quote) then they were still saved by Jesus, since He and the Father are one.”
First of all, Jesus was supposed to be god’s human form, so why would god need a human form in heaven?
Secondly, if god-heaven-Jesus could save people while still in heaven, what was the point of coming to earth and getting crucified?
Anonymouse,
This is why Christians disagree. You are stating a valid point against those who focus on “sacrificial atonement” as the sole reason Christ died. For those of us who focus on personal freedom from sin, we point to the joy that Christ brought by liberating us from the legalistic/licentious paradigm that ruled before he came.
“we point to the joy that Christ brought by liberating us from the legalistic/licentious paradigm that ruled before he came.”
I think what you mean to say is that Jesus liberated you from the legalistic paradigm and replaced it with a licentious one.
But why did Jesus, god, and the ghost change their mind about what paradigm they wanted?
“First of all, Jesus was supposed to be god’s human form, so why would god need a human form in heaven?”
It’s amazing how atheists who know nothing about religion want to spout off about it at every possible chance. The second person of the trinity is NOT “God’s human form”: the second person of the trinity TOOK ON a human form for a time.
“Secondly, if god-heaven-Jesus could save people while still in heaven, what was the point of coming to earth and getting crucified?”
Hmmm… if I could educate some students with merely online interaction, what’s the point in having lectures?
“The second person of the trinity is NOT “God’s human form”: the second person of the trinity TOOK ON a human form for a time.”
OK, so you’re a polytheist. At least you admit it.
“Hmmm… if I could educate some students with merely online interaction, what’s the point in having lectures?”
So, Jesus came to educate. And the crucifixion? What was all that about then?
Did you even try to learn classical trinitarian formula and terminology? Discussions like these get very messy fast when you use sloppy language. (of course you could be arguing about nontrinitatrianist beliefs) It would be useful to use since the vast majority of Christians are. Anyways to the first question involves and implication from the dual nature of Jesus, from the communion between the divine and human, and resurrection of the body.
The second would only be an objection if everyone could be saved had Jesus never been crucified. In the most broad sense either some peoples sins were forgiven due to the sacrifice, the Eucharistic itself is arguably part of the sacrifice, and as testament to the resurrection of the body.
All those should be nuggets to chew on.
If you want a more detailed exploitation you have to read listen outside of a blog post.
You could argue that there could be a universe in existence such that God does not ever die on the cross, although would not be Christianity as we know it, And there is much to be argued on whether his death was a necessity. But whether it was a necessity or not, you can still make a respectable argument that it was fitting and better that he died on the cross.
I think the point is that it’s portrayed as a necessity, which contradicts the fact that people got into heaven before the crucifixion. Just another example of the intellectual confusion of Christianity.
Eternal damnation: A single second feeling totally separated from God is an eternity. Believe me, I have felt it: it is hell.
I don’t believe you, because I am totally separated from God and I feel WONDERFUL.
Of course, you only think you are “totally separated from God”: you do still perceive the physical universe, don’t you?
Bob Marley comes to mind here:
Time alone, only time will tell:
You think you’re in heaven but you’re living in hell
Of course, you only think you are “totally separated from God
You only believe you’re not.
you do still perceive the physical universe, don’t you?
Perception of the universe does not imply existence of nor connection to any God. It’s the mother of all non sequiturs.
Bob Marley comes to mind here:
Time alone, only time will tell:
You think you’re in heaven but you’re living in hell
Maynard James Keenan comes even better to mind:
If you want to get your soul to heaven,
trust in me.
Don’t judge or question.
You are broken now,
but faith can heal you.
Just do everything I tell you to do.
Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow.
Let me lay my holy hand upon you.
My Gods will
become me.
When he speaks out,
he speaks through me.
He has needs
like I do.
We both want
to rape you.
“Perception of the universe does not imply existence of nor connection to any God. It’s the mother of all non sequiturs.”
It certainly does. Who do you think put it there for you to see?
I just converted.
It certainly does.
It certainly does not.
Who do you think put it there for you to see?
Since when was it a “who” rather than a “what”?
You’re a who yes, and yes you let that shape and form and personify the thing that you believe created the universe. But that doesn’t mean it has to be a who.
The universe began with zero life in it, and for billions of years there was nothing but energy and inorganic matter.
You invented God in your mind, just like every person in the world has made accidental mistakes. What, should we start to believe that because every human makes mistakes, that mistakes are holy?
And on cue Callahan provides the father of all non-sequiturs.
In the first comment to this entry you wrote,
“Eternal damnation: A single second feeling totally separated from God is an eternity. Believe me, I have felt it: it is hell.”
In your response to Anonymous, you seem to be saying that a person cannot feel totally separated from God unless he/she is unable to perceive the physical universe.
Under what circumstances were you unable to perceive the physical universe?
I was going to respond in that exact same way Carrie, but then I realized Callahan used the word “feel”, as opposed to “are” or “is”, so I suspected he would have came back with “I said I FELT separated from God, I didn’t say I WAS separated from God.”
Right you are, anonymous. I very deliberately put it that way, since, of course, existence totally separated from the source of existence is not possible!
So you, who were not truly separated from God, FELT like you were, and it was hell.
Why did you feel like you were separated from God if you really weren’t?
since, of course, existence totally separated from the source of existence is not possible!
If you admit to have felt something that you are otherwise convinced isn’t true (feeling, not being separated from a God), then that’s all the evidence I need that your belief that God exists is not certain either.
“So you, who were not truly separated from God, FELT like you were, and it was hell.”
“Why did you feel like you were separated from God if you really weren’t?”
My guess is that it is because he’s either lying to himself to make a point to others, or it’s a lame attempt at sounding modest, to cover up the guilt of being such a douche.
Wait till you see how good you feel when you’re totally separated from Callahan.
I already am, thankfully.
That’s the problem with subjective personal experiences–they are subjective. Gene can claim he has experienced a total separation from God (and the physical universe, apparently) and call it “hell” but that experience is not open to validation or invalidation by the rest of us.
I could relate a non-religious experience I had where I felt connected to infinity, but that is not an argument for or against the existence of God or the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus Christ.
Plenty of other people have validated what I said, Sam: Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, Avicenna, Luther, etc.
You don’t know what you are talking about.
Plenty of other people have made mistakes.
Exactly. Yet that’s the sort of stuff RPM and Callahan routinely assert here. Callahan does it directly. Bob posts things like ‘if you read the gospels you can see evidence for my faith’. But the argument always turns on accepting the gospel account.
It’s really pretty simple. When we look at history we can never prove a miracle happened. More mundane explanations are always more likely, such as the source has an error in it. So the basis of the faith is never the alleged evidence, it is always subjective emotional experiences.
Belief in miracles is due to the confused overpowered ego trying to overpower.
By believing in miracles, a person presents themselves with the illusion that they can escape and exert a power over reality that they either lack or choose not to exert.
Notice how miracles always have their origin in some “powerful” force, and notice how miracles tend to be observed by the most self-repressed around the world. A bunch of sorry self-suppressed egos in Fatima felt empowered by believing that a powerful force presented itself to them, and thus through them, in the form of causing, forcing, entire celestial objects to move at will.
That was an expression of the ego manifesting itself in an image of celestial sized power.
“A single second feeling totally separated from God is an eternity. Believe me, I have felt it: it is hell.”
a second = an eternity
Jesus, God, and The Ghost = monotheism
Religion destroys people’s minds to the point where they think 1 = ∞ and 3 = 1.
Does this have something to do with infinitely fine dart tips? Anyway, if you were actually faced with a choice between “instant-eternity” and real eternity, I know exactly which one you’d pick.
It isn’t religion that causes this. Religion is only one form among many of the ego unconstrained by logic.
Since every human in the world is an ego, there prevails popular images unconstrained by logic. All this illogic is collected, blended, mixed, and formed into a steaming smelly mass of mental bile called “God.” This concept is where there are no constraints. No moral codes, no logic, no science, no “thing” that would necessarily fetter it with constraints.
God is therefore beyond time, science, logic, morality, and every other concept.
It’s the mental waste bin for the ego that constrains itself and chooses only those images and drives that are “permissible” by “God”, or “Humanity”, or “Science”. The ego wants to control, so one of the ten commandments is thou shalt not destroy one’s ego (no murder). The ego wants to control sexual partners in marriage, so two of the ten commandments is thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife and thou shalt not commit adultery.
The only valid response to religious egos is this: Try and use your power to stop this ego, if you dare. I won’t pretend that either of us are “right” or “wrong”, and I won’t pretend that this is anything other than your ego clashing with mine. May the more powerful ego prevail.
I think some of what you’re talking about, Bob, can be answered with Romans 3:25, 26. From the NLT:
For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus.
“For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.” – John 5:46
“Philip found Nathanael and said to him, ‘We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.’ – John 1:45
I’m sure there are things that we mere humans don’t understand about the workings of God, but there is also a clear distinction between Israelites in the Old Testament being saved through faith in God as he had chosen to reveal himself to them, and modern individuals who hear of Christ, and choose to reject him in favor of some other teaching.
Fair enough, Josh. Those are good passages to rebut my point. (Note that I did allow for that type of thing in the post, by saying they arguably predicted the Messiah would save them.)
But you get my point, I hope. If someone today says, “The only way to get into heaven is to confess that Jesus died for your sins and then rose from the dead,” that’s not quite right.
This version of Christianity is better. So, did Mises and Rothbard get into heaven?
I am just enjoying Murphy the Christian saying that one doesn’t need Christ to get into heaven.
I do get your point to an extent. I would modify your “confession” to say that “the only way to get into heaven is to confess that God is who he says that he is and that he has done/will do what he says.” We humans exist in time; God does not. Those living before Christ came believed that God would do what he said he would do. Those living afterward believe that God did what he said he would through Christ.
“it’s possible that the literal interpretation of hellfire isn’t really accurate, because Jesus knew nobody would understand Him if He explained it more accurately.”
If anything in the gospels could be a metaphor, then maybe Jesus wasn’t really crucified and didn’t really rise from the dead. Maybe Jesus was a metaphor too. As usual, religious texts are treated like salad bars. Take the parts you like literally and “reinterpret” the rest.
But even if the gospels are inaccurate, as Bob has suggested they could be, fire functioning as a metaphor would not lesson the pain and suffering endured for eternity. In other words, whether god tortures good honest peaceful people with real fire or metaphorical fire, it’s still torture:
Those in hell are thrown “into the fiery furnace” (Matt. 13:42, 50), and they burn with “unquenchable fire” (Mark 3:12; 9:43). “Their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:48). God‘s judgment is “a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries” (Heb. 10:27). Those in hell “drink the wine of God‘s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger” and are “tormented with fire and sulfur” (Rev. 14:10). They are “thrown into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:15; cf. 19:20; 20:10, 14; 21:8).
^Sounds like a crematorium. Funny place to go when you die.
“it’s still torture”
Yes: it is a torture you do to yourself, through self-love.
Is self-love really wrong according to Christian doctrine? Didn’t Jesus say to “love your neighbor as yourself”? Presumably he didn’t mean we are to hate our neighbors.
Uncle Sam, amor sui and amor dei are technical terms from Christian philosophy. A recommendation: find out a wee little bit about a subject before you declaim upon it.
You did not say “amor sui.” You said “self-love,” which a reader could honestly interpret to mean understanding that one has value (in the image of God), striving to be good, taking care of one’s well-being, and possessing healthy self-esteem.
Given that many of us already start from the disadvantage of being “silly,” “retarded,” “senile,” and “drooling,” it might behoove you to be more precise with your language so that your genius insights have a better chance of being understood.
“Yes: it is a torture you do to yourself, through self-love.”
This is complete and utter nonsense. You’re not posting in English, you’re posting in gibberish.
Those in hell “drink the wine of God‘s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger” and are “tormented with fire and sulfur” (Rev. 14:10)
If you had the capacity for language, you would understand that GOD is the one that does the torturing.
I’ve never met a scholar who has ever treated a text like “Take the parts you like literally and “reinterpret” the rest.” The majority of Christians justify through tradition. If something was traditionally believed to be literal, but now has changed, they probably have a very good reason why it’s reinterpreted. There’s a reason we don’t interpret the passages that talk about the sun as revolving around the Earth the same. That was not because of Galileo, but through science that came after him, But at no point does the fact that the sun and earth revolving have any moral or theological implication what so ever.
“The majority of Christians justify through tradition. If something was traditionally believed to be literal, but now has changed, they probably have a very good reason why it’s reinterpreted.”
The reason is that the culture changed. But if Christianity keeps changing with the culture, where is the eternal immutable truth?
“it’s possible that the literal interpretation of hellfire isn’t really accurate, because Jesus knew nobody would understand Him if He explained it more accurately.”
It’s possible that all the sins aren’t really sins and that everything depends on context, intent, etc, but that too many people would misunderstand and wind up wildly unethical. It’s also possible that there is no hell, or no afterlife at all, and that god just made up rules he thought would make our lives more pleasant.
I mean, you’re opening up a huge can of worms once you allow for a Machiavellian God. What’s the point of being a biblical literalist if you’re just going to read between the lines whenever you want more comfortable metaphysics?
joeftansey, a (sometimes) metaphorical interpretation of the Bible is the traditional one. Fundamentalism is a fairly new phenomenon.
I don’t understand what impact this has on my post.
What does it really mean to reject Christ? If one rejects a flawed concept of Christ, but lives in accord with the law written on every man’s heart, might he not attain Heaven?
Bob circles the point … and walks away. John and Luke say different things because they have different conceptions of Jesus, and of salvation. Important differences. And Paul had a different conception still. Putting them all in a blender and hitting Puree does not add clarity: it just makes a muddle.
Of course, if one could put thoughts in a blender and hit puree, that would… well, perhaps create a muddle. But since that is not even a possible operation (even metaphorically speaking), then who cares what it would do?
Instead, we might carefully meditate on these different texts, and try to form our own, coherent picture of what they authors are getting at.
Harmonizing falsifies.
Bingo.
You start with white paint, and you add just a drop of black paint to “harmonize what everyone wants”, you’re going to end up with an off white hue.
“an off white hue.”
So what? Are off-white hues “false”?!
So what? So it’s not white.
If you kept up, you would have realized that white (or black if you prefer) is a metaphor for truth, whereas black (or white if you prefer) is a metaphor for falsehood.
You are introducing black drops of paint and claiming that because the resulting mixture has a hue, it is representative of truth simply because that THOUGHT “exists”.
Time for my favorite Pope quote. Al, not priest, Pope
If black and white combine and blend
In a thousand shades of grey
Are there then
No black and white?
Sheer assertion, with no backing. Many scientific theories have been improved by harmonizing competing theories. Is the theory of the dual wave-particle nature of light false because it harmonizes the two previous theories?
Yep.
There’s only one rule for what’s a legitimate way improve science: if it makes the science better, it’s a legitimate way to improve science. If it doesn’t make the science better, it may still be a way to improve science, just not this particular theory.
Science is structured explanation that works.
If it works and if it explains something and there’s some method or structure to how you approach that explanation, that’s all you need.
Who cares if its “harmonized” or not? Do what works.
And what makes a religion better? Filling the pews?
Have you lost it DK? ‘Harmonizing’ refers to bending over backwards to make inconsistent stories in the bible consistent. Example. In one gospel JC predicts Peter will betray him 3 times ‘before the cock crows’, and in another ‘before the cock crows twice’. So harmonizers have Peter betray Jesus 6 times: 3 betrayals, crow, 3 more betrayals, crow. THIS changes and falsifies.
Gene can correct me, but I don’t think this has a single shred of relevance to what he was talking about. I don’t think Gene or Bob have either ever been guilty of the insane literalism that requires this sort of reconciliation of witness accounts.
@Daniel Kuehn: Not only literalists try to harmonize. In this post Bob is trying to reconcile John and Luke. It’s quite explicit, look for yourself. And so we get muddles like the machiavellian god. A simpler and better idea is the one I gave: Luke and John simply disagree. Imagine that, they disagree, whoda thunkit. That is only a difficult notion for believers who think the gospels just cannot disagree so set to harmonizing. And Bob and Callahan both do that.
The last time I checked, the scientific method has been pretty much the same for hundreds of years. Harmonizing methods is spoiling the well.
I forgot the ‘oh you’re talking to Callahan, better prepare to be misrepresented’ rule. See my comment to DK. It is perefectly clear what ‘harmonizing’ means in context. I am not suggesting barbershop quartets falsify.
Many scientific theories have also been derailed by “harmonizing”.
Right. I’m pretty sure he was saying that harmonization is in and of itself – sufficient for good science (or good theology). That would be crazy.
I think you accidentally a word.
People who lived before Jesus were saved by the same faith in Christ as those who came after him. The promise of a Messiah existed in the very beginning. The entire OT and Jewish faith surrounded awaiting the coming of the Messiah. Their faith in Christ was anticipating this future promise, but was faith in the One Christ nontheless. Our faith now is a belief of Him having come, and fulfilling this promise. OT Christians and NT Christians are saved by the same faith in Jesus, just by defferent perspectives in regards to time, future and past.
“The entire OT and Jewish faith surrounded awaiting the coming of the Messiah. Their faith in Christ was anticipating this future promise, but was faith in the One Christ nontheless.”
True, but Jesus was not the type of Christ the Jews had faith in, which explains why they rejected him.
Paul makes it clear that Abraham was saved the same method that “modern evangelicals” are in Romans 4.:
3: For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to hiim for righteaousness.” and later in v. 5: “But to him who …believes on Him [Jesus] who justifies the godly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.” and on in v. 13: “For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteaousness of faith”
It was Abramaham’s faith that saved and was accounted for as righteousness, in the same way our faith saves and is accounted for as righteousness. Abraham looked for the coming Messiah and is represented in the sacrifices. “Modern evangelicals” look to the accomplished work on the cross. Both are looking to the cross. One is looking forward; the other is looking back.
To my mind, to say that a “God-fearing Muslim” could have the same outcome denies that there is one God–a triune God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Abraham believed in the true God who sent His Son who saved His people. Abraham looked forward to this; we look back. These parrallels are made more explicit in Hebrews; particularly look at Hebrews 7 that discusses Abraham’s interaction with the mysterious figure–Melchizedek–in Genesis.
This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:11-12)
It would seem strange for folks who reject Jesus as savior explicitly, like non-Messianic Jews and Muslims, to be saved while persisting in that rejection.
Additionally, one’s understanding of hell is separable from one’s understanding of the exclusivity of Christ. You can believe in exclusivity while also believing in, say, annihilationism, as I do.
So a God-fearing Muslim is within the realm of possibility.
What about an honest atheist that rejects the idea that there’s a God? Is there a mechanism where you could conceive of such a person making it to heaven? Or does being somewhere on the theist spectrum seem necessary?
I guess my question is, if acceptance of Christ as savior isn’t necessary is there anything that you think probably is? Or is it all a question of grace?
It’s all a question of what a man of God believes, and thou shalt obey his commands, because he is righteous and holy and all of that stuff.
Ooooh – big-dicked skeptic so bravely taunting the believers as an anonymous commenter.
Get a life, man.
It’s an honest question. If there is a heaven, I want in – particularly if it’s only one of two alternatives. But it seems perverse to me that a person could live an honest, searching life and not get in if indeed there is this sort of broader grace.
If it’s through the blood of Christ alone, that makes sense. It’s unambiguous. But if believers in Christ are willing to acknowledge a broader grace at work, it seems to me its worth interrogating exactly what that means as far as who heaven is built for. If its a home for strangers to Christ, presumably it ought to be a home for some type of person. Otherwise it’s not grace – it’s the lottery.
I can think of a lot of atheists and quesitoners out there who have souls that would be more at home among the righteous than a lot of religious folk. This, of course, is not the point in a more restrictive reading of Scripture. The traditional reading is that no one is deserving of it, and it’s just the people who indulge in the right kind of blood sacrifice that are made justified. At least that’s laid out relatively clearly. In a lot of ways, I like Bob’s openness to a broader grace, but it seems to me its considerably harder to figure what God is getting at if that’s the case. At least under the blood sacrifice I had a sense of what he was allegedly getting at.
Nearly every commenter here is anonymous Daniel Kuehn.
Oh wow what a douche you are.
1. It was a joke. Can you say haha?
2. You just insulted probably around 90% of all commenters on this blog, as they are anonymous.
3. I am a female, so I’ll probably have trouble swinging any male appendage around, but thanks for telling me what’s on your mind. There’s nothing wrong with that.
4. The rest of your post is of no interest to me. It smacks of male frustration, as if you need attention or something.
Wow – a four point critique of the first sentence of my post! That’s impressive!
re: “You just insulted probably around 90% of all commenters on this blog, as they are anonymous.”
Not really. What bugs me is people who mock other people’s beliefs but then don’t even have the guts to use a consistent pseudonym. If you can’t handle people calling you out on bitchy things you write, maybe you shouldn’t write them.
And if that was a joke, you might want to go back to the drawing board. It just sounded like some grouchy trolling to me.
“What bugs me is people who mock other people’s beliefs but then don’t even have the guts to use a consistent pseudonym.”
Funny you should have chosen to say something quite different then.
“Wow – a four point critique of the first sentence of my post! That’s impressive!”
1. Actually only 3 of the 4 points were in response to your first sentence. The 4th point referred to the rest.
2. Wow, you are not only a douche, but a hypocrite as well. I made a one sentence comment, and you responded with a 4 PARAGRAPH post, and now you ridicule me for responding to a one sentence comment with only 4 points? Someone needs to get a life, but it isn’t me.
“Not really. What bugs me is people who mock other people’s beliefs but then don’t even have the guts to use a consistent pseudonym. If you can’t handle people calling you out on bitchy things you write, maybe you shouldn’t write them.”
Oh so I’m a bitch now. Wonderful. Your husband must be treating you terribly for you to be so pissy.
Can’t handle? I can certainly “handle” man-princesses who feel compelled to pleasure themselves with verbiage when their other things are occupied.
Don’t even have the guts to use a consistent pseudonym? As if that would make 90% of the anonymous people here no longer anonymous?
“And if that was a joke, you might want to go back to the drawing board. It just sounded like some grouchy trolling to me.”
As if you’re in any way a judge on humor? You’re drier than the girls who see you.
Anonymous – the subsequent paragraphs were a restatement of my original point, to try to bring you back out of attack mode and into what is a really substantive issue that Bob is raising.
That’s not hypocrisy – that’s trying to get you back to a fruitful discussion – an effort that I’m increasingly convinced isn’t going to be very fruitful.
If I did obsess over your childishness through all four paragraphs, you’re right – that would have been hypocritical.
“As if you’re in any way a judge on humor? You’re drier than the girls who see you.
Not based on my subsequent perusal of said girls… but now we’re getting a little personal for a comment section (at least THIS comment section).
Anonymous – the subsequent paragraphs were a restatement of my original point, to try to bring you back out of attack mode and into what is a really substantive issue that Bob is raising.
Are you blind or are you retarded? I said it was a joke. Get off your unfunny nerd horse and realize I wasn’t in “attack mode.”
That’s not hypocrisy – that’s trying to get you back to a fruitful discussion – an effort that I’m increasingly convinced isn’t going to be very fruitful.
I am starting to think you really are retarded. I clearly said that your hypocrisy was in ridiculing me for writing a 4 point response to one sentence, after just writing a 4 PARAGRAPH response to my single JOKE sentence, and not in your silly meanderings on the nature of my joke comment.
“If I did obsess over your childishness through all four paragraphs, you’re right – that would have been hypocritical.”
No, your hypocrisy was in writing 4 paragraphs in response to my single sentence joke. I don’t care what those 4 paragraphs consisted of.
“As if you’re in any way a judge on humor? You’re drier than the girls who see you.”
“Not based on my subsequent perusal of said girls… but now we’re getting a little personal for a comment section (at least THIS comment section).”
I was just going by your lack of humor, and your blog pic. Ick.
Here’s some advice: Grow up, get a life, get a sense of humor, and stop antagonizing people who did nothing but make a joke.
You’re a very depressing person.
In all fairness, you can put anything in the “name” box. Everyone here is effectively anonymous… except that John Smith guy. You can’t make that stuff up.
Oh Joe, the whole unintended lesson of these Sunday threads is that you can make ANYTHING up.
@Anonymous & Daniel Kuehn:
Your exchanges make me long for the comity and cogency of Gene Callahan
Bob – my brother, early in his theology career, was very strongly influenced by Hans Urs von Balthasar, a Swiss theologian. In particular, he liked his book “Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?”.
His answer was not only that we can dare hope that, but that it was a Christian’s duty to hope that. He reviewed a lot of Scriptural evidence that there was no clear assertion at all that any would be condemned. He wasn’t arguing that everyone would be saved, of course – simply that it was a possibility that Christians should recognize as very real, as well as ideal.
You might want to check it out – I think you might like it.
It would be a very perverse “benevolent” deity that would condemn his creations for being skeptical. Its one of the reasons atheists find the whole belief system uninspiring as well as false (as most Christians do not seem to be as inclusive, nor does the Bible from what I gather)
I agree. And not just perverse, but relatively pointless. I’d think it’s a faculty a deity would want to cultivate.
Interesting post.
This passage is simply teaching that, as you say and the Bible teaches, salvation comes exclusively through Jesus Christ – that is to say through obedience to Jesus Christ. The key word in the passage is “iniquity,” which means without authority. We have many so-called Christians, doing and teaching things in the name of Christ, which Christ did not authorize. For example, some teach that baptism in not essential to salvation in spite of the fact that Christ said “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Therefore, it will be, as Jesus said, hard for many (those workers of iniquity) “to enter through the narrow gate” that leads to salvation and heaven.
Lastly, this passage is not teaching the Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets are in heaven. If they are, what is the general resurrection for? (cf. John 5:28, 29). What the passage is saying is: workers of iniquity (i.e. those who do things in religion without the authority of Christ) will not obtain the reward of heaven like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets. They will be cast out of God’s presence on Judgment Day.
Bob –
To answer your question, no, a devout and sincere Muslim could not find salvation, except through Jesus, for, as the passage from Luke says, “no one can come to the Father but through me.” The aforementioned OT saints attained salvation the same way that people do today – through faith in God and his promise of a redeemer, namely His son Jesus. A faithful Muslim worships an entirely different entity than Yahweh. Now, of course that same Muslim could come to believe on Jesus, and be saved, but his belief in Allah would at that point become moot, and would, sooner or later, fade away.
Have a blessed day.
Richards
Bob’s speculating that you can go “through Jesus” without actually knowing who Jesus is. Like if you worshiped a Pokemon but did everything else “right”, Bob thinks it might be possible for you to get into heaven.
Amazing how happy the devout are to ditch the 10 commandments when the’re inconvenient. I thought the no other gods before me part was clear enough.
Ken B, the God in question is really the religious person you’re talking to.
I think the idea of “God” is really just a struggle with the human ego. Religious people put the ego in “God”, and (most) Atheists put the ego in “Humanity”, if not themselves.
They may have egoist images of doing anything they want: Produce wealth, destroy wealth, create life, murder life, massage a person, torture a person, donating to someone, stealing from someone, protecting the world, destroying the world, contemplating the universe, creating/destroying the universe, but they seek to vanquish their ego by putting all those images onto a concept outside themselves.
One who contemplates stopping murder, already has had the image of murder in their mind. Why is that image even there? Because of the ego.
Pure ego is something that many humans struggle with, and most humans around the world have put their ego into the concept of God or Humanity. This is why ancient egos invented Gods that are murderous, genocidal, and destructive. It wasn’t because there was in fact any God that did these things, it was because people put these egoist drives onto the image of a God, SO AS TO CONTROL OTHER EGOISTS.
The ego wants to control, and when individuals put their ego in God or Humanity, it manifests itself as self-suppression and hence social oppression from those who do not self-suppress themselves.
Good example: The egoists who call themselves Catholic priests. Catholic priests are viewed as powerful by self-suppressed “God” egos all around the world, and the priests egos have manifested themselves in forcing themselves onto little boys for sexual gratification. The practise went on, and still goes on, because the Catholic church is viewed as “God” from self-suppressed egos around the world.
I think the world’s “leaders” are always the least self-suppressed when it comes to the ego. They may talk the talk, they may talk about suppressing themselves to God or Humanity, but the ego is indestructible. Self-suppression manifests itself in physical oppression from the most powerful egoists, and the controlled and oppressed often believe the control is in the same name as their own self-suppression concepts, when in reality they are letting themselves be controlled by more powerful egoists.
People who put their ego in God, and people who put their ego in Humanity, the latter of which notably includes libertarians, will forever be fodder for the more powerful egos in the world. Libertarians couldn’t stop the federalist egos in 1776 because they suppressed themselves to the concept “Humanity”. Libertarians will never have self-ownership and self-freedom, because they are trying to reject their own ego rather than accepting it and living through it.
I just noticed there are others using “Anonymous”. I am not the same Anonymous as the one above.
You guys know you can remain anonymous without actually calling yourselves “anonymous” right?
Nameless_Person_001
Keyboard_User
Idontwwantyoutoknowmyname.jpg
etc
Called it!
Well this is awkward…
Is that you John Wayne?
Is this me?
I was going to read through the responses but they’ve been hijacked by atheists with an ax to grind. Disappointing, because Bob has some good questions.
Historic Evangelical Christianity has *a* single doctrine of salvation. The doctrine holds that genuine repentance and faith in God through the person of Jesus Christ (the messiah) is the *only way* given whereby men may have their sins pardoned and where God grants eternal life in heaven. Evangelicals should be candid with non-believers that this is the doctrine that they believe is taught clearly by the Apostle Paul, John, and implicitly by the other New Testament writers. It is what evangelicals believe.
Evangelicals also believe in substitutionary atonement (penal substitution). Whether it is Anselm’s version, or later Calvinist versions, evangelical doctrine holds that Christ volunteered to become a human sacrifice to propitiate the wrath of God. We may cringe at these doctrines, but yet if we run away from them, we are no longer evangelicals. If repudiate these distinctive beliefs, in my opinion we need to have the intellectual courage to admit we are no longer evangelicals. We may call ourselves some other type of Christian, but without these, we do not have evangelicalism.
There is one particular area where I believe Roman Catholics like Erasmus of Rotterdam were right during the 16th century. That was his prediction to Luther that Protestantism would become a mad free-for all. It is today in shambles. It is more a worship of radical individualism than anything resembling the historic faith.
I just don’t see the point of proclaiming the gospel of Christ anymore if we think that good people get there all in their own way. That is a belief in salvation through being a good person, and that is assuredly *not* evangelical Christianity.
Perhaps the historical perspective will be that those of us who cling to these beliefs were mad, and that the present backlash away from this school of thought saved Christianity. Somehow I doubt that in the long run, the acquiescence to universalism proves a positive development for a growing and vibrant Christianity.
K Sralla,
It seems like this happens a lot on my Sunday posts. I say “The Bible says X and it says Y, and it’s hard for me to reconcile X with Y. Maybe by Z?” And then you say, “Bob you heretic, the Bible says X. End of story.”
Taken at face value, K Sralla, your hardline position would suggest to me that Moses and Elijah didn’t get into heaven, since they didn’t have faith in God through the person of Jesus Christ. And yet, Jesus Himself says that the fathers are in heaven.
And now we’re back to the starting point of my post.
And usually the answer is just oh they disagree, but they’re just books and that happens
“Evangelicals should be candid with non-believers that this is the doctrine that they believe is taught clearly by the Apostle Paul, John, and implicitly by the other New Testament writers.”
This is a very intelligent remark. I think it quite wrong that the other NT writers ‘implicitly’ endorse that theory, I think that is reading in. I think a non-tendentious examination shows that clearly. But it is nice to see a clear acknowledgement that the doctrine isn’t there in M,M,L. And of course candor would be a good idea. I think Xon made a similar observation.
I’m *not* calling you any name like heretic. I am simply pointing out that your current position boarders on a type of modified universalism that is not evangelical. Quite simply, I am amazed how such a smart guy holding a PhD in economics from NYU can sometimes seem so naive when it comes to an understanding of basic Christian doctrine.
As far as Moses and Elijah in heaven, I know I am really sounding like a curmudgeon (a Ukrainian), and so I will try to comment on your blog less since my posts (and talking points) are obviously becoming repetitive (and I am sick of playing the heavy), but again I admonish you to read some theology darn it! At least use Google and invest a little money in some books.
Read some of the best thinkers and understand the arguments before you write!! Virtually every classical orthodox theologian (that I have read) who holds to the strict exclusivity of Christ as the only way of salvation also holds that the Old Testament Saints are now in heaven. The classical writers also explain this view from Biblical and Systematic theology quite adequately IMHO. You write like you are the only guy who has ever asked, gee wizz, how did they get to heaven in the Old Testament?
You would not approach economics the same way you approach pop theology. Would you give a negative critique of Keynesianism without reading Keynes? How about Krugman without reading his columns? Or how about someone who criticizes the subjective theory of value without reading Menger?
But I’m growing weary of our periodic back and forth, and doubtless you are tired of me chistizing you, so I bid you farewell and wish you well.
Kind Regards,
Hebrew children in the Old Testament were born into God’s covenant, both male and female. Circumcision was the sign of this covenant for boys, but the sign was not what saved them. Faith saved them. Rejecting the sign, circumcision, for boys, either by the parents or later as an adult himself, was a sign of a lack of true faith, and therefore the child was “cut off” from God’s promises as clearly stated in Genesis chapter 17:
“Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
What was the purpose of this covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? God tells us in the beginning of this chapter of Genesis:
“And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.”
This covenant wasn’t just to establish a Jewish national identity or a promise of the inheritance of the land of Caanan, as some evangelicals want you to believe. In this covenant, God promises to be their God. Does God say here that he will be their God only if they make a “decision for God” when they are old enough to have the intelligence and maturity to decide for themselves? No! They are born into the covenant!
If Jewish children grew up trusting in God and lived by faith, they then received eternal life when they died. If when they grew up, they rejected God, turned their back on God, and lived a life of willful sin, when they died, they suffered eternal damnation. Salvation was theirs to LOSE. There is no record anywhere in the Bible that Jewish children were required to make a one time “decision for God” upon reaching an “Age of Accountability” in order to be saved.
Therefore, Jewish infants who died, even before circumcision, were saved.
The same is true today. Christian children are born into the covenant. They are saved by faith. It is not the act of baptism that saves, it is faith. The refusal to be baptized is a sign of a lack of true faith and may result in the child being “cut off” from God’s promise of eternal life, to suffer eternal damnation, as happened with the unfaithful Hebrew in the OT.
Christ said, “He that believes and is baptized will be saved, but he that does not believe will be damned.”
It is not the lack of baptism that damns, it is the lack of faith that damns.
http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2013/09/the-bible-says-that-infants-can-have.html
I totally agree with the positions expressed by others in this forum about God’s inclusiveness. The problem –and it is a problem– with the positions that salvation is only through Christ and only those who accept Christ can be saved is that such positions are not compatible with a compassionate, merciful God. By those standards, all the millions who were born, lived and died before Jesus was born could not have been saved, because they could not have heard about, and therefore accepted, Christ. Furthermore, all the millions who cannot –through no fault of their own– hear about, and therefore accept, Christ as Savior, cannot be saved. This includes a whole list of people who also number in the billions: premature babies who die within hours or days of being born; toddlers who die in accidents (or worse) before they can reason; deaf-mutes who cannot communicate or be communicated with (especially in centuries gone by, before science had developed means of communication with such people); the mentally deranged or mentally retarded, who cannot reason or understand such things; and those who were born, lived and died after Jesus was born and died, but could not possibly have learned about Jesus during their lifetimes, such as the millions who lived and died in far-away places like China, India, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas (which is the reason why the Mormons have a whole different theology that includes Jesus preaching in the Americas), to name a few. A merciful and loving God –which I totally believe in, as a Christian– undoubtedly makes provisions for the salvation of all, otherwise we would be dealing with an arbitrary and capricious –even illogical and tyrannical– God, which loves some but not all and allows for the salvation of some but not all. That is not the God I believe in. Like I said, I totally believe in God and Christ, but I certainly –unlike a lot of people, including pastors and ministers, apparently– think things through to their logical implications. So do most reputable (and learned) theologians, by the way; which is why the formulation of doctrinal propositions about God and salvation is best left to the professionals, not the amateurs.