 Posted Wednesday, October 18, 2006 7:28 PM
|
|
|
|
Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. Eph 4.14-15 NIV
"Erol," posting under Anonymous, challenged me in another posting (Christian Science in the News) I had previously posted that a person who had died in the belief and practice of CS was "not in a better place."
Erol considers that "uncharitable."
I know that it is customery to say that a deceased loved onr in "is in a better place," especially if there was suffering prior to death. And honestly, Erol, when the situation is recent I am sensitive--hardly the time to get theologically strident! But the fact remains: It is an essential Christian teaching that there will be an eternal, irrevocable separation between the saved and the lost! If one denies this, then one is outside the pale of Christendom.
Of course, we are all free moral agents, and we have the individual freedom to accept or reject this Truth. But you do at your eternal peril! Although you might be a moral, intelligent, and otherwise splendid chap (and I think if we avoided religion, you and I would likely be great friends, Erol) without the Jesus Christ of history and eternity as your personal Lord and Savior, you are--literally-- a lost, doomed soul.
As the Lord Jesus himself put it, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' Mat 7.21-3 NIV [bold face/b] added.
You see, it is quite possible to do exemplary works and still fall short of Heaven--and be consigned to Hell!
I wish there was a nice way to say it. In this thread, I invite people to share their favorite Scripture, illustrations, matters of logic, and other arguments as we focus on the most critical matter in the life of a friend or loved one:
You are without the authentic Jesus Christ. You are doomed. And your fate, as it stands now, is unspeakably tragic!
How can we "speak the truth in love," be persuasive, and deal with the possibility or probability of offending some one?
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, October 19, 2006 3:16 AM
|
|
|
|
followingHim,
I'm tempted to register as "doomedSoul" ;-)
But according to other fundamentalists on this list there is a chance for me, even as a Christian Scientist. So I'll remain as Erol for the time being :-)
It would be useful if you gave chapter and verse for "essential Christian teaching[s]". That could then be the basis of a discussion on the text(s).
I don't know where you got the idea that Jesus is *not* my personal Lord and Saviour. I try to follow his example in the minutiae of my life, insofar as I can. I believe he came to save us from sin, disease and death and I try to heal in his name as he commanded. Is there something I'm missing?
If it's substitutionary atonement, then sorry, I can't buy into it and it's only one interpretation of the atonement in any case--and a particularly fraught one in moral terms, as I've tried to make plain elsewhere. (I can't imagine trying to explain substitutionary atonement to a two-year-old on its deathbed, in order to deliver the child from eternal damnation, and it's surely an unacceptable risk for parents to have children, if the stakes are that high.)
The Matthew example you give is in the context of "by their fruits ye shall know them." (One of those fruits, as Jesus explains elsewhere, is healing.) And in the quote you give, Jesus speaks of "doing the will of [his] Father--i.e. the key point has to do with action, as it has elsewhere in the Sermon on the Mount--that is, not some sixteenth-century interpretation of convoluted Pauline theology.
Erol
<< Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. Eph 4.14-15 NIV
"Erol," posting under Anonymous, challenged me in another posting (Christian Science in the News) I had previously posted that a person who had died in the belief and practice of CS was "not in a better place."
Erol considers that "uncharitable."
I know that it is customery to say that a deceased loved onr in "is in a better place," especially if there was suffering prior to death. And honestly, Erol, when the situation is recent I am sensitive--hardly the time to get theologically strident! But the fact remains: It is an essential Christian teaching that there will be an eternal, irrevocable separation between the saved and the lost! If one denies this, then one is outside the pale of Christendom.
Of course, we are all free moral agents, and we have the individual freedom to accept or reject this Truth. But you do at your eternal peril! Although you might be a moral, intelligent, and otherwise splendid chap (and I think if we avoided religion, you and I would likely be great friends, Erol) without the Jesus Christ of history and eternity as your personal Lord and Savior, you are--literally-- a lost, doomed soul.
As the Lord Jesus himself put it, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' Mat 7.21-3 NIV [bold face/b] added.
You see, it is quite possible to do exemplary works and still fall short of Heaven--and be consigned to Hell!
I wish there was a nice way to say it. In this thread, I invite people to share their favorite Scripture, illustrations, matters of logic, and other arguments as we focus on the most critical matter in the life of a friend or loved one:
You are without the authentic Jesus Christ. You are doomed. And your fate, as it stands now, is unspeakably tragic!
How can we "speak the truth in love," be persuasive, and deal with the possibility or probability of offending some one? >>
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, October 19, 2006 6:29 AM
|
|
|
|
Dear Erol and following him
I wanted to respond to your recent comments about “being saved and being lost” – to suggest that there are other ways of looking at this issue from a mainstream Christian perspective. I do not think that the fundamentalist approach which says that all who do not appear to profess Jesus as Lord and Saviour are eternally dammed is representative of the broad stream of mainstream Christian thought, and hope that Erol does not gain the impression that all Christians who believe in the saving power of Jesus over sin and death (while acknowledging the reality of sin, illness and death) think this way. I do not think that any of us can judge where another is at a particular point in their lives – that is up to God. What is important is grace, grace and more grace. My experience of God is that He continually stands at the door and knocks- wanting more than anything else for each of us to respond to his everlasting, and ever patient love- He meets each of us where we are at in our individual journey – always inviting us to respond to Him and leading us to greater faith, trust and love.
in the light
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:06 AM
|
|
|
|
in the light,
I do not think that the fundamentalist approach which says that all who do not appear to profess Jesus as Lord and Saviour are eternally dammed is representative of the broad stream of mainstream Christian thought...
Not sure if you meant to do so, but this statement somewhat misrepresents the actual fundamentalist approach (at least the Jesus Freaks like me). Far too many fundamentalists, however, also do not understand or at least communicate an essential difference.
Too many people look at the issue that condemnation results from the failure to accept Jesus. Often, Christians are perceived to somehow perform the condemnation. The Bible says, however, that all are condemned - separated from God. Salvation is the good news that Jesus Christ provides the solution to condemnation.
The baseline is that we are all separated from God. He provided the means by which we can be brought together.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, October 19, 2006 2:44 PM
|
|
|
|
Do Go Be Man
The baseline is that we are all separated from God. He provided the means by which we can be brought together.
I agree with this. This is what grace is all about - Jesus died on the cross for my sins, and in doing so enabled me to have a personal relationship with Him and experience salvation.
I did not mean to misrepresent the "fundamentalist" position, being a Jesus freak myself, but from more of an Anglo Catholic perspective.
What I have a problem with is the way it is sometimes presented - that there are other ways of "speaking the truth in love" than in bluntly talking about salvation v damnation in a black and white way. For example, I could never countenance that a 2 year old who had died would by separated from God because he/she had not heard of Him - that makes God seem like a monster. I think there is an element of mystery involved, we don't know all the answers, and God is far, far greater than our human understanding of these things.
By way of illustration, let me relate a personal story. I grew up in a home which was totally "unchurched", due in large part to unhealthy CS baggage in my father's family. To us God and religion of any sort was of the Marxist dictum "the opiate of the people", and to be avoided at all costs. I had no concept of God or Jesus except extremely negative ones.
About 25 years ago I was attending a University College and was elected as a student representative on their council. Unbeknowest to me it was one of my "duties" to do a reading at the annual College chapel service. I was bowled up in the corridor one day by two other council members and told that the service was the next Sunday and this was the reading I had to do. I responded with shock and horror - "I can't do this", to which one student arrogantly replied "What do you mean, Of course you can. It is expected". I then explained that I had never actually entered a church building before. The other student, and I will never forget this, lookied at me with total compassion and love - (with the eyes of Jesus), and said "That is OK, I understand". He met me where I was at - no preaching, no condemnation, just acceptance and love. Out of that encounter, because I was so shocked by his response, I became curious, and decided to attend the service anyway - and there met Jesus. It was then a long journey to fully understand things such as the concept of sin - but at every point He met me - always with love and acceptance. This is what I mean when I talk about the journey, for me gradual, often difficult, but only by grace.
in the light
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:49 PM
|
|
|
|
I can't imagine trying to explain substitutionary atonement to a two-year-old on its deathbed, in order to deliver the child from eternal damnation
Erol,
I can't imagine that either, nor do I think God expects that.
David's infant son dies in 2 Samuel 12:23 and David makes the statement: "Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." A lot of people take this to mean that David assumed that he would be reunited with the child when he (David) died. Since David clearly had a "saved" relationship with God through a personal and looking-toward-the-Messiah kind of faith, one can assume that David assumed that the child was also saved. This type of passage supports the idea that there is some kind of "age of accountability" regarding salvation -- a child not being responsible for his or her sin until he or she is old enough to comprehend right from wrong. This is consistent with God being a God of justice, which the Bible clearly says He is.
|
|
|
Posted Friday, October 20, 2006 12:57 AM
|
|
|
|
Linda,
Well, I don't want to sound flippant and I'm not being, and I'm sure you are as horrified at the following idea as I am. However, I can't avoid the conclusion that if I followed the logic of this theological argument, I could make a good case for infanticide. After all, the child would be assured of heaven!
In any case your post suggests that the child has some kind of original innocence (not original sin) and then sins as soon as he/she reaches the age of accountability: (seven? ten?) I've met quite a lot of children of that age group and have never met any that committed any sin more major than the odd untruth, petty theft or whatever. Would that really be sufficient to consign him/her to an eternity of perdition, when any normal parent would be content with a rebuke or minor punishment?
I think David would have had some vague concept of an after-death state called Sheol (or Hades in the Greek) where he would meet his child again. I don't think he would have had a notion of being "saved."
Erol
<< I can't imagine trying to explain substitutionary atonement to a two-year-old on its deathbed, in order to deliver the child from eternal damnation
Erol,
I can't imagine that either, nor do I think God expects that.
David's infant son dies in 2 Samuel 12:23 and David makes the statement: "Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." A lot of people take this to mean that David assumed that he would be reunited with the child when he (David) died. Since David clearly had a "saved" relationship with God through a personal and looking-toward-the-Messiah kind of faith, one can assume that David assumed that the child was also saved. This type of passage supports the idea that there is some kind of "age of accountability" regarding salvation -- a child not being responsible for his or her sin until he or she is old enough to comprehend right from wrong. This is consistent with God being a God of justice, which the Bible clearly says He is. >>
|
|
|
Posted Friday, October 20, 2006 9:55 AM
|
|
|
|
Erol,
... I can't avoid the conclusion that if I followed the logic of this theological argument, I could make a good case for infanticide...
That's quite a leap. I don't see the logic of that path at all based on the text or Linda's post.
Two of the nails in the CS coffin for me were two philosophy classes I took in college. One semester we studied inductive reasoning and the other we studied deductive reasoning, I don't remember the order. As I studied them, however, I realized the inductive nature of CS logic and the fallacies such reasoning introduced.
Apologies to a friend in the background who thinks that you and I have become like Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley, Jr. during their debates of the 1968 political conventions. She's absolutely right though regarding the simplicity of Jesus' message. His message is simple and clear not requiring a lot of heavy duty deep thought, commentary, or hidden knowledge. He spoke it and lived it. We need to be like little children in the sense of our innocent examination of His word, not in our quarrels and bickering. Jesus quoted the greatest commandment when challenged by a Pharisee lawyer (there's some double trouble for you):
But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind*. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."
Do Go Be Man
<><
* Deuteronomy 6:5
|
|
|
Posted Friday, October 20, 2006 11:55 AM
|
|
|
| | |