Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Sleep Deprived Pastor

A blog by Marcus Aurelius in General

  • entries
    29
  • comments
    112
  • views
    14,047

Is Jesus Christ the Only Way to "Heaven?"

Marcus Aurelius

Entry posted by Marcus Aurelius

1,810 views

 Share

This is a blog entry that I suppose is long overdue; one, because I have been very busy and haven't had time to write anything lately and two, because it is a subject that I am frequently asked about and called out on, both on internet forums like this one and in real life. As many of you know, I am about to become a seminarian and I'm studying to become an ordained minister. The call of Jesus Christ on my life is the central part of my life; to me there is nothing more important than this.

But then again, as many of you also know, I am very actively involved in interfaith work. I've been studying comparative religion for over a decade; I've read the sacred literature of the five major world religions; I've read their greatest writers, their mystics and their saints as well. I've had the opportunity to travel around the world visiting numerous holy sites believed to be sacred to these great faiths. I've prayed with Muslims, Jews and Hindus. I've meditated with Buddhist monks.

My Master of Divinity will be specialized in Interreligious Contexts, and my ultimate goal is to eventually pursue a doctorate in comparative religion and to teach and write books on the subject. I consider people like Thomas Merton and Huston Smith as my heroes.

As such, the readers of the Unexplained Mysteries Forum have seen me defending the various religions in debates on countless threads. I argue for religious tolerance, freedom of religion; and for others to learn to understand our neighbors who practice different faiths. I've also argued for these things in real life. At my former Bible College for example (a very conservative and evangelical school) I did a presentation in my Missions class on the Chinese persecution of Tibetan Buddhists, and I openly criticized the Christian missionary efforts over there, as the vast majority of the aid they offer is contingent upon Christian conversion, as in "we will give you food if you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior." My audience was naturally shocked. There was a stunned silence in the room when it came time for questions.

But then someone raised their hand and asked me the same question I have heard so many times: "You say you are a Christian. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven?"

Then just a few days ago, on a UM thread where I was defending Islam, a conservative Christian said this to me:

Marcus you seem to love Muslims so much that you should convert to their faith. After all you are in an interfaith movement so you must be compromising your beliefs, why not embrace the lot? By claiming to be a Christian and at the same time belong to an interfaith movements, shows me, without doubt you are not a Christian and your statement is an oxymoron.

He also said this:

Your "Master in Divinity" makes a joke out of true knowledge of God, it is full of psychology and rubbish that just push you further and further away from the truth.

This is not the first time someone has called into question my Christianity and my faith in Jesus over my seemingly "liberal" stance on other religions. It

has happened to me a number of times on this forum, and even more so in real life. Thus, it is high time I respond to these charges in some detail. But from the onset, I want to make it abundantly clear that I am just sharing my own opinion. I am not "infallible" and nor am I condemning my more conservative Christian brothers and sisters who believe differently than me. Their opinions are valid and they should not be looked at with disdain.

Indeed, one could argue that there are actually more Christians who believe differently than I do. There are three different theological categories that one can fall into when it comes to other religions. I will describe each view, then I will fairly critique the other views and finally explain to you why I have the position that I do. I am paraphrasing these definitions from my favorite living theologian, Allister McGrath.

So to start off, let's look at that most common of beliefs; what theologians call exclusivism or particularism. 'A particularist is someone who believes that only those who hear and respond to the Christian gospel can be saved. As noted, this may very well remain the majority view.' A particularist takes claims like John 14:6 as being completely literal: "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." It should be noted that not only Christians are particularists, indeed, a kind of particularism can be found in just about every world religion.

Christian theologians such as Karl Barth hold the particularist view. Barth taught that there is no knowledge of God apart from Jesus Christ. Many prominent atheist writers have attacked this view in particular, perhaps fairly arguing that this is the form of religion that leads to bigotry and even extremism. It's "my way or the highway." But Karl Barth's theology was unique in this regard. While he argued that salvation was only available in Christ, he also argued for the eventual eschatological victory of Grace over unbelief. Thus, when time itself comes to an end, all will come to faith in Jesus Christ without exception.

The second theological stance on other religions is known as Pluralism. This is the position that many of my critics and detractors think that I hold. It is not.Pluralism 'is the view which holds that all the religious traditions of humanity are equally valid manifestations of, and paths to, the same core of religious reality.' Philosophers like John Hick advance this position. No one religion holds any special access to God; whatever path you follow gets you to the same destination.

The third theological stance on other religions is known as Inclusivism. This is the position that I actually hold. 'Inclusivism is the idea that although Christianity represents the normative revelation of God, salvation is nonetheless possible for those who belong to other religious traditions.' "This class of approach includes parallelism, a form of inclusivism which recognizes the obvious differences between the religions, and argues that each religion is to be seen as valid, in that it achieves its own specific goals.

I have many problems against the theological particularism of so many fundamentalists and evangelicals, but one is chief above all of them. If Jesus Christ is the only way into heaven; then what about all the people who never heard the gospel message? What about a Chinese person who simply never came into contact with Christianity? What about a person who lives with a remote tribe in Papa New Guinea? These persons necessarily must be punching a one way ticket to hell through no fault of their own, if this is indeed the case. But that begs even deeper questions. How can we say that God is loving when He knowingly sends people to hell simply because they can't pass their entrance exam...which is only one question "Who is the Way the Truth and the Life?" How is He loving if you just don't know the answer?? Furthermore, the particularist view contradicts otherpassages that we see in scripture. 2 Peter 3:9 says: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." How does the Lord will that none should perish, and yet, He allows countless numbers of people to perish? If He doesn't want anyone to perish, then why doesn't He do a better job sending out His missionaries?

Barth's idea, while appealing, and undoubtedly the best of the particularists, doesn't sit well with me either. First of all, the concept, strictly speaking, is unbiblical. While I would certainly like this to be true, I simply can't find any scriptural evidence to support it. It was yet another one of Barth's existential leaps that lack a rational basis. He made his argument from silence. Second, he unapologetically states that everyone will be saved. What does this do to morality? Religion, at its core provides an objective grounds for ethical behavior; yet such a concept while appealing at a glance, actually calls into question objective morality and slides dangerously towards subjectivism. Stalin and Mother Teresa will find equal footing in heaven? At a very basic and fundamental level, nearly every religion teaches that we reap what we sew. If we do bad things, bad things will happen to us, both in this world and the next. Yet Barth sidesteps this whole issue with his positivism.

My second major problem with particularism is its unflappable sense of imperialism. When taken to extremes, it can become a kind of megalomania that leads to much of the religious strife and conflicts we see all around the world today. Particularism led to the Crusades, the inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials to 9/11 and to ISIS. Indeed, it was immediately after 9/11 that the first books of the New Atheist movement began to appear and subsequently fly off the shelves. Religion, they rightly argued, often leads to all manner of violence and oppression, thus their conclusion was that in the wake of 9/11, the world would simply be "better off" without religion. This is a relevant, powerful, and devastating critique that theists of all stripes should take heed of.

I would argue that it is not religion that needs to disappear, but rather that particularism needs to disappear, at least eventually. The simple fact of the matter is that we live in a global economy and our demographics have radically changed over the past few decades. Just in my little apartment complex alone I have both Hindus, Muslims and Jews living all around me. Jesus Christ commanded us to love our neighbors, but the particularists would have us either ignore them at best, or shun them at worst. My first blog entry this year was about a Muslim billboard that had fundamentalists in my city outraged. Do we really need more of that in our own backyard, much less around the world? As one who has prayed alongside people of other faiths, it saddens me profoundly to see followers of these great traditions constantly fighting against one another.

But I am not a pluralist. Let me tell you why. While I believe we must be pluralistic in social terms (i.e. recognizing and respecting the religious differences of our neighbors) I do not believe we should adopt pluralism philosophically or theologically. One of the main reasons for this is that philosophical pluralism does not respect the differences between religions. Simply put, every religion has its truth claims; every religion teaches that it is the correct path to follow to reach God, heaven or enlightenment. But philosophical pluralism would eschew all of this and instead posit that it is all part of the same "divine reality." I personally feel that this is a vast reductionism of religious practice in general; it reduces religion down to a subjective and emotional experience of a purely personal "transcendence." Thus, we can all come to this great spiritual buffet table and pick out what we like and discard the rest. You like "karma" so you put that on your plate, but you don't like "hell" so you keep that off your plate like stale bread. Thus, the self, the individual becomes the final arbiter of what is true and what is not. Yet, if everything is subjective in philosophical pluralism, how do we know that any of it is true? How do we know that our mystical experiences are nothing more than the human experience; that is to say grasping for a divine reality that may or may not be there? You see, this is what happens when you throw out special revelation; the theological idea that God has spoken to us in specific times and places, guiding our systems of belief. No genuine practitioner of any faith would advocate such a view; it doesn't matter whether you're a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu or even a Buddhist....at some point special revelation was handed down to us either by God Himself or an enlightened religious teacher, and it is these revelations that lead to the truth claims of that religion, (i.e. particularism). Philosophical pluralism would do away with particularism...by doing away with objective truth. And the idea that everything could be part of "one divine reality" is quite simply theologically incoherent. No kind of revelation is possible beyond the general. This is why I could never be a true pluralist, and neither could any Jew, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist. It just doesn't make any sense!!

But there is a third option, or a middle way. One could be an inclusivist; I myself am one. Of this view, the little known Catholic theologian Jean Danielou once wrote: "The domain of Christ and of the Church extends beyond the limits of the explicit revelation of Christ and of the visible expression of the Church. In every age and every land there have been men who believed in Christ without knowing Him and who have belonged invisibly to the visible Church." Another great Catholic theologian named Karl Rahner argued this in a fourfold point which I shall describe below:

1. "Christianity is the absolute religion, founded on the unique event of the self-revelation of God in Christ. But this revelation took place at a specific point in history. Those who lived before this point, or those who have yet to hear about this point, would thus seem to be excluded from salvation-which is contrary to the saving will of God."

2. "For this reason, despite their errors and shortcomings, non-Christian religious traditions are valid and capable of mediating the saving grace of God."

3. "The faithful adherent of a non-Christian religious tradition is thus to be regarded as an anonymous Christian."

4. "Other religious traditions will not be displaced by Christianity. Religious pluralism will continue to be a feature of human existence."

I am a Christian, through and through. I believe that all of revelation culminated in the Incarnation, the earthly ministry, and the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that all the other religions point to the truth while Jesus Christ is the truth. Indeed, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." I agree with C.S. Lewis when he said "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen; not only do I see it, but by it I see everything else."

But as noted, I believe that one can come to that Way indirectly; they can enter into heaven through the back door rather than through the front door. C.S. Lewis argued this very same point: "There are people in other religions who are being led by God's secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points. Many of the good pagans long before Christ's birth may have been in this position."

In God in the Dock, he wrote: "Of course it should be pointed out that though all salvation is through Jesus, we need not conclude that He cannot save those who have not explicitly accepted Him in this life. And it should be made totally clear that we are not pronouncing all other religions to be totally false, but rather saying that in Christ whatever is true in all religions is consummated and perfected."

Most importantly, the inclusivist view regarding other religions is a Biblical one."For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law." (Romans 2:14) he idea behind this is quite simple, really. If all truth comes from God, then necessarily, whatever is true in other religions is from God. These religions, then, contain in them enough general and special revelation to be 'a law to themselves.' Thus, the person who lives with a tribe in Papa New Guinea, who looks to the stars and all the creation around him and concludes "someone made this", then knows God despite only possessing general revelation. By the same token, a Hindu who has a highly evolved theology and system of ethics, though he does not know Christ, he knows God from the special revelation contained in his religion. His moral way of life points him to God.

This view was upheld in the Second Vatican Council, which states: "the Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of truth which enlightens all men."

So far I have been arguing Inclusivism from my own Christian position. But wait a minute, you ask! What if you are wrong and Allah is God? What if you are wrong and Krishna is God? Being a lifelong student of comparative religion, I would still argue for the Inclusivist position!! One can make just a solid case for Inclusivism even if you follow one of these other paths! Let me just highlight some for you:

The Holy Quran says: "To every people [we have sent] a messenger." (10:48) and "We appointed a law and a way. And if Allah had pleased He would have made you a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you. So vie one with another in virtuous deeds. To Allah you will all return, so he will inform you of that wherein you differed." (5:48)

From Islam, we learn God could have made us all the same; but He didn't. We will all return to Him and He will judge us 'wherein we differed.'

In the Bhagavad Gita, the great religious text of Hinduism, Krishna, who is an Incarnation of God, says this: "Wherever dharma declines and the purpose of life is forgotten, I manifest myself on earth. I am born in every age to protect the good, to destroy evil, and to reestablish dharma." and this: "When a person is devoted to something with complete faith, I unify his faith in that. Then, when his faith is completely unified, he gains the object of his devotion. In this way, every desire is fulfilled by me." Indeed, within the Hindu system, we find the concept of radical inclusion. God will take whatever subjective faith we have and make it objective.

I could go on with more examples, but you probably get the idea. One can argue for religious Inclusivism regardless of which faith you practice because it celebrates what we have in common and it accepts, acknowledges and respects the fact that we also have differences. It is my opinion that if the religious leaders of the future push for both social pluralism and theological inclusivism, we will eliminate much of the religious division division and strife all around the world and here at home. We will learn to work together, stemming from an Ethic that is Objectively True. Indeed, we will learn to

Coexist-Sticker-(5285).jpg

  • Like 2
 Share

9 Comments

Recommended Comments

and-then

and-then 69,691

Posted

Perhaps Rev. 10:7 is the answer. Ultimately we will only know for sure when the "mystery of God is revealed". Even as a young child of 10 I remember wondering how God could exclude those who had not heard. Wondered - what if I had been born in China? Or Egypt? OTOH if Christians accept that there IS another way then are we not directly disavowing the words of our Lord himself?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Marcus Aurelius

Marcus Aurelius 590

Posted

Thanks for the comment; good points as always, and then. Again, I can only share my opinions, but I do not believe that I am disavowing the words of the Lord. I believe that He is the Lord of ALL and that His Grace is sufficient for ALL, even for those who do not know Him by name.

Think of it like this: is the Grace of God limited, or are WE placing limitations on God?

Untold millions of prayers and songs of praise are lifted up to God every day, in countless languages and from within so many varying religious systems. Dare we say that God cannot hear those prayers, that He cannot understand them, or worse still, that He ignores them?

Or could it be that His grace truly IS sufficient, that He hears and receives such prayers, however imperfect they may be? Perhaps as these prayers reach heaven, they are but one language, one chorus.....

Link to comment
and-then

and-then 69,691

Posted

Absolutely I believe he hears them all. But unless the scripture is to be seen as unfaithful to his message, then is it not possible he is testing his servants? If I decide that I will believe that one scripture is in error then why not ALL of them? Who gets to choose?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Marcus Aurelius

Marcus Aurelius 590

Posted

But see that's the thing: I don't believe it IS an error. Like you, I don't believe that the Scriptures contradict themselves. But at the same time, like the Eastern Orthodox Church, I believe that some of what is contained in them is a Holy Mystery. They appear as contradictions to us, and our subjective level of understanding, see? But they are NOT contradictions.

Indeed, I believe the Bible tells us what we NEED to know, but it does not tell us EVERYTHING. The point of the Bible is to bring us to a saving relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, our instruction manual is not going to cover something that is irrelevant to that point...i.e. the case of what happens to a righteous non-believer or the practitioner of another faith. It would almost defeat the purpose if, as a postscript, we read somewhere "oh but btw every other good person will be saved."

But see, as I said in the blog: I think people can follow what is called "the greatest Commandments"...to love God with all our hearts and minds, and to love our neighbor as ourselves...even indirectly or imperfectly. My point is, as an Inclusivist, that if say a Muslim who loves God with all of his or her being, and works selflessly for the betterment of others...this person is following Christ, even if they know Christ as "Allah."

I've never talked to a devout theist, be they Jewish, Muslim or Hindu...who DOESN'T love God.

This is the difference between a particularist and an inclusivist, see? A particularist believes that one must accept and follow Jesus Christ EXPLICITLY; but an inclusivist like myself believes that one can accept and follow Jesus Christ IMPLICITLY. Thus, from my perspective the Scriptures are not in error at all. I hope this make sense lol

Thanks as always for the continued discussion, brother and then. Your insight is always most welcome and appreciated!!!

Link to comment
Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens 19,783

Posted

Great write-up and arguments, Marcus; I think the noting that 'all truth comes from God' is a pretty powerful point that other religions have validity also, it seem to this utter novice that there are definitely sentiments in Islam that are for all purposes are identical to corresponding sentiments in Christianity, so noting that God is providing truths to Muslims (or the other way around, Muslims discovering the truths, whichever way it goes) is a good indication that Islam is in someway I guess 'blessed' by God. Furthermore I think your inclusivism fulfill the requirements for 'humility' in a deeper way than the particularism alternative; you are not only humble and non-judgmental in how you view yourself compared to others but in your recognition of what the true implications are of the fact that God is beyond our comprehension.

One question I had, and I'm not sure if this is what 'and then' was referring to, is under inclusivism what does, 'no one comes to the father except through Jesus' then actually mean? I may be thinking of this wrong, but I'd think it could be alluding to the fact that Jesus died for everyone's sins, without that death no one would come to God. But I'm not sure if that's what Christianity actually teaches; did Jesus die for everyone's sins or only for the sins of the eventual saved? Assuming there is a hell and some souls have been sent there, is it correct to say that Jesus died for their sins as well?

Okay, so my one question turned into three, but I do have one more for either you or 'and then' if you have the time of course: besides the 'no one comes to the father' quote, are there a lot of other verses or teachings that further reinforce particularism, that Jesus is the only way? As much as I think your inclusivism is more aligned with what I think is a better source for 'spiritual truths' than the bible, namely what God has purportedly provided for us in our hearts, I was just curious biblically how strong the case is overall for particularism.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Marcus Aurelius

Marcus Aurelius 590

Posted

Liquid Gardens,

I love reading your replies, man!! Everything you write on here is just a treat to read, so thanks for this awesome comment. I'll do my best to address some of your questions, but if and then is still hanging out here, I'd love to get his take on these too.

To your second paragraph of questions, there are two approaches to the subject, essentially. There's the Calvinist position that Jesus only died for the "elect", and then there's the Wesleyan-Arminian position that Jesus did in fact die for "all". As a Methodist I am firmly in the latter camp, but it's only fair to look at the Calvinist idea as well. Those who practice "reformed theology" (Calvinism), such as Presbyterians and certain Baptists believe in what is called a "limited atonement", that from eternity, God determined "in his good pleasure" (quoting Calvin) who would be saved and who would not. Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion (which I've read and I own so I am very familiar with his views) thought it a sheer grace that God would save...anyone. Calvinists, see, believe in "total depravity" that is to say, with the fall of man, all our faculties are completely darkened and we are completely incapable of knowing God WITHOUT Grace and without the atonement. Humanity is subject to "evil continually" and because of this, none of us really even DESERVE salvation. Thus, God is loving and merciful to save anyone at all.

I could never accept this position, Liquid Gardens. In all fairness, it just makes no sense. I've debated this very subject with Calvinists multiple times, even here on UM. You might even be able to find some of my writings on it if you can do a search under my pseudonym and with keywords like "predestination" or "Calvinism". My problem, as Wesley saw it, is that if there's an "elect", then there's also what he called a "reprobate"; people who, through no fault of their own, were necessarily predetermined to be damned from all eternity. If everything is predetermined, why even bother with the Cross, see? The Cross becomes like a cosmic dog and pony show. It was already "determined" who would be saved and who wouldn't before Jesus even came! And how can we, as Wesley argued, deem God as "all loving" if in "His good pleasure" He co-signs people to hell? Here is a link that shows the scriptures in support of a limited atonement:

http://carm.org/questions/about-doctrine/did-jesus-die-everyone-my-calvinist-friends-say-no

Now I look at those Scriptures and I don't see any evidence for a predetermined course of events. Even something like 'separating the sheep and the goats' I see not as being something that occurred from eternity BEFORE time, but as something eschatological, or AT THE END of time. I don't know how some theologians use that as their key verse for predestination...I mean just look at the tense of the verbs!!! He "will"; not He "has"!!

I believe that Jesus Christ died for the sins of all mankind, as Saint Catherine of Sienna once wrote, He is the bridge from our fallen state to eternity. It is through this bridge that we cross over this vast chasm of a sinful nature and death to Grace and eternal life. Now I suppose the immediate question would be, if He died for all...then why isn't everyone saved? Why is there a hell? Assuming that there is a hell, John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." The keyword, I think there, is "believe". Yes, grace is a "free gift" available to all, but it does require a response on our part. It's like God left a free car in your driveway; but the keys are still on the seat; you have to put the keys into the ignition to drive the car. Now so far I've only been talking about Christianity, but to an extent the same idea permeates just about every theistic religion: God requires a response from us; there must be an internal conversion of the heart. Now this is another reason why I hold the Inclusivist position concerning other religions; this same inner conversion of the heart can take place within just about every religious system. It is a spiritual re-orientation of our lives; we stop living after the ego-self (which is the cause of the 'fall') and after "God" as was our original intention in creation; thus, even on a fallen level, we recapture a part of that lost imago dei, or image of God. Again, this is another reason why I cannot accept limited atonement. I do not believe in total depravity, either. If we were indeed depraved as Calvin thought, then how can I trust my logical faculties at all? Theologians like Saint Thomas Aquinas argued that though our understanding has in fact been darkened, it most certainly has not been OBLITERATED as Calvin suggests. So long story short, not to sound like a Televangelist on you hahaha....yes, I believe Jesus died for your sins, Liquid Gardens. I believe He died for the sins of everyone who ever has existed and everyone who ever will exist. But this fact still requires a response on our parts, this inner shifting from the "ego" or "false self" to the imago dei, or the "true", "eternal" self.

As to the case for Biblical particularism, you've got the "no one comes to the Father but my me" verse, you've got John 10:9 that says: "I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture." There is also "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 4.12). Those I think are the biggest ones. There are a few others such as "there are none righteous, no not one" etc. but as I said in my original blog post; must we interpret these verses EXPLICITLY, or can we interpret them IMPLICITLY? If Jesus Christ is part of the Eternal Godhead, are we really saying that because we get a name wrong, this omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being...somehow cannot or will not hear the prayers of those who are sincerely trying to reach Him, however perfectly or imperfectly? To me, this just sounds like the height of theological arrogance. I mean, who is placing the limitations on God? Are we saying God has placed this limitation on Himself? Or is it we, who in our never ending quest to be "right"...place these limitations on God? Did God step into this small box or are we trying to put Him in one?

Particularists like William Lane Craig erroneously try to paint Paul as a particularist, citing verses like: "inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might" (II Thessalonians 1.8-9) while at the same time completely IGNORING verses like the one I used in my blog post about being a 'law unto themselves.' Once again, I would counter his argument and say....one can follow the Gospel without knowing that they ARE following the Gospel. If one follows the heart of the Gospel, i.e. they love God with all their heart and mind, and they they love their neighbors as themselves...doesn't it sound like they are following the Gospel? And if Jesus IS God, then, well, they are following...God. Craig also says "John asserts that no one who denies the Son has the Father and identifies such a person as the antichrist (I John 2.22-23; 4.3; II John 9). But again, I think he's wrong. Those verses suggest someone who has actively denied Him, not someone who doesn't even know Him at all. It suggests people who once accepted Him and then later denied Him, as we would call 'back-sliding.' There are a lot of particularists out there, and I disagree with all of them lol.

Thanks as always for the conversation Liquid Gardens. The value of every discussion goes up several notches when you start commenting!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Jack Skellington

Jack Skellington 1,277

Posted

Great topic! I've been away for a bit, but glad to revisit acquaintances.

Salvation comes 'through' Jesus, as has been pointed out. We are not saved 'by' Jesus, nor are we saved by believing in Jesus, nor by our works or our faith or righteousness (lest any man boast).

But 'through' him. What does this mean? God "sent" his son...

In this way, God came to us "through" Jesus... Immanuel, God with us.

I very much like your mentioning of this bridge between God and man, and it is this bridge that spans the distance between and that makes the connection. This bridge is Christ, but the bridge is not what saves us, merely the path that leads us to salvation... The Way to salvation, to Truth, to Life. (And no one comes to the Father, except through me). The man Jesus, like the man Israel before him, are examples of The Way in which God comes to us, and like the prophets, priests and judges and kings -whose stories and examples (good and bad) demonstrate the diverse ways in which God comes to us-- 'through' his spirit made manifest in human history. God communicates to us through a variety of messengers in a variety of ways and while Jesus is an example of how God anoints individuals and works through them to communicate His will, Jesus was after all, one example.

The demons gathered one day to devise a plan to confuse humanity and oppose Jesus the Christ... "Let's tell them he is a lunatic!" -suggested one. Then another offered- "Let's accuse him of being a liar!" -but the King of demons was the craftiest of all.... "No, no, my friends... We cannot counter who and what he is... What we'll do is convince them he's unique.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Hammerclaw

Hammerclaw 52,849

Posted

That's between you and God. God knows his own. If you believe in predestination, it's moot point. Never cared for predestination. Either you can't make wrong decision in regards to your assured personal salvation, or, on the other hand, none of the right ones count.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now