1 Corinthians 3:
[sup](Possibly taken slightly out of context, I couldn’t say[/sup]
So yes, it seems you can be a Christian, sin and get away with it, but only in the sense that getting away with it is as if you ran naked into the street from a burning house, alternatively you could build something fireproof, which seems a much better plan.
Mock away, but make sure you get the “doctrine or whatever” right before you mock, or decide to believe or not believe.
You are simply incorrect. Yes, some small sects say that no one other than their particular brand of Christian can go to heaven (some of these actually brand Catholics as bound for hell), but the vast majority of Christianity simply does not believe this. Early in the last century (the 1900s) the Catholic church excommunicated a priest who continued to preach, contrary to orders and the doctrine of the Church, that only Catholics are saved.
The Christian view of other religions (Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, atheists, agnostics) is that they are incomplete or wrong to a certain extent. This means that they make things hard on themselves, as would a geologist searching for oil if he thought it came from baby poop. What continues to matter is the relationship to the Reality.
You simply understand incorrectly; this is no Christian doctrine that I know. (Note: of course, you are correct: some Christians say this. Not many, measured against those who do not, and those that do say it (IMHO) to subjugate their members, not because they believe the doctrine).
What is often misunderstood here is the words of Christ: “No one comes to the Father except through Me.” Christ here was talking of Himself, not a doctrine. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, even atheists can come to Him without calling Him by name it all. It is harder, and you are much more likely to go astray, but it is certainly possible.
A good introduction to real Christian theology is “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis (I have some problems with parts of it, but it remains the best introduction I know of). Kreeft is the best living apologists, IMHO; his “Handbook of Christian Apologetics” is wonderful. My main problem with Kreeft is that he tends to write in imaginary dialogs with idiots, and agnostics tend to resent being taken for idiots.
For the record, most Christian groups who believe that Christianity is the only way to heaven tell their small children exactly that. In church, I’ve never heard anyone tell kids that if they were good, they’d go to heaven.
My guess is the “most young children” you are talking about are children of parents that subscribe to the idea that good people go to heaven.
Yes and no. I went through something similar myself.
You try to evaluate Christian belief - if you’re raised in a Christian society (USA), certain believes are irrevocably stamped into your subconcious. And so there’s always a part of you that craves to believe in a big invisible guy who’ll give you eternal happiness.
Anyway… Those of us who are more skeptical with try to rationalize this.
I even asked this to a preacher:
“If a man grows up in china - never heards the name Jesus in his entire life - but he does what he can to live a moral life, not hurting anyone, helping who he can, will he go to hell?”
“Well, yes”
And then you have to ask yourself: “Can I support such a system that would condemn someone to ETERNAL PAIN simply because they don’t have a specific set of beliefs?”
And many of us answer “No”.
It’s not like we’re born scornful of Christianity. We rationalize these things to come by our views.
And so he might’ve been on a rant - his mind might’ve been already made up - but he IS stating the reason and such, rather than just trying to inflame people.
I now realize that the intended question was not the first one asked, but the later one “Why do people who don’t believe go to hell?”, but here’s some relevant verses on the original question, if anyone wanted it:
(the question concerned knowingly committing sins after becoming a Christian)
Passage :Ezekiel 33:12-29
v. 13 : If I tell the righteous man that he will surely live, but then he trusts in his righteousness and does evil, none of the righteous things he has done will be remembered; he will die for the evil he has done. [sup]14[/sup] And if I say to the wicked man, `You will surely die,’ but he then turns away from his sin and does what is just and right-- [sup]15[/sup] if he gives back what he took in pledge for a loan, returns what he has stolen, follows the decrees that give life, and does no evil, he will surely live; he will not die.
Paul addresses this more directly in Romans (not just in these verses) :
[Romans 6](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible passage=ROM+6&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=off&showxref=off)
v. 14 : For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. [sup]15[/sup] What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means![sup]16[/sup] Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey–whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?
He also mentions that usage of the word ‘slave’ is a metaphor (in v. 17, “I put this in human terms”)
You said:
>I’d have more respect for Christianity if the deal really >was what young children are usually told: if you’re good, >you’ll go to heaven; if you’re bad, you’ll go to hell.
Actually, that’s precisely how it does work. It is righteousness that gets a body into heaven. The trouble is – and this is key – none of us is righteous. As far as the NT is concerned, only the imputed righteousness of Christ, along with His atoning self-sacrifice, is sufficient to make peace between us and God. As with virtually everything else, you’ll find a lot of this stuff in the book of Romans.
It would appear that your problems with Christianity have much more to do with the notion of predestination. From the most vinegary of all possible Calvinist perspectives, you have trouble with the notion of predestination simply because it is true (ha-ha).
More helpfully, you might find this interesting:
Read the section, “Will All be Saved?”.
Richard John Neuhaus is a conservative Catholic theologian who is often right, and always – to my mind, at least – fair-minded in his approach to these kinds of questions.
You guys are asking good and reasonable questions in this thread. But – as the linked Neuhaus essay will indicate – you’re not the only folks to whom these questions have ever occurred. Christians have wrestled with this stuff, too. Unfortunately, they have tended to do so in more protracted ways than those to which SDMB is readily amenable. Nevertheless, it is possible to come out of the experience with both faith and intellectual scruples intact. If you really want to see this stuff hashed out Christianly, go out and gitcha some Augustine and Aquinas and Calvin and Luther, for starters. You may have even more interesting questions when you’re done.
Anyway, carry on.
–B
Piffle and poppycock.
The fight over Galileo’s interpretation of the Copernican revolution only began with Galileo (so there was no “1500 years” of suppressing science). Beyond that, the fight with Galileo was a particlar brawl between him and a fairly small group of (powerful) cranky old men based more on personality than science or belief.
The Index Librorum Prohibitorum is a stupid idea, but Galileo’s books remained on it for theological conclusions he had drawn in the books. The RCC accepted the possiblity of the heliocentric Solar system even before Galileo’s trial and accepted the fact that the Earth actually moved about the sun even before the stellar parallax of 61 Cygni was discovered in 1838, finally establishing proof of heliocentrism.
The people who tell you that the Chinese guy who is kind and decent and lives a humble and charitable life is going to hell are speaking for themselves. As they judge him, by that same measure they are promised judgment. But those people are only people. Jesus will be the judge. He knows the Chinese guy, and loves him. When the Day of Judgment comes, He will claim His own, who did unto even the least of His children as love would have us do.
Judicialism, legalism, deals, and such are not matters of faith. Neither are they matters of love. Be of good heart! Live your life as if each soul you met was the most precious and worthy life in the entire world. Be kind, be generous, be forgiving, and be faithful. Even if it doesn’t get you into heaven it would still be a good idea. But the Lord will know His own. No one else’s opinion is of importance.
“The Way of Heaven is to benefit others and not to injure.
The Way of the sage is to act but not to compete.” ~ Lao-tzu ~
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SenorBeef *
**
As evidenced in the thread, I think you need a broader understanding of Christianity. Most Christians simply don’t believe this; in Catholicism it’s heresy.
In the end your decisions around the existence or lack thereof of God are up to you. If you want to believe in a God that loves you AND the Chinese guy, go right ahead. The “preacher” in your story doesn’t know any better than anyone else.
Regarding the claim that only Christians go to heaven (and perhaps only believers in the one right version of Christianity), I think it quite likely that many (perhaps most) individuals who identify themselves as Christians do indeed reject one or both of these ideas.
But what do the official doctrines of the various Christian churches say?
Am I wrong in thinking that most of them do actually say that you don’t get into heaven without fulfilling cirtain requirements? Requirments including having the right beliefs? And in some cases, being baptized? Don’t some versions of Christianity even say that if a baby dies unbaptized, he or she cannot enter heaven?
I do not doubt that it is true that for centuries, many Christians have been wrestling with these concepts. But it would seem that at the same time, many other Christians have eschewed wrestling, and just said of anything they didn’t like, “oh, I don’t belive that”.
I do not doubt that it is true that for centuries, many Christians have been wrestling with these concepts. But it would seem that at the same time, many other Christians have eschewed wrestling, and just said of anything they didn’t like, “oh, I don’t belive that”.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that!
But…wouldn’t it be cool if they all came out of the closet and admitted that they were not really members of whatever specific Christian denomination they were born into? Come on, people, if you’ve made up your own religion, why not say so? IMO, it is quite possible to beleive in a deity without adhering to any specific, organized religion.
The common denominator in orthodox Christian soteriology is that salvation is by Grace, through Faith in Jesus Christ.
This is to say that salvation becomes a reality in a person’s life only because God longs to show Grace to those who cannot possibly merit it. And that it is only upon the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ and his substitutionary atonement for Sin that the hope of salvation rests.
Actually, most Christians do believe that Jesus Christ does, in fact, represent the only means by which salvation has been made available to humanity. Most Christians believe that primarily because Christ said as much. (“I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father, but by me.”) As the Neuhaus essay in First Things indicates, that doesn’t stop lots of Christians from holding out the hope that God will finally extend the benefits of Christ’s work to everyone. But – John Shelby Spongs of the world notwithstanding – doctrinally orthodox Christians do affirm the uniqueness and essential character of Christ’s work in salvation.
The notion that anyone must additionally affirm any particular flavor of Christianity, or that there are specific acts that need to be tacked onto Christ’s work in order for salvation to be accomplished is generally regarded as heretical – or at least substandard – theology.
Yes. Interestingly, this kind of attitude is often ascribed to “the fundamentalists” (and I suppose that they are often guilty of it). But often, the ones who spend the most time discarding uncomfortable beliefs are actually quite liberal in their Christianity. “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by me.” is case in point. It ain’t always easy being a Christian.
But it is nice when folks give you a chance to explain things. Thanks.
–B
Mr. Billy, I’m not sure I get you. I said that it seemed to me that some Christians just pick and choose what aspects of official Christian doctrine they accept.
You seem to be saying that this habit is associated with the fundamentalists?
I would have said the oposite. My impression is that the fundamentalists are the ones who take official doctrine seriously – and literally.
Perhaps, but I am going to come at you from a Catholic perspective. With Catholics, the Bible is not doctrine. It is one of the primary tools used to determine doctrine. For instance, Catholic assertions that Mary stayed a Virgin is not in the Bible, but was worked out theoretically in some other theological works (I can’t remember which).
The point is that I am not sure that there really is a set religion-wide Christian doctrine, except love others and salvation through grace.
Neurotik said, “The point is that I am not sure that there really is a set religion-wide Christian doctrine, except love others and salvation through grace.”
I don’t see what that has that to do with what I said.
I’m saying that many Americans go their whole lives saying, “I’m a _________” (with the blank being whatever Christian denomination they were born into) yet do not know what the doctrines of that denomination are. IMO it tends to be Protestants who are in this situation; Catholics seem to be better informed about their church’s doctrines and positions.
Then there are those who feel no need to leave the denomination into which they were born, even though they do know what points of doctrine differentiate their denomination from others, and disagree with their denomination’s positions.
Let me put this in the form of some questions.
Okay. You’re a Christian. Specifically, you’re a Blankian, that being the denomination into which you were born and whose Sunday schools you attended as a child. Presumably, the Blankian Christian church has a few specific points of doctrine that set it apart from other versions of Christianity. Do you know what those points are? If not, don’t you think you ought to find out? I mean, sure, you’re a Christian, but are you a Blankian Christian? You tell people that’s what you are, but are you? For all you know, the Blankian position on any randomly chosen point of doctrine may be at odds with your postion.
And what about you people who do know how Blankians differ from other denominations – and disagree with the Blankian positions. Why haven’t you sought out and joined a denomination with which you are in closer agreement?
In addition to doctrine, there’s also the matter of positions on issues, such as contraception, same-sex relationships, in-vetro fertalization, cloning, etc. If the denomination to which you belong takes a strong position on some issue, and you utterly disagree with that position, what do you do? Leave the denomination? Work to persuade the denomination’s leaders to change their minds? Or just ignore the whole matter?
And for those of you who do know your denomination’s doctrines and positions, and agree with them – what’s your opinion of the people who claim membership in your denomination but reject many of those doctrines and positions? What’s your opinion of the people who claim membership, but have no clue as to what differentiates Blankians from other Christians?
The purpose of religion is to provide a method (thank you John Wesley 
) of developing a relationship with God. No one is going to be sent away from the Pearly Gates (or metaphor of your choice) for getting a 66% on the test of theology administered upon one’s death.
I would prefer that more Blankians actually understood what we teach so that they are making a willing and deliberate choice in this matter (and so that they do not wander around giving out bad information to people that I have to correct when those people challenge my erroneously presumed Blankian beliefs). However, I am no more going to get upset that someone hangs out at the Blankian church on Sunday, having no clue as to why they are there, than I am going to ridicule the aged, childless, unmarried lady who drives around in a six-passenger Cadillac, when my Mom gets around quite nicely in a Sunbird. If it bothers God, God can take steps to bring them in line.
I have, indeed, encountered a number of people who have stayed in the Blankian church simply because that is where they have always gone and who do not truly know the doctrine of the church. On the other hand, I have found that many of these people, who would clearly fail at any test of dogma or scripture, have been imbued with a spirit of Christian charity and self-sacrifice and I am fairly sure that God will welcome them more swiftly than me.
(It helps that my Blankian version of Christianity is not quite so rigid in the doctrine that it claims is necessary for salvation, but then, that probably keeps me around, as well.)
I feel that this problem may arise from the independant and unstructured nature of many of the modern Protestant Churches. The Catholic and Anglican churches (and to a lesser extent the Methodists) have always placed a heavy emphasis on the authority of the Church, with the ultimate authority resting in the Pope (for Catholics of course). Many of the Protestant churches arose out of the Reformation, one of the key events of which was the translation of the Bible from Latin (understood only by the rich and educated priesthood) into the lingua franca which made it much more widely availiable for individuals to read and understand. At the same time, the emphasis of the doctrine of salvation shifted from Church membership to an individual response to God’s invitation of Grace. These Prostestant churches formed denominations that had no central “ruling body” and allowed individual leaders to decide their own paths. Like-minded groups formed networks of churches which co-operated to a degree, but were more like “pastor’s associations” than an authority structure.
As a result there may well be no properly defined “doctrine” for the Blankian church, except perhaps a number of points or a “mission statement” that covers the basics of what member churches are expected to hold to, with the fine details being left up to the individuals. This is one of the great freedoms of these churches, as well as being a weakness - there is great comfort in having the exact position of your church on, say, abortion made unambiguous and clear by those in authority.
Gp
Fundamentalists do take doctrine seriously. Actually, that was the impetus for fundamentalism: “What are the fundamental beliefs of Christians?” The trouble is – and I’m not certain why this happens – many folks who fall under the fundamentalist rubric have a strong tendency to anti-intellectualize their faith.
They have a particular view of certain elements of Christianity as they understand it – perhaps Calvinism, or Arminianism, or no booze, or they are KJV only, or whatever – and they tend to treat what they view as orthodoxy on that particular element of Christian faith as if it were the bellwether for determining the legitimacy of others’ faith.
In order to maintain that outlook, fundamentalists sometimes jettison other parts of Christianity. Unfortunately, the first casualty of this dynamic is often humility, followed immediately by toleration. From there, things go downhill in a hurry. And often, publicly.
It has always seemed to me that non-Christians were pretty clear about this kind of doctrinal selectivity on the part of fundamentalists. But I guess I could be wrong.
I have been really unfair to fundamentalists generally, however, if I do not point out that there are lots of folks who self-identify as fundamentalist Christians who don’t do any of the things that I have talked about here. Broad generalities are always only partially true (He said, broadly and generally.).