I have not and would not say that someone who has hardened their hearts against the Word can be saved. The apparent difference in our positions (and I’m bringing in a perception of your views based on other threads to which you have contributed) is that it seems that I would not say, and you would say, that anyone who has heard the words of Scripture spoken or who has read the text of Scripture and has not accepted it has “hardened their hearts” against it.
It seems that you would like to believe that a simple recitation of Scripture to a person is enough to provide them everything they need to accept or reject it. If that is your position, you are welcome to it.
Except I don’t believe in sola scriptura. Wisdom and divine reasoning are universals. I would say anyone who keeps the commandments of Jesus, which can be reached independantly via divine reasoning, is given the Spirit (per Jesus’s words) and this spirit then teaches that person all things of wisdom. All people do have a moral imperative to discover, whether through divine reason or the teachings of Christ or even, for the better part, what the RCC teaches, what is right and what is wrong, and then choose what is right. Inherently not caring what is right to do and what is wrong to do in the first place because a person does not love their neighbor or/and lacks the humility to recognize the power of God is a hardening of heart: seeds falling on hard ground and eaten by crows.
Without guidance, man can not of his own power understand the scriptures.
While I have no where near the philosophical and theological muscle to make argument about the scriptural justification for the words that follow, they do represent my own faith in Jesus, The anointed (Christ) Savior of Man. I offer it here in case anyone finds the erudite discussion here daunting to their own heart, not as a criticism of theology, but as a comfort to those who feel lost.
I deny all judgment of souls by any other than the Lord. I believe, with unfailing trust that there is not, nor has there ever been, nor shall there ever be a soul beyond his Grace. That such things fall outside the scope of our understanding of time, cause, effect, or philosophy is a failing of our vision. He shall save every soul that will be saved. You will find Him, if you seek Him. When you feed Him, and clothe Him, and speak to Him in kindness when He suffers, He will see into your heart, and know your love. His love will not fail.
You don’t have to understand it. You don’t have to figure it out, or read about it, pay for it, earn it, or live up to it. You do have to be willing to accept it.
He can’t loose you. You can’t hide from Him. It’s the God thing, ya know?
I’m impressed. The Catholic Church pretty well manages to cover all bases in providing blanket coverage to reduce hostilities among other religions and itself. So, why did it work so hard to stamp most out so many ages ago?
I was told by a minister that nonbelievers, upon their deaths, will be judged similar to how we all are supposed to be, but with a different set of criteria. They will be judged as to how they followed their own faiths, or, if having none, how they followed the laws of their lands. Those insane who commit sins will not have such sins held against them, from what I understand.
I hope this can add to the discussion:“The term ‘ecumenical movement’ indicates the initiatives and activities encouraged and organized, according to the various needs of the [Roman] Church and as opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity. … THE RESULTS WILL BE THAT, LITTLE BY LITTLE, AS THE OBSTACLES TO PERFECT ECCLESIASTICAL COMMUNION ARE OVERCOME, ALL CHRISTIANS WILL BE GATHERED IN A COMMON CELEBRATION OF THE EUCHARIST, INTO THE UNITY OF THE ONE AND ONLY CHURCH, WHICH CHRIST BESTOWED ON HIS CHURCH FROM THE BEGINNING. THE UNITY, WE BELIEVE, SUBSISTS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS SOMETHING SHE CAN NEVER LOSE” (Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism, chap. 1, 4, p. 416).
And that’s where we reached an impasse with our liberal teacher (as I mentioned in the GQ thread). Yes, he feels God can accept anyone, but those who deliberately reject the gospel after hearing about it (for any reason, say, the whole thing sounds ridiculous, baseless, and contradictory) have chosen to reject God and are therefore doomed.
It’s the annoying duality of Christianity. For God, or against him. No middle ground.
So Tris, I don’t accept God because I see no reason to invest much energy in your questionable belief system. That being said, if for some improbable reason he did exist, I’d happily take the eternal life in bliss prize. Wouldn’t a truly compassionate and reasonably intelligent God be smart enough to make a distinction between rejecting YHWH as an improbable and probably non-existent being and deciding that I don’t want to live forever?
I don’t think there is anyone I know who has ever said if the Christian god exists, I would refuse this immortality thing.
I do seem to remember reading a bit about unbelievers being doomed to lakes of sulfer in the NT. Ah yes, Revelation 21:8 - unbelievers and pimps…
I am afraid you have not entirely understood my questionable belief system. I didn’t promise you a free pass to heaven. I simply pointed out that the entire matter lies between you, and the Lord, whatever anyone, including you, might think. You don’t just get asked to come along for the ride. You are offered devine love, in return for giving love, freely. You may turn it down. The heaven part comes later.
In other words, if I’m a good person, I get heaven? Well, no problem there since I am an ethical person. That does not concern me. I certainly don’t object to letting God make the decision. What would bother me more is if indeed, Tris, you feel that those of us who have left Christianity are doomed to hell. That your religion requires such conclusions shows a God pettier then most humans.
I could see the RCC saying “if peopole did not ever hear the gospel, God will take this into account.” To be sure, even some of the more conservative Protestants will begrudgingly admit this - On LBMB, someone called it “the millions of Chinese question” - as it is tough to not face the facts that, no matter what technology is here now, for eons, many people in places OTHER than America never saw a Bible or heard of Jesus. And if they just say “They went to Hell,” well, this doesn’t show a fair and just God.
However, what of the people like myself. I have read the Bible. I have taken (subconsciously and by choice) some of my morality from the book. But, then again, I also read the Koran. I don’t believe that Jesus died for my sins, and I don’t believe that he is the son of God any more than I or anyone else alive is.
So, by RCC standards, am I actively rebuking Christ? I am, essentially a “non-believer” as mentioned in the OP, but it could be argued that I “reject” Him, because, well, a lot of it I do.
Am I going to hell with this clarification? If I am not, which sect(s) are under this impression and what justification do they have for thinking this?
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six months, four weeks, 4 hours, 25 minutes and 50 seconds.
8447 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,055.92.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 1 day, 7 hours, 55 minutes.
If you reject Jesus because you don’t find the Bible convincing, I don’t think God cares. If you reject Jesus because you think the idea that one man could perfectly embody God’s love necassarily makes God limited, I don’t think God will hold it against you. If your desire and love for Truth is so great that you even reject Truth when it is presented to you for fear that Falsehood maybe mixed in with it, I am sure God acknowledges your steadfastness. None of these things will affect your salvation one way or the other.
On the other hand, if you reject Jesus because you deny that anything could be greater than humanity or beyond its grasp, or because you insist that you are capable of being as good as you need to be without any help, or because the idea that you should love your fellow people makes you sick, or because you think being strong is more important than being good, then you as long as continue to do so, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven. (Like Tris, however, I believe that God is more powerful than death, and will not let something so trivial prevent you from turning to Him. Even in Hell, God is present and calling longingly to his beloved [all humankind, indeed all creation] though we continue to spurn Him.)
Nevertheless, if you love the Good you see in all people, if you acknowledge the wonder of Creation and its Creator (whatever that may be), if you weep at the agony and cruelty of God’s children, and above all, if, when you come face to face with a man dying pitifully on a cross, devoid of power or glory, who says to you “I love you,” and if when you look into his eyes and you can see the love he proclaims, if you can accept that love and believe in it, and know that that love is what matters more than anything else in the universe, then nothing you said, did, or believed on Earth will keep out of Heaven.
If you laughed at this post, you’re going to Hell.
I hope this didn’t sound like prosteletyzing; it wasn’t meant to. If Chritianity is right, then we WILL encounter God someday, and it is our response to God, not to the Bible, that determines our salvation.
Not in my words, though. Nothing I have said in any post in any thread, on this, or any other forum can be construed to mean that if you are a good person, you get heaven.
I am not sure who it is you are arguing with, here, but it certainly has no intersection whatsoever with anything I said.
My religion requires nothing you have mentioned. My religion requires me to tell you that God loves you. I have faith that God’s love, and your love of God, through His Son, can make you immortal. I make no judgment of your spirit, or your life. If I did make such a judgment, it would be worthless, since I have no authority to judge you, in the spiritual sense.
Again, I am not sure who you are arguing with, but it isn’t me, because none of the points you object to came from anything I said.
PS–Even Billy Graham (a conservative, Evangelical Christian) has said that it is not necessarily self-professed Christians who will be found in Heaven. He said this in a Gannet newspaper interview sometime in the past twelve months, but unfortunately, I lost it. I will try to look it up for all of you tomorrow.
I gained an incredible amount of respect for Billy Graham when I read this. I think Dr. Graham proves we liberal Christians don’t have exclusive rights to faith WITH love.
Not replying to anything specific, just the apparent general topic of the thread, my take on the situation is this:
From a Biblical standpoint, there are 2 ways to get to heaven. These are:
following the Law: this need not be done intentionally, but is not an easy task.
accepting the all-encompassing forgiveness through Christ’s blood that actually sets one, in Paul’s words, above the law. This does not imply lawlessness; indeed, a proof of it lies in “obey[ing]” Christ’s commandments.
I know little about what the Catholic Church has said regarding the issue; this is what I see at the source.
To understand what the commandments of Jesus are requires the guidance of men. To know which men exactly requires a gift for discernment. Much to my own condemnation, I can percieve the motes in other people’s eyes when they have them and otherwise I can see the fruits of the spirit in what people say instead. If I took the scriptures alone I’d fall into error. The Catholics Church almost – but not quite – teaches the Truth, and we’ve already been over their lame understanding of oaths which only makes sense in light of the fact the authors are under oaths themselves. See the mote? That flaw does throw the rest of their teachings into doubt – but I couldn’t find an unholy reason why they would teach their followers to sell all they have and give all their money away, even though, apparently the cradle Catholics were blissfully unaware somehow of what the Church taught. Anyway, I recieved advise from others along the way as well. But I think people are so hung up on the idea that spiritual judgement is wrong that they deny any attempt at spiritual discernment and are thus led astray.
Cheese it, kiddos – there ain’t none good but God. 'Member?
See, Jodi – this is what I’m talking about. Given the chance to interpret the Bible themselves, people are more than willing to ignore everything Jesus said, half of what Paul said, ignore complete James and all the other apostles, and focus exclusively on one line discussing circumcision and make that the cornerstone of their salvation. Thus, it is OK to never repent and go on sinning ones whole life because God will forgive you. I’m not sure what Le Sang’s last sentence here means exactly, but most Protestants are clearly prone to this mistake.
er… my condemnation, but you are close. So, you don’t accept the RCC’s teaching on the perfection of charity, and I don’t accept their teaching on oaths. Wanna split the difference?