What is the Christian view of Natives? Are they all Damned?

Great Debates
61

I doubt that you would accept anything that I pointed out as requiring a supernatural explanation. I would point to the creation of the universe in general, and man in particular, for example. Now through the years scientists have come up with all sorts of theories as to how this happened naturally, and these theories have changed and modified over time as new evidence was discovered, or old evidence was interpreted differently. But I still believe, and will always believe, that it makes much more sense to believe that there is a Creator greater than myself than to believe that all of this happened by “chance”.

lol, no I’m not rebelling against Zeus. I guess I’m just too close to the source material to be impartial, in that I don’t know any atheists personally, and I can’t imagine someone being an atheist. The concept of a God seems so obvious to me. As for the possibility that somebody might not see it, I can’t imagine anyone, “heathen” or “civilized”, that could go through their entire life and not wonder “How did all of this get here? How did I get here? What happens when I die?”. Certain myths have sprung up through the years to point to this (and I am sure many on this board would pipe up and say “including Christianity” at this point, but I don’t believe that is the case). But I think if a “native” sought out this divine being, he would reveal himself to him.

You are asking the wrong question. God is omnipotent…he can do whatever he wants. The correct question is “Why won’t God forgive without a sacrifice?”. In short, because God is holy and God is just. This site seems to lay out my beliefs pretty well. I would happily point out at this time that he doesn’t require our blood, and that was the point of Christ’s sacrifice. And to answer your other questions, no, you are not more benevolent or powerful than God. :wink:

That’s not circular…that’s religion. I can’t give you proof other than to point to how I and others like me used to behave before we came to Christ, and the change that we have experienced after conversion. The Jews wanted a sign, too. They wanted proof as well. It’s natural to want proof. But no proof is forthcoming. God gives everyone a measure of faith…you just have to use it.

I believe that if you love God, he will reveal himself to you, or send someone along your way to tell you about his son. You can love God without being a christian, but 1) Not sure why you would, and 2) It won’t buy you anything. Our effort is insufficient.

But you are wrong. Jesus did not specify works. The law was instituted to show man that keeping rules is not the way to do it. That it is impossible for us to achieve perfection. By grace we are saved through faith. It is a gift of God. Not works, lest any man should boast. That’s a paraphrasing of Paul (a real popular guy on these boards ;)) speaking through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That’s the way it is.

Well, as you know, I believe that since you are unsaved, it is impossible for you to understand the Bible (1 Corinthians 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. "), so I see your arguments similar to a three-year old holding the book upside down and explaining to me what the Bible really says. You are trying to take a religion of faith and bring it into your logical world-view.

Well, when Jesus said “perfect”, Scofield thinks (and I agree) "The word implies full development, growth into maturity of godliness, not sinless perfection. (Eph 4:12-13). In this passage the Father’s kindness, not His sinlessness, is the point in question. (Luke 6:35-36). " I’d also point out that you are cherry-picking. I can do that, too.

Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

See my previous response, and remember, the correct question is why won’t he forgive without Christ.

He has no obligation to prove it to you. Who are you to demand anything of God? He doesn’t expect anybody to just guess without evidence. Back to the OP, there is sufficient evidence in his nature. As for good people who aren’t Christian, allow me to quote Christ:
“Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.”

And I would say back to you that this is your view, and it doesn’t make any sense and is supported by cherry picking and misinterpreting certain biblical passages. Moreover, I believe the Bible to be God breathed, and that He used men but inspired them through the Holy Spirit. I’m a fundamentalist, okay? I believe that Adam and Eve lived in a literal Garden of Eden on earth, there was a literal flood, the whole ball of wax. My beliefs aren’t a myth…they are my beliefs.

You shouldn’t accept one man’s interpretation over another, you should read the Bible and ask God to show you what he meant. The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth. Of course, as I said earlier, if you are trying to understand the Bible using your own intelligence, you will get nowhere.

Well, in context, the man who is asking is just a Pharisee who wants to justify himself before men. This is the problem with cherry-picking just one verse (as Diogenes has done) and trying to build a complete doctrine around it.

Yeah, that was pretty stupid of me. I’m not the best debater in the world (“and the understatement of the year goes to…”) but I passionately believe what I believe. I am getting a Bachelors of Biblical Studies, and I know quite a bit about my beliefs and the bible, but I certainly don’t claim to know more than Jesus. The problem with that passage where Jesus gives that response is that the man who asked the question is not genuinely searching for salvation, he is just trying to tempt Christ. He is a Pharisee, or “law-keeper”, or one who believes that you must keep the OT law in order to be saved. There are many other places in the Bible where the plan of salvation is more clearly lined up. It’s very facile and convenient to point to one verse where Jesus says “do this and you shall live” and claim “Ah-ha! Gotcha!”, but I find it intellectually dishonest.

There is no such thing as 11th hour damnation. Once you are saved, you are saved forever. There is no condemnation after salvation. This is not a license to sin, though. God will chasten you for disobedience like any good father would chasten a child.

I could go on and around and around with this, but I am not going to. Debating religion is not an effective form of witnessing, and I will admit that I

  1. am not that great at it
  2. don’t have the time and patience to continue it

I would just ask that you would read the Bible with an open mind and do your best to determine what God has said about salvation, in both the old and new testaments. In my interpretation, he is consistent throughout. I am a poor teacher, but I believe that God will lead any person who is honestly looking into the truth.

62

Who said we could not be perfect? Not I.

In addition, We do enter heaven in the condition God created us in. It’s the only way we can.
We don’t enter heaven in the condition we created for ourselves. We have to choose to give that up and see our true nature.

Happy I could clear that up for you. :slight_smile: I’m sure you’ll feel better now.

63

I’m sorry, but it seems that in your world, we cannot enter Heaven until we are forgiven for something we cannot help in the first place. Wouldn’t it have been easier if God had made us “perfect” in the first place(whatever that means), or lowered the requirements so that we could enter in the condition he created us to begin with? If I tell my child that he is not worthy of my love unless he can get a perfect 4.0 grade point average for twelve years, then tell him that I’m going to go ahead and “forgive” him for his “faults”, what would you think of me?

64

I respect your desire to not got around in circles and I hope wou will at least read this even if you choose not to continue the discussion.

I believe as you do that the Holy Spirit , or whatever name someone prefers, will indeed guide us into the truth. We have to learn to listen to that inner guidence and be willing to surrender our preconceptions. That takes time and practice.

The question that occurs to me is why then do all these people who do believe in the Holy Spirit revealing spiritual truth still disagree with each other about what that truth is? Does that mean the HS is flawed. No. It is our ability to listen to the HS that is flawed. It is our desire to surrender to that voice that is flawed because sometimes it whispers things we don’t want to acknowledge.
Certainly Agnostics and atheits may have a certain prejudice that keeps them from accepting certain things. Christians are the exact same way. The HS speaks the truth the whole truth and only the truth but we choose when we will listen and surrender each step of the way. If an atheist has a sincere love for and committment to the truth then they may see certain truths more clearly than any Christian. They have invited the truth into their heart and mind while the Christian may cling to tradition over the truth. Jesus stresses to put God, and the truth above all else.

The HS is perfect but we are not. Even men such as Paul when influenced by the HS were also influenced by their own preconceptions and tradition. Jesus did specify works repeatedly as well as this verse in James
"14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? "
I’ve done a study on the faith works thing and there are as many {maybe more} scriptures indicating that we will be judged according to our works and deeds as there are pointing to faith in Jesus being the key. My question is how do I reconcile all those scriptures into the truth. I believe the HS will guide me but I must be willing to let go of preconceptions and tradition,and truly listen.

The truth is completely logical and reasonable. I completely believe in the guidence of the HS into all truth but I find** Dio’s** points pretty valid. I respect your right to choose your own path but don’t think that because you believe in Jesus you aren’t prejudice and can’t be clinging to tradition over the truth. Surrender to the HS is an act of the the heart and mind. You have to be willing to deal with the truth before you will accept it. It works the same for all people since God is no respecter of persons.

What I try to do in my studies is to find the truth that makes two or more seemingly contradictory statements become correct. I try to give all the scriptures equal weight rather than see some as more inportant than others. We all tend to read them according to our preconcieved ideas. In the statement you bolded Christ may have been saying “Remember and follow the example I have set and how my commitment to the truth was more important than my physical body”

Work beckons. Part II to follow.

65

May I offer a different perspective? It seems to me that much of this thread is based on the presuppositions of American Evangelicalism (either expressing them, or reacting against them). My own faith formation is rooted in Lutheran Christianity; we’re still close enough to being an immigrant community that we sometimes ask different sets of questions. I would be inclined to approach the original question something like this:

  • It seems to me observably true that there’s something wrong in human motivation. Lutheran theology speaks in terms of “incurvatus in se”: warped in on ourselves. Every question, every action, rapidly plummets back to the question “what will this do for me?” Whether I am to blame, or Adam is to blame, or God is to blame, is in some ways not the crucial question. My reactions are what they are. That’s me.
  • Living with this forever would, in itself, be something like damnation. Any actual state of blessedness would involve loving God and other people quite regardless of whether I gain from that or not.
  • Consequently, anything I might conceivably do to gain salvation for myself has just about got to be beside the point. “How can I get to heaven?” The question can’t help being me-centered, which spoils the whole deal at the start. It’d be sort of like a devil asking “Okay, who do I have to damn and destroy so God will like me?” Wrong question, no answer, can’t get there from here.
  • As far as I can tell, this state of selfishness is universal. And nothing I can do for my own sake will change that. I’m still in the same corrupted universe of discourse: it’s still about me.
  • Which is where Jesus enters in. The New Testament records several different perspectives for probing what he has done. They are all expressed in human language, which means that, in Terry Pratchett’s phrase, we’re trying to express eternity in words developed to let apes tell other apes where the ripe fruit is. So I get skeptical of elaborate deductions. Nevertheless: where this all touches on us is, that we have the promise of Jesus that if we trust him he’ll get us home. Nothing we can do; we’ll just have to trust him.
  • “Trust,” of course, has consequences. Over time, our behavior and attitudes have to be affected. But that’s not rooted in any holiness of mine. I presume I’ll simply act different whenever I am genuinely trusting God.
  • So: what about “natives?” I tend to think God might answer “So: in what way is that your business? I gave you a promise. I told you to share it. What conceivable good reason could you have for wanting to know what I plan to do if you goof off?” “God, what will you do if I do nothing?” is not a “trust” question; which means, I think, it may well be framing the issue in a way which precludes any useful answer.
    God will do what God does. God will do it in love. Beyond that: sometimes it seems to me we’d be in the position of a doctor saying “So, if I decline to treat this patient, God, what are you going to do for this poor soul?” Actual concern would involve action. Being “incurvatus in se,” curved in on ourselves, we’ve got a tendency to evolve reasons why it’s just fine if I don’t act.
    (Lutheran theology sometimes frames this in terms of the “hidden God.” There is God as God has revealed himself; there is also God about whom we understand nothing. We trust (the word is chosen intentionally) that it’s the same God, and that he is who we know him to be in Jesus. But speculating about the “hidden God” is pointless. We have no information, no adequate language, and no set of parameters even for framing the question.)

Boiling it down: Questions of “blame” don’t get me very far; we are who we are, and the species is apparently nuts. I don’t see any hope other than Jesus. He may well have stuff going on I don’t know about. All I know is what he promised and what he told his followers to do about it.

66

.

As I said. At some point the truth of who we are and the nature of God and his relationship with us does make sense. The truth is logical and reasonable. It does however require a certain leap of faith in believing in things we have no scientific proof for. Yet we all do that everyday for various reasons. I don’t find either intelligent design or evolution illogical. I just think there are many things left to learn before we understand how they fit together.

Everybody has beliefs. Religious beliefs about our relationship with God are not in a different catagory than our relationship with our wife, kids or neighbors. Some beliefs are indeed myths as well. Others are long held traditions passed from one generation to the next as "God’s holy truth"yet they are only man’s traditions and Jesus himself said don’t worship those. I’m sure you don’t believe the Book of Mormon is not the word of God. What would you call a third or forth generation Mormon who believes it.

I agree with you here. My own studies have hove led me to believe that no book is the word of God. Only the Holy spirit is the word of God. I think that’s exactly what Jesus taught and there’s no indication in any writings that it was ever God’s intention that we have one final authortative collection of writings. That’s just a Christian tradition.

I see your point. That’s not the only verse that indicates this teaching of Jesus. I would also point out that the motives of the man doesn’t change the truthfulness of the answer. Christ would never answer with anything but the truth.

Which I have done and will continue to do. I honor your choice and your path.

We agree on this point. No matter what path we may choose we will eventually arrive at the same destination.

67

This is not a description of my world. It seems you have assumed some things about my beliefs that are inaccurate.

68

I appreciated what you shared. It’s a good point {or points} Might I say that to me the question isn’t “what must I do to be saved?” or “get to heaven” The question is “what is the truth?” The truth about who we are, Who God is and the essence of our relationship with God and each other. I don’t think that’s self defeating or selfish.

I think faith and trust have a lot to do with it, yet if we are to act on that faith we have to have some way to determine if are actions are
the correct ones.

And you know this how?

btw, I agree that laying blame accomplishes little but if we have the courage to speak our truth and act on it, it’s bound to conflict with somebody. Did Jesus blame the Pharisees or just tell them the truth. Either way they didn’t like him much.

69

cosmodan, thank you for your reply. A few thoughts:

Ah. What I had more in mind was that the question “what about ‘Natives’?” tends to lead to “what did they do that was so wrong?” Which, to me, is closely connected to the assumption that we are able to do something so right that it will satisfy God.

I’m more skeptical. In practice, I would look to the Bible for guidance; but in the end I very much doubt that any of my actions will be all that “correct.” Or, from another angle: any action done in faith and love will be as correct as human beings are capable of. (Luther once commented “while ‘good works’ is still arguing whether something ought to be done, faith has already gone and done it.” I suspect he’s right.)

Referring to my comment that “All I know” is God’s promises, you ask:

The witness to Jesus in the New Testament; which I believe to be a true witness, and the only normative witness. (I’m not arguing for inerrancy; only that I am persuaded the picture of Jesus painted in the New Testament is authentic Jesus.)

Perhaps one could question my use of the word “know.” And perhaps I could have said, instead, “believe.” But my point is: if there is (as I believe) something revealed by God about God’s character, that is conclusive. It is as close as I will get to “knowing” something about God. Outside that revelation, I could make lots of interesting guesses. But I wouldn’t expect them to be worth much; it’s more along the lines of Ambrose Bierce’s comment “God created Man in his own image. And Man, being a gentleman, returned the compliment.”

I assume the word “revelation” might need discussion. Where I’d begin is that, unless God communicates some true vision of God’s self to us, there’s not much point in talking about “God.”

70

The second coming on the net? This could be bigger than Blair Witch!

71

I see. So if there is nothing we can do that will satisfy God does that mean there is nothing we can do that will make God unsatisfied with us either?

I see your point. I agree that going forward in faith and love is “correct” I suppose I’m being too particular. Often what we percieve as being good or loving is misdirected energy. We try to help without really listening. I’m not sure what the Luther quote is saying. Faith gives you the courage to act? OKay? Faith is enough without the action? Not okay.

It may be but only in the sense that the part of the iceberg above the water is also authentic. To me it is the promise of the Holy Spirit that is at least as significant as what I’m sure is a limited and distorted view of Christ. Many who claim to worship Jesus and invite the HS into their lives seem reluctant to actually trust the voice of God within them.

Nice quote. I believe in personal communion and revelation through the Holy Spirit. I think that should be our primary source into the nature of God and our relationship with him and each other. The Bible and any other book or external tool should be used only to facilitate that communion.

I think people {even those who speak freely about their love for God and Jesus.}are reluctant to trust themselves to to that inner voice. They search for some external authority such as “scripture” or someone with the name 'reverand" or “pastor” Coming to rely on and be to comfortable with those external authorities they may limit their ability to listen to that ultimate authority that has always been with them.

72

cosmodan,

I’m not sure I have much more to contribute, but perhaps I could respond to a few issues your last note raised.

More that I think this way of framing the question doesn’t help us. We’re all born self-centered, and any “what we can do” approach winds up rooted in that self-centeredness.

Regarding the Luther quote: his point was that when we look at ethics we tend to begin with debate over what is good or necessary; and do nothing. Whereas, he maintained, faith (i.e., trust in God’s promises) is more likely to see something constructive to do and then go do it.

I think we disagree on this. I’m not interested in debating it – that takes us rather far from the original topic – but I would offer two thoughts.

  • to my mind, an appeal to the Holy Spirit is of great significance. If true, it’s very nearly irrefutable. But I am also aware of the human capacity for self-deception.
  • it seems to me that an appeal to guidance by the Holy Spirit moves us out of the realm of public discourse. It’s privileged information, in a sense: how would I go about examining it?

As best I can work my way through this: I am confident of one way in which the Holy Spirit works; through the Scripture, and in making it possible for me to hear that Word. That would be enough to carry me rather a long distance.

73

there’s an S. Cosmos, not cosmo, :slight_smile:

I’m not sure we’re born self centered or it’s something we’re taught. But I get your drift. That’s what I mean by “what is the truth?” The more we realize the truth of “we’re all in this together” our choices change.

Agreed.

No debate but a few thoughts. Your comments reflect a fairly common reaction. No criticism, just observation. I find it interesting that people who speak of faith can’t seem to really trust the promise Christ made about the HS. I understand the self deception you spoke of. Jesus did give us a simple guideline. Observe what’s being done. Is it acts of sincere love and kindness based on the truth that we are all children of God? Public discourse is a good thing. We recognize that our communion with God through the HS is subject to our own imperfections and so we share our experiences with a certain reverence and respect for those differences, trusting the love of God for each individual, which frees us to walk more diverse paths within that love, rather than the need to conform to what you described as Man creating God in his image.

Of course we still have the laws of our society as well.

How would you examine it? Examine what? Your own communion with the HS? Through prayer and meditation, and an honest and sincere heart. It also doesn’t mean we toss out everything ever written. It just means putting the written word in the proper perspective and order of priority.

How would you examine what others claim to be communion with the HS? Again, prayer and meditation, along with faith that it is one HS that leads us all. Consider again the guidelines Jesus gave us. Acts of sincere love and kindness.
“The Holy Spirit asked me to let this rattlesnake bite my children to test my faith”
Not likely.

The problem I see with relying too heavily on the Bible is that as valuble as it is, it is still written 2000 years ago by men influenced by their own culture and prejudices. At this point I would expect new writings and new revelations.

74

cosmosdan,
(and thank you for the correction)

The thread seems to be running out of energy. (I’m also having trouble sending; if this note winds up duplicated, please be aware I’m not trying to spam the system…)

I am intrigued by your comment that

That may lead back toward the original post. Personally, I would not expect “new writings and revelations”. For several reasons:

First, the New Testament bears witness to what I understand to be a major turning point in God’s work with the world. Jesus comes proclaiming God’s kingly power. The Messiah, against all expectation, is killed; and rises. Something new has begun.
I can’t imagine how anything could supersede the “primary source” status of the New Testament witnesses to this event. It would take, I think, a cataclysmic change of comparable importance; and I don’t see one.

Second, I don’t think we’ve wrapped our minds around this one yet. (For that matter, in terms of ethics I don’t think we’ve wrapped our minds around “Do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God”; and that’s been with us longer…)

Third, and here’s where we may be winding back toward the original post: what might “revelation” be?
If it were a matter of incremental spiritual progress, then perhaps looking for new revelations might make sense. But that’s not what interests me in the New Testament revelation.
What I see revealed in Jesus is not bits of data, but a glimpse into the heart of God. Apart from Jesus – looking only at the world as I observe it, and the rather motley history of “religious” quests for spiritual insight – I would be much inclined to conclude either that there is no god, or that “god” is a Lovecraftian monster with no concern for humans or those things we value. Jesus crucified and risen is the only counter-evidence that persuades me.
Now, this isn’t complicated; only way counter-intuitive. Job and Ecclesiastes already put the question: is there any reason to think God loves us? If God is the one moving among us in Jesus, then yes. If not, then I see no such reason.

I see this as of such overwhelming importance that, by comparison, new insight around the fringes of the truth, or Swedenborgian “news from heaven,” would not be of very much interest. It’s a “yes/no” issue: is this universe moved by compassion?

So, back to “natives.” I’m not at all interested in whether they might be somehow “to blame” for not hearing of Jesus; nor in whether God “ought to” make allowances. Because I’m not much interested in timeless philosophical insights. What grips me, is that God has intervened in Jesus on behalf of life and hope and love. If this is so, then where the message of Jesus comes, new possibilities for human life emerge. There may be other ways those new possibilities can become effective. I don’t know them. So in my own actions – sharing, or not sharing, what I believe about Jesus – I have no basis for acting as if there were any other way for new hope to reach people than to tell about Jesus. If God wants to do an end run, wonderful. But since I don’t know about it, that doesn’t affect my own responsibilities to other people.

75

The New Testament does not contain any eyewitness testimony of Jesus or of the resurrection. There is nothing “primary” about it.

76

I used the term “witness”; not eyewitness.

What are you understanding “primary” to mean? In terms of a historian’s distinction between primary and secondary sources, there’s no question that the New Testament witness is primary.

77

What’s the difference between “witness” and “eyewitness?” The NT is neither.
Historians do not consider the NT to be a genuine historical source at all, either primary or secondary. They consider it to be literature, not historical record.

78

The distinction you suggest has, I think, little or no validity for any ancient historical source. Herodotus? Caesar’s Gallic Wars?

“Historical sources” are those sources which we happen to have available to illuminate an historical period. These include inscriptions, scraps of papyrus, Imperial propaganda pieces, graffiti, coins … and the New Testament. Most historians will use whatever they have got.

In any event, the original post had to do with how Christians might perceive the issue of “natives.” There’s really no basis for discussing this other than looking at the sources and arguments to which Christians might appeal.

79

What I mean is that the Biblical narratives themselves are not regarded as historical. They are just stories like Homer. They are “witness” to nothing.

80

I’m not talking about any event in time that would compare to Chirist’s physical presence. I’m talking about a clearer understanding of what Jesus was teaching. It didn’t take long for the teaching of Jesus to be disputed and perverted.
There’s a warning in Revelation about not taking anything away from or adding to. The author knew that was exactly what men do.
Slavery survived for almost two thousand years in “christian” nations after Jesus told us to love our fellow man. Take a look at the treatment of woman long after we were told that God is no respecter of persons. Too many opinions about what right and wrong in our culture including homosexuality are based on someones interpertation of a 2000 year old book.
Since the Holy Spirit was promised to lead us into all truth why wouldn’t we expect men to still share what the Holy Spirit moves them to share.

I agree with you on this point. Progress on grasping and living what Jesus taught is slow but I feel some progress has been made. We can spend our entire lives focusing on what Jesus refered to as the essential commandments. Love God, and love your fellow man. Perhaps I should have limited it to just saying new writings however, the process of spiritual growth is a process of revelation IMHO. "Work out your salvation, continue on to perfection not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, the comforter will lead you into all truth, and similar verses indicate to me that if spiritual growth is to continue then our continuing commiunion with God which is revelation, must continue also.

{Bolding mine} To me that’s exactly what it is a matter of. This happens to the individual and through individuals it alters the spiritual path of others. This is what I’m talking about.

I agree with your charecterization of Jesus. A living example of what man could become. He is the living revelation of God. I can understand anyone saying “We need no other” Expecting new revelation is in no way indicating Jesus is not enough. It is rather a continuation or a renewal of the revelation of Christ, recognizing how mankind has diluted and alterd Christs’ message.
BTW in speaking of religious quests for insight it’s interesting to note that 600 years before Jesus, Buddha taught essentialy the same thing about our relationship with creation and each other.

Hmmmm, again revelation is the process by which individuals grow and in the shareing of their growth they kindle the fire in others. Looking at our current world I would say, “we pray that the universe may be moved by compassion”
There are still plenty of examples that it is not. If it is to be then it is we as the children of God and brothers and sisters of Christ who must make it so.

I understand and I don’t think we’re far from agreeing. What hits me is that God is willing to intervene every moment of every day and it is only our own choices that keep us prisoners of our fear and egos. What I would hope for is that those who profess Christ remember that “telling about Jesus” is so much more than reciting the NT story and recommending someone read it. It’s living in the spirit as completely as JC did because aside from interesting theological discussions, our lives and actions are the true reflections of what we believe and what spirit moves us. Jesus says this repeatedly. What I want is for people to realize is that an act of sincere love and compassion is just as meaningful if it comes from a Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, Protestant or Catholic. The well from which love is drawn remains the same for all.
Until we get to that point, then I think there’s room for more revelation.