Christian Salvation? by B. Steven Matthies

I recently read your article on the differences that most denominations and christians believe.

I really enjoyed the article and understand the confusion that many (including myself) have felt over what constitutes salvation.

About 5 years ago when searching the internet on salvation, I came across a site that says the bible really puts forth the idea that God will save all humans, with no exceptions.

[deleted offsite URL. -DM-]

Cordially.

Manfred

[-DM-]

Thank you for your feedback to what I assume is Christian Salvation? (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=192) by B. Steven Matthies. [Please see the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10) and note that you need to supply a title and/or author and/or a URL. Guessing doesn't always work. Note, too, that offsite URLs are generally frowned upon unless they are in direct response to the article in question.]

Regarding universal salvation: that is undoubtedly a comfortable thought for some believers, but the overwhelming scholarly opinion on what the Bible teaches (in spite of its inconsistencies) is that such is NOT the case.

-DM-

[Manfred]

Hello DM,

I will include the article titles in the future. I will need to read those forum rules again.

The title was Christian salvation by B. Steven Matthies as you stated.

I have developed a distrust concerning scholarly opinion over the years because as the article stated there are so many different views.

Also those different views never gave me any peace of mind or hope, except at those times when I felt I was being good or doing what I thought God wanted.

The seminary I attended also teaches that hell is the future of those who are not able to find out God's real truth. If someone dies without figuring out the truth they are lost forever.

It really makes God seemed meaner than either Hitler or any of histories other terrorists could ever dream of being.

I just cannot reconcile one statement I have heard that God is Love, with an eternal death that seems far worst than any sadism that humans can imagine.

I am afraid I will have to leave behind the contradictory scholarly views behind because they sound too much like Bad News rather than Good news.

[-DM-]

Originally posted by Manfred
. . . I just cannot reconcile one statement I have heard that God is Love, with an eternal death that seems far worst than any sadism that humans can imagine. . . .

That's a tough one (as are many other biblical inconsistencies with regard to the god of the Bible). Still, it seems to me that there is probably no compelling reason in this case to focus on the "love" aspect and then attempt to support the concept of universal salvation based on a few, relatively obscure biblical proof texts.

In any case, hopefully Mathies will weigh-in here.

-Don-

A few quick points:

You write: "I have developed a distrust concerning scholarly opinion over the years because as the article stated there are so many different views."

My response: Some of those scholarly views which I presented were by Christian scholars who felt that they were being guided by God. Therefore, I have developed a distrust concerning the "objective" opinions of theologians, pastors, and priests. In addition, some of those titles I cite are more akin to ready reference type sources so I hesitate in calling them "scholarly". Nonetheless, they all point out the difference in opinions regarding that which God is alleged to be guiding.

You write: "Also those different views never gave me any peace of mind or hope, except at those times when I felt I was being good or doing what I thought God wanted--I am afraid I will have to leave behind the contradictory scholarly views behind because they sound too much like Bad News rather than Good news."

My response: I suppose it is your right to only accept that which makes you feel good and ignore the rest--I know I once did. Still, if you value truth over your feelings, you may one day find yourself no longer able to ignore all the inconsistencies and contradictions--at which point I can only wish you the best in your journey, and hope that you do eventually find peace.

-BSM

[Manfred]

Hello Don,

Thanks for your reply. I have printed out The article"Christian Salvation by B.Staven Matthies so that I can read it again more carefully.

I do think that the idea that God wants to save everyone without exception is a plausible idea. It may seem far fetched because we have been taught that (1) God does not care, or (2) that he is a being waiting for us to make the right decisions or (3) that he is just plain mean, all based on what we perceive the bible to be saying.

I do not think any of these 3 explanations are satisfactory. My concern also is for others like myself who may have suffered and are still suffering mentally in any way from an attitude that we cannot rely on God.

I think there are about 6 billion people on this planet at this time.
There have been billions before us and perhaps billions who have not been born.

If we live in a universe where the creator is mean or a sadist then it is sad beyond words.

If we perceive in any way that God is love it may give us a way out of what seems to many like a meaningless existence. It may not answer our questions about suffering or war or broken relationships or sickness or pain or death but it may at least be the start of a way to see that God or the creator has a plan that will fix everything.

I do not think that passages that point out that God will save all without exception are obscure. I do not want to be disagreeable, however.

I will just point out two ideas that the man Paul is said to have written.

1 Timothy 4
10(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

Romans 5:18-19

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

The first sentence says "especially" not exclusively which seems to say there are no limitations.

The second sentence seems to be a parallel. The words "so also" are repeated twice. The context to me seems to be that one guy brought death and the other guy brought life.

No one was excluded from death and the same quantity of people will experience life.

My apologies for the length but I think our bible reading is skewed in the wrong direction and we do not live in on a planet created by a mad God who is far worst than any terrorist or ruler.

[-DM-]

Originally posted by Manfred
. . .
My apologies for the length but I think our bible reading is skewed in the wrong direction and we do not live in on a planet created by a mad God who is far worst than any terrorist or ruler.

If you believe that the Bible teaches universal salvation, then I think that your Bible reading is skewed in the wrong direction, however I agree wholeheartedly that we do not live on a planet created by a mad God who is far worse than any terrorist or ruler. It is quite obvious that the biblical creation story is hogwash and that the Bible "God" is a fiction, therefore there is little need, in my opinion, to worry about whether the Bible does or does not teach universal salvation. In other words, I agree with Matthies: the Bible is so inconsistent on this and many other important points that it can be disposed of as any sort of reliable indication of what "God" (if any) wants.

-Don-

[Manfred]

Hello Don,

I think the bible is a very misunderstood book as pointed out by Mr. Matthies. Christians I have heard and read have said it is God's word. I am going to go out on a limb and say it is not.

My reading leads me to conclude we have a very mistranslated bible written in another time and culture.

If a creator does not exist then I would have to agree with you.
However, if he hides or if he comunicates in ways we do not yet understand then we have a different situation.

"In other words, I agree with Matthies: the Bible is so inconsistent on this and many other important points that it can be disposed of as any sort of reliable indication of what "God" (if any) wants. "

I too have to agree with Matthies. On the one hand we have in the old testament a God who commands all kinds of atrocities and in the new testament Jesus saying and others saying God is love.

I am pretty much leaving the bible on the shelf even though I believe in Jesus Christ. I assume he is not a deaf/mute apart from the bible.
I likewise have to leave christianity because of I do not hear God there.

In response to Mr Matthies comment:
" I suppose it is your right to only accept that which makes you feel good and ignore the rest"

I do acknowledge that I do pick and choose. I do not understand it so I leave it alone.

I would have no better response if I became an agnostic or atheist. I would not be able to agree with evolution as a philosophy even if I thought God or the creator used evolution as a process.

Can we ask God to reveal himself?
If he is not there we will not get an answer, ever.

[-DM-]

Originally posted by Manfred
I am pretty much leaving the bible on the shelf even though I believe in Jesus Christ. I assume he is not a deaf/mute apart from the bible. . . .

Two brief comments:

1) When you say that you believe in "Jesus Christ," you are in effect declaring that he was/is, in fact, the [allegedly] promised Messiah. ("Christ" is not part of the name, but rather is a title signifying the Messiah. In my opinion, he was not the Messiah.)

2) The Bible is considered to be the only legitimate source of information about the life and teachings of Jesus. If you leave the Bible "on the shelf" (meaning that you do not trust it as a reliable source of information regarding the life and teachings of Jesus) then there is nothing to believe about Jesus other than whatever you invent for your own use.

Regards,
-Don-

[Manfred]

Hello Don,

You really have me thinking.

1) When you say that you believe in "Jesus Christ," you are in effect declaring that he was/is, in fact, the [allegedly] promised Messiah. ("Christ" is not part of the name, but rather is a title signifying the Messiah. In my opinion, he was not the Messiah.)

Are you saying that Jesus was not the Messiah or that there is no messiah since God does not exist to have sent one?

Your comment on the bible is one which I will have to think about.
I do not just want to give a knee jerk response in an argumentative way. It deserves more than that.

Manfred

[-DM-]

Originally posted by Manfred
Are you saying that Jesus was not the Messiah. . . .
Yes. Jesus failed to fulfill the requirements in his "first coming." The fulfillment of those requirements is, according to traditional Christian theology, left to the Parousia, the so-called Second-Coming (which has not taken place in the time frame which Jesus allegedly established).
. . . or that there is no messiah since God does not exist to have sent one?
I had never thought of it in this way, and while I might personally believe that, I would not use that as an argument given that the existence of "God" cannot be proven or falsified, either one.
Your comment on the bible is one which I will have to think about.
It is an important consideration, it seems to me, given that everything authentic that we allegedly know about Jesus and about the "God" of Christianity either come from or are reflected in the Bible.
I do not just want to give a knee jerk response in an argumentative way. It deserves more than that.
I appreciate your integrity. And it works both ways; probably no one on either side of the great religious divide should ever resort to argumentative, knee-jerk responses. Unfortunately, however, when one sees the same (often faulty) arguments over and over again, a knee-jerk response can become almost habit.

Regards,
-Don-

Hello Don,

I am addressing this to you even though I would appreciated others comments.

I do think that the bible has become the guiding book for christians. While I do not have final answers that I can nail down, I believe your comment that what we can know about God is "reflected in the Bible".
I have read others who think that God does not want us to live our lives from a book.

If I may post this book as an example: It is online. and free
The "Bible Only"Heresy
By Nikita Ballas

I think the bible was written in a way as to point away from itself as what we put our faith in.

Jesus is reported to have said that people thought they had eternal life in the scriptures, which seems to way that they were looking in the wrong place.

Jesus is also referred as the Word in one of the gospels (John), which is one reason why I do not believe the scriptures are the word of God, but Jesus is.

I still agree with Mr. Matthies essay even though it does not cause me to embrace atheism.

My only other comment is that it is hard to say everything that one thinks in a written forum.
I also think of myself as a heathen.
Cordially,

manfred

[-DM-]

I think the bible was written in a way as to point away from itself as what we put our faith in.Assuming for the moment that your assertion is correct, keep in mind that you couldn't come to that conclusion without the Bible, thus--in the absence of direct revelation or some such--the Bible would still be a necessity in order for you and/or for Christians to know to put their faith in other than the Bible. Jesus is reported to have said that people thought they had eternal life in the scriptures, which seems to way that they were looking in the wrong place.Of course Jesus [allegedly] goes on to say that one gains eternal life through him. Whatever he said and/or meant, however, you couldn't know that without the scriptures, of course.

You previously said, "I am pretty much leaving the bible on the shelf even though I believe in Jesus Christ." There is a major problem with that position in that you cannot know anything which is considered authentic regarding Jesus without believing at least much of what the Bible says about him (unless, of course, you claim to receive direct revelation).Jesus is also referred as the Word in one of the gospels (John), which is one reason why I do not believe the scriptures are the word of God, but Jesus is.Again, you couldn't know that without the scriptures. In the absence of direct revelation, there is no source of information other than the Bible which is considered authentic with regard to "God" and/or Jesus. Further, the authenticity of direct revelation is questioned by many believers. And finally, depending on the exact translation, Paul seems to indicate that all scripture is inspired by "God" [2 Timothy 3.16]. Of course, at the time that Paul allegedly said that, there were only the Old Testament scriptures.I still agree with Mr. Matthies essay even though it does not cause me to embrace atheism.Mr. Matthies essay should call into question the requirements for salvation, but not necessarily lead to atheism.My only other comment is that it is hard to say everything that one thinks in a written forum.Yes, it is. The written word in a forum such as this does have some advantages over a private conversation between two people, however, in that it can be seen and evaluated by a number of others. Further, it is more or less permanent, and it can be read and reread.I also think of myself as a heathen.Believe me, I understand what it means to be "a heathen." On the other hand, if you consider yourself a Christian of any sort--and it seems that you do given your statement: "I am pretty much leaving the bible on the shelf even though I believe in Jesus Christ"--then I wouldn't consider you a heathen given the common definitions of "heathen."

Regards,
-Don-

[Manfred]

Hello Don,

You are right. Your comments are helping me to refine my thinking as well as to try and communicate better.

I should not have written I have put the bible on the shelf as if I do not refer to it. My own views on scripture are in a state of flux.

My concern is more with the ideas of inerrancy and an infallible bible, which I do not agree with. I do agree with you that Paul's reference to scripture could have only been what we refer to as the Old Testament.

I do see scripture as a reference tool, though one has to deal with different translation issues and also with a document written in another culture and time.

I also believe that God does give direct revelation, though I have only had one instance where that was in the form of words that I could not have thought of or with such immediacy.

I just do not want to use the bible as a rulebook for life.
The article I referred to previously gives a better view than I could.

I am using the word heathen from scripture. (smile)

Psalm 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

Cordially,
Manfred

[-DM-]

Manfred:

I have enjoyed this discussion with you. When you sign "cordially," it really means what it says. You have been very cordial here, and I appreciate that. I have never seen any reason that people with different viewpoints, even entirely different worldviews, cannot remain cordial in discussing their views. I appreciate that you have been.

What is referred to by those who have experienced it as "direct revelation" is, to me, an interesting phenomenon. But many of the same problems exist with direct revelation as with Bible translation and interpretation in that so-called direct revelation often leads people to very different gods and/or different ideas about the same "God." It wouldn't be so bad if these different gods and/or different ideas about "God" were mutually compatible, but often they are not. Instead, they are too often mutually exclusive. I therefore tend to disbelieve them as actual revelations from "God" or a god given that the only ways of explaining these alleged revelations would be to admit that there are several, different, competing gods revealing themselves through direct revelation--or else the vast majority of these so-called direct revelations are, in reality, something else.

We recently had some painting done here at our place. The painter saw me at work in my tiny office and became curious about what I was doing. He asked me a few questions. I then asked him about his religious beliefs (which was a big mistake in terms of getting painting done in a timely fashion). He spent the better part of the two days that he was here telling me about his three supernatural experiences, how he has come to know "God," and what he now "knows" as a result of the questions that he has asked and the answers he has gotten from "God." Trouble is, his "God" is not much like the Bible "God"--or the god of any other organized religion--and although Jesus figures into the scheme of things, he could not be called the Savior or Messiah in the way that Christians think of him as Savior and Messiah. This particular "God," by the way, saves everyone (which goes along with what you originally posted).

In addition to the problem of inconsistencies between one so-called direct revelation and the next (just as there are inconsistencies in the Bible) there is also the problem that it would be grossly unfair--even reprehensible--in my opinion for "God" to directly reveal himself only to a select few. (This is the problem of "divine hiddenness," by the way, which forms the basis for one of the arguments against the existence of "God.") My belief is that if a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, personal, loving "God" existed, we would all know it. There would be no need for evangelists, apologists, apologetic websites, this website, and so on; it would be reprehensible for such an omni "God" to be the hide-and-go-seek champion of the universe (as "He" now is, if "He" exists at all).

Regards,
-Don-

[Manfred]

Hello Don,

I have to agree with you that many of the direct revelation writings that I have seen do disagree with each other. I have believed that there may be as many explanations as there are people who have these "revelations".

I sometimes try to weed though the ones that I have read about. One was from a lady who claimed see was given a revelation of eternal hell.
She wrote a book on it.
Her "revelation" was interesting since I do not believe in any hell of eternal, never ending duration.

The God that I believe in does not need an eternal prison to prove or make a point or to punish. To me it would make more sense to reconcile all of creation and humankind to himself and each other and nature, however we might define that.

I do share your disbelief to some degree however.
My own so called personal revelation was in the form of a question, which I was unable to answer. After prayer some 35 years ago the question: {How much do you want me?} popped into my mind. I have not been able to answer it with much conviction to this day, though I do not think about it every day. I assumed it was from the Lord. I will just leave it at that.

Your comment below was one I also have thought about. Other people claim to have heard from God but I have not. It made me feel like there was something wrong with me. I must be too bad or unbelieving.

"there is also the problem that it would be grossly unfair--even reprehensible--in my opinion for 'God' to directly reveal himself only to a select few."

The only other answer that I have read or heard has been that God has chosen a few to get to the rest of us. Jesus only had 12 close associates and they all hauled butt when Jesus was arrested, but they came back after his resurrection.

A question I have had was; what would turn 12 or 11 cowardly men into guys who were willing to go to prison or even be killed if they had not had some sort of change of mind?
I have always thought they saw Jesus after he was clearly dead, alive and eating fish.
That is from the bible I previously put on the shelf.

I am inclined to think that God promotes our distance from him.
The scripture [smile] in Romans 11:32 that God has consigned all men to disobedience so that he can have mercy upon all, is one that seems to say God has some mysterious plan underway.

If that is the case, I for one wish he could have done it without so much hell here on earth for people. If he is sovereign then it is his fault and he is responsible.

If this thread becomes too far removed from Mr. Matthies article I will be glad to start another thread.

Cordially,

Manfred

[-DM-]

Manfred:

I have only a few comments. What would turn 11 or 12 cowardly men into guys who were willing to go to prison or even be killed if they had not had some sort of change of heart? First of all, what we have of the story is secondhand or thirdhand hearsay testimony. Given the inconsistencies in detail in the stories, it is difficult to know what to believe and what to discard as fiction. However, assuming even that the stories are true, I have no doubt that people are willing to die for what they believe given Masada, the Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate, Muslim terrorists, etc. What this proves is the power of belief, and that is all.

Regarding direct revelation to a chosen few, my take on it is that if a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, personal, loving "God" really existed, we would know it. The "chosen few," evangelists, apologists, ministers, etc., etc. would be completely superfluous. It would be so completely reprehensible for such a "God" to remain the hide-and-go-seek champion of the universe that it would be a contradiction of his alleged goodness and involvement with humankind on a personal level.

Regards,
-Don-

P.S. This is beginning to stray quite far from Mr. Matthies' article. Perhaps we should bring this discussion to end, although feel free to have the last word. Inasmuch as you are now a registered user, you could discuss these same issues in General Religious Discussions.

Hello Manfred,

Before Don concludes this thread I felt compelled to post a few final comments.

<<< I still agree with Mr. Matthies essay even though it does not cause me to embrace atheism.>>>

Though some may disagree with me, in my opinion, atheism is nothing more than a factual premise; therefore, there is nothing to embrace. In fact, I suppose the longer I look at the evidence which I feel supports a "natural" world over a theistic one, the closer I come to giving up my so-called empirical agnosticism.

<<<I do acknowledge that I do pick and choose. I do not understand it so I leave it alone. I would have no better response if I became an agnostic or atheist. I would not be able to agree with evolution as a philosophy even if I thought God or the creator used evolution as a process. >>>

Fair enough, evolution appears to be a topic that is out of both our areas of expertise. I guess the real question I have for you is precisely what my essay was touching on: what do you base your "picking and choosing" on?

<<<Her "revelation" was interesting since I do not believe in any hell of eternal, never ending duration.

The God that I believe in does not need an eternal prison to prove or make a point or to punish. To me it would make more sense to reconcile all of creation and humankind to himself and each other and nature, however we might define that.>>>

I have a friend who is what I teasingly refer to as a "deist in denial". Though that may not be the most accurate description of him, I do think it has a nice ring. In any event, much like you, he's reached the point where he is questioning the god of Christianity. In fact, he has told me time and time again that despite all of the conflicting and contrary evidence, he wants to believe in the notion of "a god" because it gives him comfort.

Reading many of your comments reminds me of him. So, I'm going to tell you what I told him though I'll be the first to admit that I don't have "the answers". First, if you haven't already, you should read "The Will to Believe" by William James. Though that particular essay is full of what I would consider "difficulties", it does present an example of what I think both you and my friend are experiencing. Among other things, James believed that if we are presented with two hypotheses and there is not enough evidence to affirm or deny either, rather than suspend our judgment, we should pick the one that makes us feel the best. For the time being, my friend appears to be siding with James and the notion of a kind god that will reward him with an eternity of bliss, as opposed to his wavering health in the here and now. Given my friend's medical situation, I can't help but wonder sometimes if emotion does outweighs reason in this one instance.

Regarding James, Bertrand Russell once said: "What we need is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out."

In effect, for Russell and many non-theists, the philosophy behind the "the wish to find out" seems to be more emotionally satisfying than the will to believe. In fact, based on my former theism, I think that this disagreement tends to be one of the major points of contention between theist and non-theist. Though I'm not sure how I'd react if faced with a serious medical issue, I will say that I finally reached the point where the "wish to find out" did outweigh the "will to believe", and I am now quite content. So much so in fact that life has become even more precious to me--especially in regards to how I spend my own time and energy. Keeping with my own dogma, I had to be honest with my friend and tell him exactly where I stood on the god issue, despite wanting to side with James for the sake of my friend's feelings. Luckily, we are still friends and have agreed to disagree.

In any event, I have enjoyed reading the dialogue between you and Don, and am glad my meager essay has made you reflect on your own beliefs.

Sincerely,

-BSM

PS: I did find one article in the Secular Web's library that you may find of interest. There may be more but I don't have the time for an exhaustive search.

See: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_obrien/gentle/atheism7.html

[Manfred]

Hello Mr. Matthies,

I have enjoyed this conversation and your article. I also read the article on William James that you suggested.


In response to your question:
"I guess the real question I have for you is precisely what my essay was touching on: what do you base your "picking and choosing" on?"

I base my choosing is based on what seems reasonable to me. Since I have to make my own decisions about life and the conflicting views of the "scholars and theologians" I have decided to follow my own truth or truth as I see it. I alone am responsible for my choices.

Your article pointed out the discrepancies concerning how people are saved according to the 30000 different denominations.

My own views and the views of many articles and at least two books I have read are that God will save everyone.

I can only describe myself as a rebel christian or a believer in Christ apart from christianity. I separate the two.

I will probably join in a thread in the General Religious Discussions that Don suggested. I do tend to ramble all over the place.

Thank you for a great article.

Cordially

Manfred

[Petetsi]

As an occasional lurker I was struck by the similarity between the current "Christian Salvation?" article written by B. Steven Matthies, and that written under the pseudonym, "Thomas Doubting," earlier this year I believe.

This is not a complaint, I believe both - or is it the same authors have something useful to say about the current confused state of Christian Salvation for those who are not committed to a particular denomination.

I was just curious if it was common practice for II to repeat articles without reference to previous appearances, with the only difference being perhaps the endnotes and the author's names?

I do want to add that II provides an invaluable service. There are those like me who are not comfortable enough to participate on the boards but lurk to seek a counterbalance to the many well meaning family and friends and a culture who largely sees only the virtues Christianity.

Thanks -

[-DM-]

Petetsi:

This is the same article and the same author, which--as the Editor's Note on the What's New on the Secular Web? (http://www.infidels.org/new.shtml) page notes--was originally published in March of 2002.

Is it "common practice for II to repeat articles without reference to previous appearances, with the only difference being perhaps the endnotes and the author's names?" Generally speaking, there is no "common practice" involving the republication of Feature articles given that republication of Feature articles is rare.

Several circumstances are involved in this one instance: the author decided some time ago to use his actual name rather than the pen name that he had been using; there have been very few Kiosk submissions in the past several months; none of the recent Kiosk submissions was considered to be worthy of publication as a Feature article; "Christian Salvation?" is well-researched, it created quite a stir the first time around, and it seemed worthy of republication. But I probably should have added an "Editor's Note" to the article itself; I'll do so shortly.

Regards,
-DM-

[atheist_in_foxhole]

I really enjoyed reading "Christian Salvation." The author did a great job of illustrating the chaos and insanity we find within the One True Religion of Christianity.

[a different belief]

I really enjoyed you article Christian Salvation?
by B. Steven Matthies
.
Well done.
I will tell you that I am a Christ follower,but I am not any of the types you mentioned in this article.
I believe Jesus is who he said he was.the big difference in my belief,and that of the other tens of thousands of beliefs is I believe Jesus saved the whole world.I do not believe there is an eternal hell.
I believe these truths are in the bible if one decides to dig a little deeper.
I believe and can show much evidence that the early church taught this very thing.
Paul,who wrote two thirds of the N.T. never once mentioned the word HELL.If avoiding this so called horrible was so important don't we think that Paul would've warned us how to not go there at least once?

We all fell with Adam{human race] and we were all raised with Christ.
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive".{1Co 15:22}
Jesus removed Sin(not sinning) from the whole world.
"Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."{Joh 1:29}

The sins of the whole world were paid for once and FOR ALL.
"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."{1Jo 2:2}

We all get in.There is no hell.It matters not what yo believe to get to heaven.
Everybody from Hitler to Mother Teresa is a child of God and get's in.

There's no confusion in this doctrine.We don't need to worry about what we must do to be saved.Jesus saved the world.
"......because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men......." {1Ti 4:10}

This is why there will be no tears in heaven will be there.Even old uncle Bob who was a heathen.

I can show 1,000 scriptures even in the poorly translated KJV that prove this.

So......all is well with everybody.God is in control and his plans are always perfect and are for the best for all he loved.And He loved the whole world.So......He made sure to it that all come home in the end.
Doesn't matter if you are a devil worshipper ,or believe in the man in the moon,you're getting in.
Now that is the love of God for ya,and love never fails !

Peace,

Kurt

[B. Steven Matthies]

Thanks for positive commentary!

Call that essay my David Hume response to denominations in that after examining their conflicting dogma, a rational person has to consider it all nonsense. As one example of the confusion I cite Billy Graham's accounting of Hell which is a separation from God. Recently, I read his newspaper column and he appears to contradict himself by describing hell as eternal "physical" and mental torture. Though I am unable to find the article online, I can still find Graham making several references to Hell as being a separation from God and he describes the "torment" as not physical but rather as mental suffering from being away from the presence of God. One such example is HERE (http://www.billygraham.org/qna/qna.asp?i=3519)

Yet HERE (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?Id=375) R. Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, describes Hell as a very real place of torture and suffering--not separation. Too bad that the Pope, Mohler (a Baptist), Graham (a Baptist), and God can't sit down and get this all straight before they pontificate on how we are saved from a place that they can't seem to agree on!

Of course, as Graham would say HERE (http://www.billygraham.org/qna/qna.asp?i=3619) we can't fully understand the glory of heaven or the horrors of Hell, yet despite not knowing, we should avoid one and try to achieve the other! (All the while not even considering the other umpteem hundred competing world religions and their respective holy books!)

Someday if I can find the time and patience, I may have to sit down and try to update that essay to better capture all the denominational confusion on heaven, hell, etc. Nonetheless, as a former Christian, my examination helped me to deprogram myself from Christianity's fear-based conditioning.

Thanks for reading!

[Edited only to revise URL in one link. -DM-]

[B. Steven Matthies]

Kurt,

Thanks for taking the time to read what I wrote. That being said, I do not have the time to comment on every point you make so I'll limit myself to those points that I find interesting:

First, you mention that the KJ version is "poorly translated." On this I cannot authoritatively comment because I am not a biblical scholar. What I do know is that what we call the Bible is made up of copies of manuscripts for which no originals have ever been found. Since no originals manuscripts of any of the books of the Bible (you pick the version) have ever been found, it's somewhat problematic to assert that any one version is poorly translated. Of course, you may mean that the KJV was poorly translated from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts (of which no originals exist) that we currently possess. Whether this is true or not I cannot say because I cannot read Hebrew or Greek. Now if you can read Hebrew and Greek and have compared what manuscripts we currently have with the KJV, well, then I have to defer to your authority on the matter.

Despite these points, you also write:

"I can show 1,000 scriptures even in the poorly translated KJV that prove this."

Based on this sentence I will assume that you believe the KJV version is accurate enough to be understood by man? Thus, what scripture I quote will come from the KJV.

You write:

"Paul, who wrote two thirds of the N.T. never once mentioned the word HELL."

Taken with the rest of your response I have to think you believe in some sort of curious form of Pauline predestination. That is, according to a Kurtian interpretation of Paul, we are all saved period! This, of course, contradicts what is written in the poorly translated KJV. In fact, many Christians (me included when I was a Christian) interpret Paul's version of salvation as being mixture of God's grace and faith. In fact, these verses seem to support this notion:

Rom 3:20, Rom 3:28, Rom 4:5, Gal 2:16, and Eph 2:8, etc.

In effect, one could argue that to be saved according to Paul, we still have to believe (i.e., have "faith") in the alleged sacrifice that Jesus made, which was given to us via God's grace. Thus, salvation still requires active participation on our parts, which means that 2/3'rds of the earth's population is bound for a conflicting version of the Christian hell.

Regardless of what you believe concerning Paul, I have to wonder if you are aware that right after the death of Jesus, Pauline Christianity was not the only game in town. One such example would be the Jewish Christians, which were led by James, brother of Jesus, and the disciples. In fact, Pauline Christianity and Jewish Christianity (the latter died out) do not agree on many points including who or what Jesus was. Whatever the case, as far as I can remember from the poorly translated Bible, Paul NEVER actually met Jesus. In fact, Pauline Christianity is based on whatever was "revealed" to Paul in his "vision" from God on the road to Damascus (how one verifies this vision as credible is beyond me). Thus, one could make the argument that those who actually knew him (i.e., James, the disciples, etc.) might have a better take on Jesus and his views concerning salvation. Following this line of reasoning we can turn to Jesus himself to see what he said regarding salvation:

According to Matt. 19:16, to be saved, Jesus requires us to keep most of the Commandments and also give to the poor. In Matt. 5:17-18 Jesus once again places an emphasis on keeping the Commandments. Even James, brother of Jesus, stresses the Commandments and salvation via works: James 2:8, James 2:14, and James 2:21, etc. So, based on what James and Jesus say, Kurtian Christianity appears to be wrong and we are NOT all saved.

Whatever the case, my essay and your comments beg this question: Why would an all-knowing and all-powerful god inspire men to write a book that is so convoluted, contradictory, "poorly translated," and wrongly followed by so many?

Regards,

-B

[-DM-]

I would like to add my two cents worth with regard to one comment made by the author...

Originally posted by B. Steven Matthies
Whatever the case, my essay and your comments beg this question: Why would an all-knowing and all-powerful god inspire men to write a book that is so convoluted, contradictory, "poorly translated," and wrongly followed by so many?That is an excellent question.

My take on the answer to that question is that it would be idiotic for a perfect and omnipotent "God" to inspire--or have anything to do with--a book which was so imperfectly understood and/or imperfectly translated as to provide its readers with stumbling blocks which thwarted His alleged purposes. Such a "God" could not be considered both perfect and omnipotent.

Keep in mind that a perfect and omnipotent "God" would have no trouble seeing to it that his revelations were correctly translated and clearly understood. That such is not the case indicates, so far as I am concerned, that the Bible cannot possibly be the inspiration of a perfect and omnipotent "God," in which case it cannot be trusted to tell us what we would need to know about "God," Jesus, salvation or anything else.

-DM-

[Kydka]

It is also conceivable that the Christian god is actually omnipotent, or even mostly potent and that all the chaos and misunderstanding of the bible was his intent and thus he would not be idiot but rather nonchalance or hostile towards humanity.

A different belief: Just as a side note I like your version of Christianity. If I had been raised up with that I might still be a Christian now. (Not to say that I wish I were one.) Of course, the Bible would have had to have been majorly re-edited so that it could have been more coherant with the mentioned verses removed.

If that was the dogma of the moment there probably would be a lot less fear and problems caused now, in my opinion.

[-DM-]

Originally posted by Kydka
It is also conceivable that the Christian god is actually omnipotent, or even mostly potent and that all the chaos and misunderstanding of the bible was his intent and thus he would not be idiot but rather nonchalance or hostile towards humanity.Yes, but such a God would not be both perfect and omnipotent, as the "God" of Christianity and the Bible allegedly is. A "God" who did not always tell the truth could not rightly be considered perfect.

-DM-

[Kydka]

Originally posted by -DM-
Yes, but such a God would not be both perfect and omnipotent, as the "God" of Christianity and the Bible allegedly is. A "God" who did not always tell the truth could not rightly be considered perfect.

-DM-

Well, I agree if perfect is defined as of unable to be more desireable and suitable for humanity from humanity's perspective. Obviously I misunderstood the context, my mistake.

[Petetsi]

-DM-

Thank you for your response. I perhaps understated my praise for B. Steven Matthies article at least as much as I may have overstated my concern about a lack of an editorial note regarding the reprinting of his article.

I have used the arguments in B. Steven Matthies excellent article as well as those in the excellent series, "The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's 'Evidence'", edited by Jeffery Jay Lowder. Particularly those of Ed Babinski's brilliant rebuttal of McDowell's chapter on "Uniqueness of the Christian Experience".

In his 76 page article he includes this gem with respect to the current state Christian unity on the essential questions:

"McDowell does not even begin to deal with the fact that today there are over 20,000 different Christian denominations missonary groups and organizations (according to the Encyclopedia of Christianity) [ed. Now nearly 40,000]. Indeed, within the religion known as "Christianity" there are nearly as infinite a variety of sects (each with their own weird beliefs and practices) as in Hinduism: From silent Trappist monks and quiet Quakers - to hell raisers and snake handlers; From those who "hear the Lord" telling them to run for president, seek diamonds in Uganda or sell "holy" cosmetics - to those who have visions of Mary, the saints, or experience bleeding stigmata; From those who believe the communion bread and wine remain just that - to those who believe the bread and wine are miraculously transformed into "invisible" flesh and blood (and can vouch for it with stories of communion wafers turning into human flesh and wine curdling into blood cells during Mass); From predestinationists to free will-ers; From universalists to damnationists; From Christian monks and priests who have gained insights into their own faith after dialoging with Buddhist monks and Hindu priests - to Christians who view Eastern religious ideas and practices as "Satanic"; From castrati (boys who sang in Catholic choirs and underwent castration to keep their voices high) - to Protestant choirs (singing Luther's hymn, "A Mighty Fortress is Our God," which was based on the melody of a drinking song) - all the way to "Christian reggae" and "Christian rap music;" From Christians who reject any behavior that even mimics "what homosexuals do" (including a rejection of fellatio and cunnilingus between husband and wife) - to Christians who accept committed, loving, homosexual relationships (including gay evangelical Church groups); From Catholic nuns and Amish women who dress to cover their bodies - to Christian nudists, and born-again strippers; From those who believe sending out missionaries to persuade others to become Christians is essential - to those (like the Anti-Mission Baptists) who believe that sending out missionaries and trying to persuade others constitutes a lack of faith and the sin of pride, and that the founding of "extra-congregational" missionary organizations is not Biblical; From Christians who believe Easter should be celebrated on one date (Roman Catholics) - to Christians who believe Easter should be celebrated on another date (Eastern Orthodox), which resulted in the Roman Catholics excommunicating all the Christians of the Eastern Roman Empire; From Christians who worship on Sunday - to Christians who worship on Saturday (the Hebrew "sabbath day" that God said to "keep holy" according to one of the Ten Commandments) - to Christians who believe their daily walk with "God" and love of their fellow man is far more important than church attendance; From Christians who stress "God's commands" to those who stress "God's love;" From those who teach that obeying the Bible's command to be "baptized with water as an adult believer" is an essential sign of salvation - to those who deny it is; From those who teach that "baptism in the Holy Spirit" along with "speaking in tongues" are important signs of salvation - to those who deny they are (some of whom see mental and Satanic delusions in all modern accounts of "Spirit baptism" and "tongue-speaking"); From those who believe that avoiding alcohol, smoking, gambling, dancing, "contemporary Christian music," movies, television, long hair (on men), etc., are all important "signs" of being "truly" saved - to those who believe you need only trust in Jesus as your personal savior to be saved; From Christians who believe sticking one's nose in politics is wrong - to coup d'etat Christians; From "stop the bomb" Christians to "drop the bomb" Christians; From "social Gospel" Christians to "uncompromised Gospel" Christians; From pro-slavery Christians to anti-slavery Christians; From Christians who wave their Bibles above their white hoods - to Christians "in the hood" who march for equal rights for people of all colors; From Christians who worry most about doctors taking fetal lives - to those who worry most about doctors of religion raising questions that might "abort" a young person's faith and their eternal life.

The history of Christianity is the history of controversies too innumerable to mention. Moreover, within each major "Christian" denomination there are fundamentalists, conservatives, moderates, liberals, and "everything in between," including those who are conservative on some subjects and liberal on others. There are Christians in the same churches who disagree on interpretations from Genesis to Revelation - from how (and when) the world began - to how (and when) it will end, all according to the same Bible."

According to both these authors Christianity has created its own Tower of Babel not only with respect the variety of salvation strategies but where we will end up in eternity.

THANK GOD I'M AN AGNOSTIC

I believe most of our opinions about religion in general and Christianity in particular are forged in the crucible of personal experiences with mostly well meaning theists and Christians in particular, who simply want us to agree with their POV out of a true concern if not compassion for us in general.

Until recently my knowledge of and concern for religion was rudimentary. Over the years my response to religion was reduced to quips and one-liners: I was an agnostic because atheists had no holidays; as a Catholic I had learned that God loved the poor and gave to the rich; and that the meek shall inherit the earth because that is the only way they were ever going to get it.

Latter when I became a Jew as a result of marriage (in ten easy lessons) I learned that if Moses had gone just a few extra miles we would have had all the oil. And that the Bible was all true except for the parts that were made up and that the only world that won't disappoint you is the one that you make up.

That all changed when the two owners of the company I had worked for suddenly declared themselves "born-again" Christians and our company a "Christian Company".

What soon followed was an aggressive hiring campaign with the owner's church seemingly serving as an employment agency. After a year we nearly doubled in size with all new employees being evangelical Christians. Monday morning sales meetings now began with a prayer and although we weren't forced to participate it felt odd indeed. Then there were the voluntary Wednesday devotionals (testimonials) that may have started 15 minutes before business hours but would often last an hour or more. That left those who were not participating to run the business.

"It's just another day in paradise". The words cheerfully uttered after a Wednesday devotional by our born-again company president and owner, still crackles with the force of irony. He carried a copy of "The Leadership Wisdom of Jesus" and I also remember him holding a copy of the Christian version of the Yellow Pages. Clearly he intended to do business with other companies who identified themselves as "Christian companies".

Some were buoyed by these turn of events. Others were threatened. I was hopeful. Like many boomers facing the end game perhaps he too discovered that the best things in life aren't things. That when you're lying on your deathbed you never look back and wish you had spent more time at the office. It wasn't long before all of us were disappointed.

I found myself part of a loose but increasingly besieged group of employees made up of a loose coalition of agnostics, atheists, secular and observant Jews, cafeteria style Catholics, salad bar Protestants and the ultimate spiritual grab baggers of them all New Ager's. In addition there were others who didn't seem to have a strong opinion on the matter except for their distaste for anything the bosses did.

To many of us our principal owner was a typical scam artist: High intelligence, with superior social skills and a gift for, if not an addiction for deception--particularly self-deception. Our owner was the king of greed and this was just one more thing he could buy: afterlife insurance at the Church of the Second Chance.
There was no reasoning with this group which would require a thread and a half to explain. I am convinced that after their conversion so much of their personal identities were tied up in their beliefs that any criticism was tantamount to insulting loved family members (like insulting their mothers).

Not that a number of us didn't try. We tried as best we could to bring our company back as sales began to stagnate (IOHO) as a result of a form of Taliban management: Scripture would often justify management decisions; taking the "Lords name in vane" or using a term like "God damn" would result in fines; God would communicate with our owner (usually in the shower) about what the proper course of our business should be.

A number of us went about tilting at windmills trying vainly to bring our company into the 21st century. I personally preached the value of a more secular approach such as Open Book Management to the owners, only to ironically identify with the plight of the Christian Missionary. It is the story of a Christian Missionary who was sent out among a tribe of cannibals to convert them. All the cannibals gathered around and sat riveted in awe, wonder and amazement as the Missionary eloquently laid out a vision of God's glorious kingdom to come--then they ate him.

Regards
-P-

[steve hays]

Steven Matthies recently posted an article attacking the coherence of Christian doctrine in Scripture and tradition. His critique calls for a few comments:

1. It isn't self-evident how disagreement between Christians or cult-members is a particular embarrassment to the Christian faith. This criticism either proves too much or too little. If it disproves Christianity, then it also disproves humanism (one could set up a parallel chart of secular ideologies). If it doesn't disprove humanism, how does it disprove Christianity?

How does disagreement impugn Scripture as the rule of faith? When students make mistakes on a math exam, does that impugn the multiplication tables? When students misspell words, does that impugn the dictionary?

2. I've also never understood the sort of logic which blames one group for the contrary beliefs of another. How am I responsible for what someone else's chooses to believe?

Yes, cult-members also claim to be Christian. So what? You have contrary claims in secular humanism. Who is the true Communist -- Lenin or Trotsky? Who is the true Darwinian -- Dawkins or Gould? Who is the true Democrat -- Dean or Clark? What is the true form of socialism? Fabianism or Owenism?

To paraphrase Matthies, I can understand following along blindly without knowing about these ideological differences. Still after a thorough examination of the evidence, it is literally beyond me how anyone can keep their faith in secular humanism._

3. Logically speaking, if two people disagree about something, all that means is that either one or both are wrong. It also allows for one to be right.

4. Regarding his list of contradictory Bible verses, Matthies has a penchant for false dichotomies.

i) He sets up a false antithesis between divine and human agency. But this involves a subordinate, not coordinate relation. One doesn't cancel out the other. Rather, divine predestination is the cause of the human response. Grace is the cause of faith and fidelity. A Calvinist would add that divisions as well as unions are predestined.

ii) He sets up a false antithesis between grace and the means of grace. This assumes that God is unable to operate through second causes. What is the basis of that assumption?

iii) He opposes Mt 7:7-8 to Mt 7:14. But how is it inconsistent to say that salvation is available for those who desired it, but limited to the chosen few? All that means is that only a chosen few desire it. There's no formal contradiction here.

iv) He opposes faith and hearing. But in order to believe something, you have to have heard of it (especially in an oral culture). What could be simpler?

v) He opposes faith and prayer. But calling on the name of the Lord is an expression of faith.

vi) Mk 16:16 is no part of the original Gospel. He needs to bone up on a bit of textual criticism.

vii) He assumes that water always refers to baptism. But water is a common spiritual metaphor in Scripture.

viii) He lumps everything together under the catchall category of salvation. This doesn't distinguish between different elements of salvation (e.g., regeneration, justification, sanctification), or between one author's usage or another's, or between Biblical usage and contemporary evangelism. If I were a lit. major writing an essay on comparative literature, I'd have to be sensitive to the nuances of each writer.

5. Regarding different denominational beliefs, these are just variants or combinations of a few basic positions. If you believe that salvation is by grace alone, then that's pretty simple. But if you believe that human merit in some way enters into the attainment of salvation, then there are any number of ways of splitting the difference. How you answer one question raises other questions. If you answer No to grace alone, then things get complicated in a hurry.

As I've argued in an essay (at Thirdmill.org), all the variations come down to how you answer four basic questions: Is the Bible the only rule of faith? Is the NT continuous with the OT? Does man have freewill? Are the sacraments a means of grace? So it boils down to 4 answers, not 40 or 400.

6. As to the doctrine of hell and ordination of women, this is basically a liberal/conservative issue. Conservatives take the traditional position. This doesn't reflect endless divisions, but a liberal/conservative divide.

7. As to the Trinity, the church formally defined the Trinity because the church found the Trinity in the Bible. Creeds presuppose prior faith and a prior object of faith.

As to pre-Christian Jews, they were held responsible for believing the revelation available to them. Revelation is progressive.

As to pre-Christian pagans, they were hellbound, not because they didn't believe in the Trinity, but because they were graceless sinners.

Steve Hays

[-DM-]

Steve:

Thank you for your feedback regarding Christian Salvation? (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=192) by B. Steven Matthies (http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/author.asp?AuthorID=578). E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response from him following this post. In the meantime, my two cents worth on a couple of your points.

steve hays:
1. It isn't self-evident how disagreement between Christians or cult-members is a particular embarrassment to the Christian faith. This criticism either proves too much or too little. If it disproves Christianity, then it also disproves humanism (one could set up a parallel chart of secular ideologies). If it doesn't disprove humanism, how does it disprove Christianity?Christianity is allegedly a God-revealed religion; humanism is not. The God of Christianity is allegedly perfect and omnipotent; the founders and leaders of humanism are not. The disagreements between Christians on exactly what is and is not required for salvation is an embarrassment to the Christian faith for the reason that such disagreements thwart God's alleged purposes; this is not what we would expect in the case of a God who is both perfect AND omnipotent, whereas it is to be expected that any purely human endeavor, such as humanism, would have its variations and disagreements.

steve hays:
3. Logically speaking, if two people disagree about something, all that means is that either one or both are wrong. It also allows for one to be right.With approx. 40,000 denominations and cults claiming to be "Christian," the chance of a person finding the one(s) which are "right" is not very good. Certainly if a perfect and omnipotent "God" wanted something of his creatures, He could have, should have, and, in my opinion, would have done a better job of making clear just what it was that he wanted--including exactly what is and isn't required for salvation.

--

I'll leave the points specific to Matthies' essay for his response.

-DM-

[steve hays]

Dear DM,

Regarding your two-point rebuttal, both your replies are variations on the same basic objection: disagreement over the meaning of Scripture would thwart the purposes of an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God on behalf of his creatures.

This objection conceals some unspoken and therefore unargued assumptions about God's purpose for humanity. For one thing, it seems to assume that such a God would have a common purpose for everyone such that if everyone does not agree, his will is frustrated. That objection might have some purchase for a libertarian theology (a la open theism, Arminianism). But I don't see that it generates any internal tension in, say, Calvinism, according to which God's redemptive designs have a restricted target audience.

For another thing, it apparently assumes that if God is perfect, then the object of God's redemptive designs must have a perfect theology in order to be saved. This is a non sequitur. To begin with, rational creatures naturally vary in their intellectual aptitudes and opportunities. In addition, the object of redemption is, by definition, a sinner, and therefore liable to certain moral impediments to his understanding. The fact, therefore, that true believers may disagree on this or that point and fall short of a full and fully accurate grasp of the truth is not inconsistent with the Biblical doctrines of God and man, nature and grace.

To put it as a Calvinist, the elect will find what they need to find, by the providential guidance of God. People can do the will of God without knowing it. Once again, your objection seems to take for granted a libertarian framework.

I would add that there is an important distinction between what various denominations deem to be required of salvation, and what God requires of salvation. Whether or not someone is saved hinges on whether God is satisfied with his faith, and not whether a given denomination is satisfied with his faith.

[-DM-]

steve hays:
[Your] objection conceals some unspoken and therefore unargued assumptions about God's purpose for humanity.As does your feedback.

For one thing, it seems to assume that such a God would have a common purpose for everyone such that if everyone does not agree, his will is frustrated.1) If we are going to take the Bible as revealing the will of "God," then it seems that "God" does, in fact, have at least some common purposes. Some examples:

--

The so-called Ten Commandments (although there are three versions).

IS 45.22 "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other."

JN 3:17 God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. [Emphasis mine.]

JN 6:28-29 Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

MT 18:14 "Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish."

1 TI 2:3-4 God ... desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [Emphasis mine.]

1 TI 2:6 Christ Jesus, ... gave himself as a ransom for all.

2 TI 2:13 If we are faithless, he remains faithful--for he cannot deny himself.

2 PE 3:9 The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. [Emphasis mine.]

--

2) If "God" has any common purposes at all and if those common purposes involve specific action on the part of individuals, as seems to be the case, then the means of attaining those purposes needs to be made clear lest those purposes be frustrated.

--

(You could argue, of course, that the examples cited are not intended to be common purposes, but if you did, you would be providing yet another example of the confusion involving biblical interpretation and the significance of that confusion for understanding what "God's" purposes are.)


That objection might have some purchase for a libertarian theology (a la open theism, Arminianism). But I don't see that it generates any internal tension in, say, Calvinism, according to which God's redemptive designs have a restricted target audience.That "God's" redemptive designs might have a restricted target audience as compared to that "God" would prefer that no one perish is a good example of one of the more obvious doctrinal differences based on differing interpretations of the Bible. Unless "God" is something of a chameleon (which is contrary to the Christian doctrine that I learned when I was a Christian), these two differing interpretations cannot both be correct.

For another thing, it apparently assumes that if God is perfect, then the object of God's redemptive designs must have a perfect theology in order to be saved.Hardly. What is assumed is that one must be able to correctly ascertain the requirements for salvation in order to know what those requirements are and to be assured of salvation.

This is a non sequitur.The non sequitur that you see is based on a straw man position.

To begin with, rational creatures naturally vary in their intellectual aptitudes and opportunities. In addition, the object of redemption is, by definition, a sinner, and therefore liable to certain moral impediments to his understanding.This would include you, of course. Based on your contention, then, you cannot be certain that your understanding is correct. If I were to agree with your contention, then I would have no good reason to put stock in your interpretations.

The fact, therefore, that true believers may disagree on this or that point and fall short of a full and fully accurate grasp of the truth is not inconsistent with the Biblical doctrines of God and man, nature and grace.The point of the article is that there is confusion with regard to the necessary ingredients of salvation. Unless salvation is universal, or unless "God" does not care who and how many are "saved," then it behooves "God" to make those necessary ingredients plainly known lest His purposes be thwarted.

Many different Christians (including you, apparently) believe that they know what those necessary ingredients are and also believe themselves to be saved, yet they differ with respect to what those necessary ingredients are, and who is and isn't saved. I contend that a perfect and omnipotent "God" could have and would have done a much better job of it. In other words, I say that the Bible provides convincing internal evidence that it could not possibly be the inspiration of a perfect and omnipotent "God." If you believe otherwise, that is fine with me.

I would add that there is an important distinction between what various denominations deem to be required of salvation, and what God requires of salvation.Assuming, of course (as do those "various denominations") that you know what God requires and "those others" either may not or do not.

Whether or not someone is saved hinges on whether God is satisfied with his faith, and not whether a given denomination is satisfied with his faith.First, there is no way that you could know this with certainty--unless you have a direct pipeline to "God."

Second, assuming for the sake of argument that what you say is, in fact, accurate, it would nevertheless be necessary for an individual to know whether "God" is satisfied with his/her faith in order for that individual to be assured that s/he was, in fact, saved. Unless that individual had a direct pipeline to "God," in which case the Bible would be unnecessary, that individual would need an accurate source of information regarding what it is that would satisfy "God." In that, confusion reigns--and that is the point, I believe, of Matthies' article.

-DM-

[steve hays]

Thank you for your latest reply. I said that your objection seemed to assume that God would have a common purpose for everyone.

Your reply appears to concede my supposition, and then defend the assumption by appealing to Scripture. However, in framing your counterargument, you say that according to Scripture, God does, in fact, have at least some common purposes.

But this is not responsive to what I said, because I stated two conditions: (i) a common purpose; (ii) for everyone. Your reply drops my second condition. Even if the Scriptures you cite bear out what you say, they do not bear on my contention, for I didn't deny that God has some common purposes for some individuals; what I denied, rather, is that God has a common redemptive purpose for every individual.

For example, the Decalogue was revealed to the Jews, not the Aztecs. The picturesque imagery of Isa 45:22 envisions the outreach of the Gospel to the Gentiles. The subject of Mt 18:14 are Jewish children who, in turn, typify the followers of Christ. The "cosmic" language in John is not numerical, but ethical. It denotes membership in the fallen world order (e.g., Jn 1:10; 3:19; 12:23; 14:17,27,30; 1 Jn 2:15-17; 5:19). The subject of Jn 6:28-29 are Jewish inquirers.1 Ti 2:3-4,6 need to be seen against the situational context of Jewish teachers who limited the scope of salvation to those of Jewish pedigree (cf. 1 Ti 1:4,Tit 1:14; 3:9), thus excluding the Gentiles. The subject of 2 Ti 2:13 are professing Christians. The subject of 2 Pet 3:9 is the covenant community. The Lord's longsuffering towards his own people is a commonplace of the OT (cf. Bauckham's commentary on 2 Peter-Jude, p312).

Your second point seems to reiterate your first point. As such, it suffers from the same equivocation of terms. God's redemptive designs would only be frustrated if the individuals on whom they terminate could not attain their appointed goal.

You then shift to a backup argument. Even if I can construe your prooftexts consistent with my own position, that is really consistent with your position because it would illustrate confusion over the meaning of Scripture.

If is difficult to know how this objection coheres with your exegetical objection. Was your exegetical objection sincere or insincere? If it was sincere, then I've offered a counterargument. If it was insincere, no counterargument was ever necessary and the reader can safely disregard that part of your rejoinder since it was never intended to be taken seriously.

Considered, however, on its own terms, you objection appears to imply that any degree of interpretive debate renders the meaning of Scripture and the will of God altogether inaccessible.

This is a remarkably sceptical claim. It seems to suggest that all interpretations enjoy epistemic parity. If that is the official position of the Secular Web, then it isn't clear to me how secular humanism can claim that its outlook is intellectually superior to the rival claimants.

It is, of course, possible that I've misconstrued your meaning, but, if so, would that provide yet another example of the confusion involving secular humanism and the significance of that confusion for understanding the philosophy of secular humanism?

The bottom line is that the will of God only needs to be clear for the intended audience. Moreover, it need not be equally clear to all parties concerned in order for it to be effective for all parties concerned. For example, a Christian need not believe in sovereign grace to be saved by sovereign grace. Indeed, one of the things that makes sovereign grace sovereign is that it is superior to certain moral and intellectual impediments. Election is a precondition of salvation, but belief in election is not. In that respect, theological determinism and theological indeterminism are asymmetrical.

Put more philosophically, I can know something to be true without knowing all its truth-conditions. And my limited knowledge can be quite adequate for my immediate needs.

You follow up your initial objection with another:

Quote:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

That "God's" redemptive designs might have a restricted target audience as compared to that "God" would prefer that no one perish is a good example of one of the more obvious doctrinal differences based on differing interpretations of the Bible. Unless "God" is something of a chameleon (which is contrary to the Christian doctrine that I learned when I was a Christian), these two differing interpretations cannot be correct.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

This objection assumes that you know what 2 Pet 3:9 means. Why do you affirm for yourself what you deny to a Christian? If you're confident enough in your grasp of 2 Peter 3:9 and the other verses you cite to cite them against an opposing position, then are you not tacitly admitting that some interpretations are better than others, and that it is possible to sift through the misinterpretations in order to arrive at a true interpretation?

You say that "these two differing interpretations cannot [both] be correct," and, what is more, you seem to be clear in your own mind as to which one is right. If so, what becomes of your sweeping hermeneutical scepticism?

If, on the other hand, you are just posing this for the sake of argument, then your proposed dilemma loses its constantive force.

Quote:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hardly, What is assumed is that one must be able to correctly ascertain the requirements for salvation in order to know what those requirements are and to be assured of salvation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is possible to be saved without being assured of salvation in the sense that the first-order condition of saving faith does not depend on the second-order condition of knowing that one has satisfied the first-order condition. For peace of mind, it is preferable to satisfy both conditions, but they are not convertible propositions.

And no coherent argument has been presented thus far to show that the elect cannot correctly ascertain the requirements for salvation. The original assumption was that unless everyone can know, no one can know. I have challenged the premise.

Although you have addressed my argument, I have replied to your counterargument (see above).

Regarding my remarks about our finite and fallen intellect, you counter that, on this assumption, I cannot be certain of my own understanding, in which event it should not command your assent either.

Once again, you seem to turn local uncertainties into global scepticism. For all you know, you might be insane. After all, one symptom of insanity is a madman's belief that he is perfectly sane and the other guy is wrong. Should that abstract possibility induce in you a state of radical self-doubt?

But in the absence of concrete and compelling evidence to the contrary, the general admission that I may be wrong is not a sensible reason for me to question what I believe. There's a difference between baseless opinion and reasoned opinion. And some reasons are better than others.

Quote:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The point of the article is that there is a confusion with regard to the necessary ingredients of salvation, Unless salvation is universal, or unless "God" does not care who and how many are 'saved, then it behooves "God" to make those necessary ingredients plainly know lest his purposes be thwarted.

Many different Christians (including you, apparently) believe that they know what those necessary ingredients are and also believe themselves to be saved, yet they differ with respect to what those necessary ingredients are, and who is and isn't saved. I contend that a perfect and omnipotent "God" could have and would have done a much better job of it. In other words, I say that the Bible provides convincing internal evidence that it could not possibly be the inspiration of a perfect and omnipotent "God." If you believe otherwise, that is fine with me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

To begin with, my only interest lies in defending the Biblical doctrine of God, and not some abstract concept of divine perfection and omnipotence, and what that abstract concept would entail in some possible world. If you want to set up a hypothetical notion of God, and then knock down your own hypothesis, that's fine with me.

You seem to have rather firm expectations of how an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God would act, and whether the real world situation is consistent with those expectations.

I am debating a different question. Given the concrete claims of Scripture regarding the universality of sin and particularity of grace, is the situation in Christendom consistent with God's revealed will for the world?

"Better," by definition, is a relative term. Better in relation to what? The relevant question is whether the means are adequate to the ends in view. The perfection of the agent and adequacy of the means not incompatible conditions.

When I disagree with someone, whether on matters or religion or some other subject, I think I'm right and he's wrong. But at that level, everyone's in the same boat. If I affirm one thing, I deny its contrary or contradictory; if I deny another thing, I affirm its contrary or contradictory. Why does the secular humanist set the bar so high for the Christian and so low for himself?

Quote:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Assuming, of course (as do those "various denominations") that you know what God requires and "those other's either may not or do not.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It isn't clear to me why you think these imponderables pose a particular difficulty for religious epistemology. How can you prove that you're not a brain-in-a-vat, a victim of the Cartesian demon, a butterfly dreaming he's a man, or a character in the Matrix?

How does the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent God somehow make the question for knowledge less certain rather than more certain?

Again, your characterization easily fosters the false impression that every denomination is damning every other denomination. This is really quite rare nowadays.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

First, there is no way that you could know this with certainty--unless you have a direct pipeline to "God."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, you reduce the alternatives to either absolute certainty or radical scepticism. This is not the standard of rationality in secular humanism. Why the double standard?

I happen to believe that the assurance of salvation is individually attainable. But I don't see why the case for religious epistemology hinges on the stronger thesis.

And how does the distinction between direct and indirect revelation affect the question of certainty? Are you saying that a causal chain can never yield a true belief? In that case, a secular humanist who takes empirical science as his touchstone of truth can never know anything, in the strict sense of knowledge. If a secular epistemology can only defeat a religious epistemology by commitment to fallibilism, then the defeater cuts both ways.

[BSM]

Steve,

Thanks for taking the time to read my article. As it stands, I am sorely pressed for time so I am going to try and limit myself to those of your points that interest me. Plus, Don has already provided some well-thought responses so I see no need to reinvent the proverbial wheel here (for the most part).

<<<Steven Matthies recently posted an article attacking the coherence of Christian doctrine in Scripture and tradition. His critique calls for a few comments:>>>

Actually, I'd like to think of that article as a response (not an attack) to those well-meaning Christians who, after finding out that I lack belief, see fit to try and reconvert me. That article is also geared toward the laity with the underlying intent to actually get them to consider why they believe what they believe. It was my experience during 20-plus years of Christianity that most believers "believe" because it fits with the status quo. You'and many other Christians are exceptions to my generalization but, for the most part, I feel safe in asserting that there is apathy in the Christian laity. Finally, the conflagration of denominations definitely oversimplifies the matter at hand and is certainly not the sole reason that I concluded Christianity is false. Rather, it is but one point in a long list of points that caused me to abandon Christianity.

<<<1. It isn't self-evident how disagreement between Christians or cult-members is a particular embarrassment to the Christian faith. This criticism either proves too much or too little. If it disproves Christianity, then it also disproves humanism (one could set up a parallel chart of secular ideologies). If it doesn't disprove humanism, how does it disprove Christianity?>>>

Don has already elaborated on this point but I do feel that it is important to tell you where I stand. First, I am not a humanist. Second, though I agree with much of secular humanistic principles (and support and respect the endeavor), I also agree with many other philosophies/world views. Third, I still agree with a small minority of Christian principles. Speaking of bad analogies, what you apparently fail to see is that you are following a worldview that is alleged to be God-inspired. I am not. In fact, it is my opinion that all systems--theistic or otherwise--are all man-made. Your system was allegedly created by an omnipotent, omniscient, and oft described "perfect" being. Secular humanism admits that it is man-made and prone to error. Furthermore, most secular humanists adhere to a philosophy that embraces the scientific temper. That is, the system is self-correcting in that it acknowledges that further evidence may refute present beliefs. Christianity, on the other hand, does not allow you to be wrong because if you are, well, you are either "separated" from God or end up burning in hell.

<<<How does disagreement impugn Scripture as the rule of faith? When students make mistakes on a math exam, does that impugn the multiplication tables? When students misspell words, does that impugn the dictionary?>>>

As Don is oft to point out in this forum, disagreement over differing interpretations of the SAME scripture do tend to discredit that Scripture as a standard for understanding god's alleged will. Disagreements also call into question whether said scripture could be the product of an all-knowing and all-powerful god. The not so simple fact of the matter is that numerous flavors of Christianity--based on their denomination's interpretation of
biblical passages--often disagree on what is required to be saved. Moreover, they disagree on such issues as homosexuals being sinners, women being allowed to preach, the nature of the Trinity, the role of baptism (symbolic vs. required), the role of Christians in war (Just War Doctrine vs. absolute pacifism), which days are holy (Saturday vs. Sunday), acceptance or refusal of medical care, and a whole host of other things (and freethinkers get accused of being subjectivists!). Now you seem comfortable is dismissing some of these difficulties by calling them liberal or conservative issues. Well, with all due respect, if the Bible (once we can decide on the correct version) is the product of a "perfect" God then it would not matter whether a person is a liberal or conservative Christian. It would be laid out in such a manner that the proverbial village idiot would be able to understand his will. This, of course, is what my article was trying to illustrate and is also--in my opinion--clearly not the case.

While it is true that a student who makes mistakes on a math exam would not impugn the math book, it would become problematic if that very same student consulted his/her math book and found variations in the multiplication table. In fact, if a student could not correctly determine what 2X2 is by consulting his/her math text, well, I would seriously start to question the usefulness of said text in delivering it's message.

As for your rule of faith, well, that rule is so arbitrary that it is all but useless in getting at the truth. One does not have faith that the multiplication table will correctly work. In fact, the only time I see faith bandied about is when there is uncertainty in a matter. Finally, numerous competing religions all have "faith" in the interpretation of their respective holy books.

<<<I've also never understood the sort of logic which blames one group for the contrary beliefs of another. How am I responsible for what someone else's chooses to believe?

Yes, cult-members also claim to be Christian. So what? You have contrary claims in secular humanism. Who is the true Communist -- Lenin or Trotsky? Who is the true Darwinian -- Dawkins or Gould? Who is the true Democrat -- Dean or Clark? What is the true form of socialism? Fabianism or Owenism?

To paraphrase Matthies, I can understand following along blindly without knowing about these ideological differences. Still after a thorough examination of the evidence, it is literally beyond me how anyone can keep their faith in secular humanism.>>>

First, I am not blaming you for anyone's beliefs. Of course, if you do take the "Great Commission" seriously, you might do well by getting Christianity on the same page. Just think of how many souls could be saved if Christianity where unified. Second, how exactly do you determine who the true Christians are? Admittedly, I cast a broad net, but I did so because I wanted a representative sample of Christian beliefs--all of which center around the teachings of Jesus and scripture. This, of course, keeps with the self-educating intent of the article. I did not cite sources because I had nothing better to do. In fact, whether you are theistic or otherwise, I had small hopes that people who read that article would actually check out similar sources and reach their own conclusions. After all, I may be wrong. Finally, you need to scroll up and re-read my comments regarding bad analogies, secular humanism, and a "perfect" God.

<<<3. Logically speaking, if two people disagree about something, all that means is that either one or both are wrong. It also allows for one to be right. >>>

Agreed. The problem here is that your very arbitrary "rule of faith" is not a very good method for determining truth.

<<<4. Regarding his list of contradictory Bible verses, Matthies has a penchant for false dichotomies. As I've argued in an essay (at Thirdmill.org), all the variations come down to how you answer four basic questions: Is the Bible the only rule of faith? Is the NT continuous with the OT? Does man have freewill? Are the sacraments a means of grace? So it boils down to 4 answers, not 40 or 400.>>>

Actually, I had limited space--especially when it came to the tables. Also, I believe I explain in the article what my rationale was for listing those verses: "In fact, depending on which denomination of Christianity one subscribes to, any combination of the following bible verses can be used to justify how one is saved:"

Part of what follows after your point #4 appears to be a defense of your version of salvation based on Calvinism. That's all good and fine and I'm sure you have good reason to believe what you believe, but once again you appear to miss the point of my article.

The simple fact is that some denominations say salvation is by grace "alone", some teach salvation by faith, some by works, and most usually subscribe to some sort of mixture of the three. The reason for listing those verses and tabling the denominations is quite simple: Namely, how can the Bible be the product of a "perfect" being if it's so wrongly interpreted by so many?

Now I do not have the time, patience, or desire to hear your defense of Calvinism. What I will say is that Calvinism (once believed by many and still believed by some) is one piece of the puzzle that I can use to illustrate the point of my article:

Based on numerous Bible passages, Calvinism teaches "irresistible grace" which means that the Holy Spirit brings the sinner (by God's specific choosing) to salvation. It also teaches that the gospel is for "all" to hear its message of salvation, but ability to be saved rests solely upon God's pre-selection of whomever he has chosen to be saved. Thus, the "Holy Spirit, is used to bring God's elect to salvation via an inward call in addition to the outward call contained in the gospel message. (See: Steele, D. & Thomas, C., The Five Points of Calvinism, 1963. P. 48.)

Keeping with the context of my article the question here is whether God's grace is "irresistible" or "resistible" based on scripture. The fact is, the irresistible side has scripture to back its position and so does the resistible:

Irresistible:
Matt. 11:25-27; Lk. 10:21; Matt. 13:10-11, 16; Lk. 8:10; Matt. 16:15-17; Jn. 6:37, 44-45, 64-65; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 1:17-18; Rom. 1:6-7; 8:30; 9:23-24; 1 Cor. 1:1-2, 9, 23-31; Gal. 1:15-16; Eph. 4:4; 2 Tim. 1:9; Heb. 9:15; Jude 1; 1 Pet. 1:15; 2:9; 5:10; 2 Pet. 1:3; & Rev. 17:14.

Resistible:
2 Tim. 2:14-19 (God's elect strayed from the salvation due to false doctrine); 2 Tim. 4:1-4 (if God's grace is irresistible, why order that we preach the gospel to those that stray?); Heb. 6:4-6 & Gal. 5:4 (both suggest we can fall from his grace).

Granted, even if you can prove that the irresistible side is wrong, this means that many sinners "could have" been saved if a "resistible" form of salvation had been preached by god's followers. Once again: how can the Bible be the product of a "perfect" being if it's so wrongly interpreted by so many?

<<<vi) Mk 16:16 is no part of the original Gospel. He needs to bone up on a bit of textual criticism.>>>

I have and I would suggest you tell this to the Biblical literalists of which many still exist today. In fact, modern biblical scholarship is, well, "modern." Suggesting that MK 16:16 is no part of the original Gospel, at one time in history, would likely have gotten you killed. So would pointing out that Matthew, Mark, Luke, & Jon, likely did not author the Gospels. Nor, for that matter, do we have the "original" Gospel and what we do have amounts to educated guesses by biblical scholars. Finally, if you admit MK 16:16 is not part of the original then why should I trust it (or any other verse) to present what it was originally intended to present? Once again: how can the Bible be the product of a "perfect" being if it's so wrongly interpreted by so many?

<<<vii) He assumes that water always refers to baptism. But water is a common spiritual metaphor in Scripture.>>>

Being well versed in Christianity, I assume that you are aware that there are (and have been) "Christian" denominations that believe Baptism is NOT a metaphor and require it for salvation? If not, give me a few weeks and I'll point you to some likely resources.

<<<viii) He lumps everything together under the catchall category of salvation. This doesn't distinguish between different elements of salvation (e.g., regeneration, justification, sanctification), or between one author's usage or another's, or between Biblical usage and contemporary evangelism. If I were a lit. major writing an essay on comparative literature, I'd have to be sensitive to the nuances of each writer.>>>

Given the diversity of beliefs between denominations (both present and past) I would have had to write a book--not an essay--to thoroughly cover the finer points of salvation according to whichever denominational view. Granted, I am guilty of being long-winded but I doubt the Secular Web would find such an article useful or practical.

It may not be obvious, but one of the reasons I listed verses and tabled denominations was really a matter of practicality and readability. Again, those references are there for those who wish to further research and/or verify what I said.

<<<Regarding different denominational beliefs, these are just variants or combinations of a few basic positions. If you believe that salvation is by grace alone, then that's pretty simple. But if you believe that human merit in some way enters into the attainment of salvation, then there are any number of ways of splitting the difference. How you answer one question raises other questions. If you answer No to grace alone, then things get complicated in a hurry. >>>

You seem to contradict yourself here, moreover, things do "get complicated in a hurry" once you start digging. This, again, is why I encourage the reader to do some research and make their own decision. Unless, of course, you limit yourself to the version of Christianity that you subscribe to.

<<<7. As to the Trinity, the church formally defined the Trinity because the church found the Trinity in the Bible. Creeds presuppose prior faith and a prior object of faith. >>>

Is belief in the Triune God required for salvation? Yes/no? Or, can I be saved if I believe in, say, the Christadelphian view? If belief in the Triune God is key, why did it take so long for the Church to find the notion in the Bible? Progressive revelation, misinterpretation, or other reasons?

To this I would add commentary on the matter that Donald Morgan has graciously provided to me via e-mail:

[Start excerpt]
Of course the word "Trinity" is not mentioned in the Bible. The Church claims, nevertheless, that the concept is there. The fact is,
however, that a good case can be built on a biblical basis for a
Binitarian concept of God rather than a Trinitarian concept of God.

In the prologue of John's Gospel, the image image of two shines
through. (See JN 1:1-2) Many of Paul's statements are Binitarian
rather than Trinitarian; except in the benediction at the close of
2CO (which is probably mistranslated and might better be translated "spirit of holiness"), Paul does not refer to a distinct person that can be properly translated "Holy Spirit"; 2JN 1:9-11 is quite obviously Binitarian.

"The Holy spirit only achieved promotion to the third godhead by a
parliamentary trick when he coolly took advantage of his privileged position as inspirer of the Catholic Councils. It was not until 381 that he finally succeeded." [pp. 103-104, "Jesus Son of Man," Rudolf Augstein]

"Is it to be taken without significant implications that the
founder of Christian theology, Augustine, naively confesses that it
was by means of the Platonic system the he was enabled to understand properly the doctrine of the Trinity, which became the bone of contention between two splits sections of the Church and threatened to rend it in pieces for over two hundred years?" [p. 314, "Shadow of the Third Century: A Revaluation of Christianity," Alvin Boyd Kuhn]

[End excerpt]

Don also points out (as would I) that "the argument that the concept is there can be used to support other decisions of the Catholic Councils' 'Mary mother of God,' the infallibility of the
Pope, etc."

<<<As to pre-Christian Jews, they were held responsible for believing the revelation available to them. Revelation is progressive. >>>

This is but one possibility and you fail to acknowledge that many present-day Jews might disagree with you concerning the state of the present-day progressive revelation.

<<<As to pre-Christian pagans, they were hellbound, not because they didn't believe in the Trinity, but because they were graceless sinners.>>>

This is an answer that is loaded with a belief statement that comes directly from your version of Christianity, when, in fact, there are many possibilities to consider.

In any event, I feel that I have sufficiently responded to your comments and once again thank you for taking the time to read the article. Normally I'd welcome a lengthy discussion with you but due to time constraints this is going to have to suffice. Of course, Don may wish to add to the matter and, there is always the forums where dialogue concerning your version of Christianity is likely welcomed by those who are willing to entertain such a discussion.

Regards,

~BSM

[another_perspective]

Christian Salvation? by B. Steven Matthies

Great job indeed. But it is obviosu that yo uforgot the functional aspect when you did this.

Maybe that would take out all the fun of it. But if the fucntional aspect is the more likely then it is worth considering.

All this diversity seem very contraditionary, doesn't it?

Well I see it as this. They meet somebody who is open to this particular person who represent a group. If they get a kind of communication and confidence between them goign then the discrepanct to otehr groups seems less important cause "functionally" they are relating to thsi group and not to the others. So if al lgoes wel lthis person get hooked o nthsi group until something happens that alienate him or her and they search for a new group.

The docringes and dogmas could be imprtant to some fo them but more as a kind of selection tool to not stray to ofar from their preferences. It is not any more "crazy" that the difference between me choosing between Elvis and Buddy Holly then in 1958 or so.

I got tired of elvis and found Buddy. It is about functional identity and not the truth of the of the dogma.

Elvis is the King the elvis Fans told me. I've been there don that but no thank you I told them. Sure he was greater than Buddy but buddy had something elvis never had. Buddy was a singer song writer of his own.

sorry off topic a bit. But the claims is only important to have as an other frame to work within. The inner working motivator is the identity and the feeligns of belonging and being protected from beign on ones own totally alone.

Buddy Holly was loved by many in these days. We really felt a loss when he died. Elvis Fans managed to make a religion out of his death while we Buddy fans failed. Jesus fans managed to make myths of him if he ever existed. Maybe he is all made up.

What works is the identity and belonging to a group of supporter of the main focus on the idol. God or Elvis or Buddy. Not much difference. Some of us didn't want to read things that talked bad about Buddy either so we are as blind as blind faith in Jesus. we hear what si wrong in Elvis but don't talk bad about Buddy cause we defend him to death.

It has nothign to do with being saved by a supernatural power. that is only the bragging feature that the Jesus fans came up with to make him last forever. Elvis Fans may go that route too. We Buddy fans keep him near our heart in our heads. There he lives forever too.

Do you get what I am telling you. To be saved is something happening here and now in the relation to the group using the focus on the idol as the mediating heroe to refer to cause to talk directly to the other is too vulnerable but if one talk about ones love for Buddy and the prefered recordings one is safe and saved by belonging to a group protecting what we share.
Our love for Buddy or God. But I am an Buddy Atheist though.

He only exist in my head but he is alive there, I hear him sing. Do not you hear him? why not let him save you here adn now? :)

[-DM-]

steve hays:
I stated two conditions: (i) a common purpose; (ii) for everyone. Your reply drops my second condition.Not so. Your contention here depends upon a different interpretation of verses and words than, in my experience, is customary.

Even if the Scriptures you cite bear out what you say, they do not bear on my contention, for I didn't deny that God has some common purposes for some individuals; what I denied, rather, is that God has a common redemptive purpose for every individual.Apparently you interpret the meaning of "all," "the world," "not one," etc., quite differently than many other Christians do. Your interpretation of the meaning of at least some of those verses provides yet another example of my point: in my opinion, a perfect and omnipotent "God" could have, should have, and would have seen to it that a book which "He" inspired used words in such a way that His purposes and expectations were much more clear than is the case.

For example, the Decalogue was revealed to the Jews,Regardless of to whom the revelation was made, keeping in mind that the three versions of the so-called Decalogue seem to be updated versions of the Law which King Hammurabi allegedly received from Shamash, so far as I know most Christians today feel that the so-called Ten Commandments apply to them and that at least some of those commandments should apply universally.

The picturesque imagery of Isa 45:22 envisions the outreach of the Gospel to the Gentiles. The subject of Mt 18:14 are Jewish children who, in turn, typify the followers of Christ. The "cosmic" language in John is not numerical, but ethical. It denotes membership in the fallen world order (e.g., Jn 1:10; 3:19; 12:23; 14:17,27,30; 1 Jn 2:15-17; 5:19). The subject of Jn 6:28-29 are Jewish inquirers.1 Ti 2:3-4,6 need to be seen against the situational context of Jewish teachers who limited the scope of salvation to those of Jewish pedigree (cf. 1 Ti 1:4,Tit 1:14; 3:9), thus excluding the Gentiles. The subject of 2 Ti 2:13 are professing Christians. The subject of 2 Pet 3:9 is the covenant community. The Lord's longsuffering towards his own people is a commonplace of the OT (cf. Bauckham's commentary on 2 Peter-Jude, p312).These narrow interpretations of the applicability of the verses in question--interpretations with which many Christians and the doctrine of some Christian denominations would disagree--serve to further the point that Matthies and I make, namely that there is considerable confusion about what does and does not apply and to whom it applies when it comes to salvation.

God's redemptive designs would only be frustrated if the individuals on whom they terminate could not attain their appointed goal."God's redemptive designs" would be frustrated if "God" would want that some persons who wanted to be redeemed should be able to be redeemed, but yet those persons could not figure out the requirements for redemption. Given the confusion that reigns with regard to those requirements, it seems obvious to me that "God's redemptive designs" (as interpreted by many or most Christians) are, in reality, frustrated. You need not agree.

Was your exegetical objection sincere or insincere? If it was sincere, then I've offered a counterargument.Were your arguments sincere?

If it was insincere, no counterargument was ever necessary and the reader can safely disregard that part of your rejoinder since it was never intended to be taken seriously.Ditto. However I would not normally consider the possibility that you or anyone else would argue insincerely. The fact that you entertain the possibility that I might do so indicates to me that you, yourself, would not be above doing so. Let me make it clear: I am above doing so.

you objection appears to imply that any degree of interpretive debate renders the meaning of Scripture and the will of God altogether inaccessible.Again, you argue a straw man based on what I consider to be a myopic viewpoint.

My objection implies that a perfect and omnipotent "God" could have, should have, and would have done a better job of laying out what it is that he expects of his creatures, including the requirements for so-called salvation. That is the crux of my argument. If you disagree, so be it.

This is a remarkably sceptical claim. It seems to suggest that all interpretations enjoy epistemic parity.Although that is not what is suggested, epistemic parity would not be out of the question for a perfect and omnipotent "God."

If that is the official position of the Secular Web, then it isn't clear to me how secular humanism can claim that its outlook is intellectually superior to the rival claimants.This discussion is not about either the official position of the Secular Web nor the alleged intellectual superiority of Secular Humanism.

It is, of course, possible that I've misconstrued your meaning,You have, and it has already been pointed out that such is the case.

if so, would that provide yet another example of the confusion involving secular humanism and the significance of that confusion for understanding the philosophy of secular humanism?Christianity makes the claim that it is a God-revealed religion. Most Christians think of Christianity as being the one, true religion. Secular Humanism makes no such claim. We should expect to see significant differences between what is strictly a human endeavor and what is allegedly given by a perfect, omnipotent "God."

The bottom line is that the will of God only needs to be clear for the intended audience.Your assertion implies that there is a nonuniversal intended audience, else you would be forced to concede that "God" has not made his will universally clear. However, for any nonuniversal intended audience that you might be able to delineate, I can find Christians who will disagree that your delineation is appropriate. In other words, Christians cannot even agree on the intended audience. Again, that is the point; confusion reigns.

Moreover, it need not be equally clear to all parties concerned in order for it to be effective for all parties concerned.No one, so far as I know, has suggested that it needs to be equally clear to all parties concerned in order for it to be effective for all parties concerned. What has been suggested by me is that the requirements for salvation should be clear enough that someone who is desirous of achieving that salvation can do so. Thus it looks to me that you are off, here, on another straw man.

Put more philosophically, I can know something to be true without knowing all its truth-conditions. And my limited knowledge can be quite adequate for my immediate needs.Yes. On the other hand, your limited knowledge, if sufficiently limited, will be inadequate for your needs, immediate or otherwise. More to the point, the situation with regard to Christian salvation is that the available knowledge is sufficiently confused that Christians cannot agree on the requirements.

--
"That 'God's' redemptive designs might have a restricted target audience as compared to that 'God' would prefer that no one perish is a good example of one of the more obvious doctrinal differences based on differing interpretations of the Bible. Unless 'God' is something of a chameleon (which is contrary to the Christian doctrine that I learned when I was a Christian), these two differing interpretations cannot be correct."
--

This objection assumes that you know what 2 Pet 3:9 means.No, it assumes (and correctly so) that some Christians think [I]they know what 2 PE 3:9 means; it means that they interpret it (and other verses) to have universal application; it means that I was taught that this verse has universal application.

Why do you affirm for yourself what you deny to a Christian?You are confused about what I assume.

If you're confident enough in your grasp of 2 Peter 3:9 and the other verses you cite to cite them against an opposing position,These are proof texts that are used by Christians themselves to support the same argument.

then are you not tacitly admitting that some interpretations are better than others, and that it is possible to sift through the misinterpretations in order to arrive at a true interpretation?No. What I am saying is that Christians themselves disagree on the interpretations.

You say that "these two differing interpretations cannot [both] be correct," and, what is more, you seem to be clear in your own mind as to which one is right. If so, what becomes of your sweeping hermeneutical scepticism?This is yet another straw man inasmuch as my interpretations are not the issue here. The issue here is the fact that different Christians, different "Christian" denominations, different Christian schools of thought, interpret these verses differently.

Your interpretations most likely reflect your studies at Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS). RTS subscribes to the following:

--
"Since the Bible is absolutely and finally authoritative as the inerrant Word of God, it is the basis for the total curriculum. Students are equipped with the necessary skills to understand and teach the Scriptures, developing above all a burning desire to know and do the will of God as revealed in the Old and New Testaments, for the essence of Reformed theology is a willingness to constantly conform all of life to the Word of God."
--

RTS recognizes, however, that there is disagreement even amongst Christians about doctrinal matters:

--
"The seminary recognizes that there are evangelical and Reformed brothers and sisters in Christ within various denominations and Christian organizations who hold views concerning doctrine, missions, and evangelism different from its own distinctives. While committed to fulfilling its purpose and distinctives in these areas, the seminary resolves to maintain openness to and appreciation for Christians in differing denominations and organizations in a loving spirit, thus contributing to the purity and the unity of the Christian community and witness."
--

Although it is only peripherally related to the issues here, it should be noted that it would be impossible to "do the will of God as revealed in the Old and New Testaments" unless one could know "the will of God as revealed in the Old and New Testaments"--and on that there is notable disagreement amongst Christians.

It is possible to be saved without being assured of salvation in the sense that the first-order condition of saving faith does not depend on the second-order condition of knowing that one has satisfied the first-order condition. For peace of mind, it is preferable to satisfy both conditions, but they are not convertible propositions.Accidental salvation, so to speak. Yes, that is possible. Still, it remains a fact that, if "God" would that someone be "saved," and if that someone would be "saved," then that someone should, in my opinion, be able to ascertain--with certainty--the necessary ingredients. In my opinion, such is not the case. You need not agree.

The fact is, of course, that every single one of the Christian churches that I attended as a Christian taught specific requirements for salvation. Unfortunately, they did not all agree on those requirements.

And no coherent argument has been presented thus far to show that the elect cannot correctly ascertain the requirements for salvation.No coherent argument has been presented thus far to show that the elect can correctly ascertain the requirement. Evidence (which I find convincing) has been presented, however, that not every one who seeks salvation can determine its requirements.

The original assumption was that unless everyone can know, no one can know. I have challenged the premise.You have challenged a straw man premise of your own making. I have stated several times that your understanding of what I have said is off.

Regarding my remarks about our finite and fallen intellect, you counter that, on this assumption, I cannot be certain of my own understanding, in which event it should not command your assent either.

Once again, you seem to turn local uncertainties into global scepticism.Once again, you seem to argue a straw man.

For all you know, you might be insane.For all I know, you might be insane, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume for the sake of the discussion that you are not insane. I have good reason, however, to believe that I am quite sane given that I studied psychology and psychological testing, and, as part of my studies, took tests which would have revealed insanity, but did not.

After all, one symptom of insanity is a madman's belief that he is perfectly sane and the other guy is wrong.It should be noted that throughout our discussion, you have stated many of your opinions as if they were fact, apparently believing that you are perfectly sane and that "the other guy is wrong" whereas I have much more often identified my opinions as opinions.

Should that abstract possibility induce in you a state of radical self-doubt?You were the one who mentioned that "the object of redemption is, by definition, a sinner, and therefore liable to certain moral impediments to his understanding." I assume that, according to your own Christian belief system, this applies to you as well as to anyone else. In other words, you made your bed, now you must lie in it.

But in the absence of concrete and compelling evidence to the contrary, the general admission that I may be wrong is not a sensible reason for me to question what I believe.By reason of your own assertion, your status as a sinner makes you "liable to certain moral impediments to ... understanding." If I were to agree with you that your status as a sinner impedes your understanding, then there would be good reason that I should be suspicious of the validity of anything that you say, keeping in mind that I do not consider myself a sinner who is therefore liable to certain moral impediments to understanding.

There's a difference between baseless opinion and reasoned opinion. And some reasons are better than others.I would agree, but then your moral impediments to understanding could be considered as likely to prevent you from recognizing those better reasoned opinions.

my only interest lies in defending the Biblical doctrine of God,That this is your only interest here is no more obvious than the specific requirements for salvation.

not some abstract concept of divine perfection and omnipotence, and what that abstract concept would entail in some possible world.The biblical doctrine of "God" includes the qualities of omnipotence and perfection. We typically do not say that a carpenter who builds faulty cabinets is a perfect carpenter; I contend that a "God" who inspires a book such as the Bible and allows it to be interpreted in widely differing ways is no perfect and omnipotent "God." There is an alternative, however: the Bible is not the word of a perfect and omnipotent "God." The latter is my position.

I am debating a different question. Given the concrete claims of Scripture regarding the universality of sin and particularity of grace, is the situation in Christendom consistent with God's revealed will for the world?No, not in my opinion.

"