Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

If the only way into heaven is accepting Jesus as your own personal savior, how do "good" people who never had the chance to, gain entry; is there a back-door to heaven?

What if you're someone born on an Island (or other), where Christianity never reached, but you happen to be a decent person. You don't covet your tribesmen's wives, you respect your parents, you never murdered or have stolen anything; you and your tribe happen to live in complete peace.

What's this person to do in Jesus-God's infinate kindness and wisdom?

Originally posted by Robtard
If the only way into heaven is accepting Jesus as your own personal savior, how do "good" people who never had the chance to, gain entry; is there a back-door to heaven?

What if you're someone born on an Island (or other), where Christianity never reached, but you happen to be a decent person. You don't covet your tribesmen's wives, you respect your parents, you never murdered or have stolen anything; you and your tribe happen to live in complete peace.

What's this person to do in Jesus-God's infinate kindness and wisdom?

I'm glad you asked this question because from most to all other Christian beliefs, it is a very depressing and damning belief.

Mormons believe in work for the dead. Someone stands in as a proxy and a person or person's having authority and worthy of that authority perform the work on that proxy such as baptism.

If you don't do appreciate anything about Mormonism, you can at least appreciate that in our religion, we believe in a perfect plan of salvation where all will have the opportunity to accept or reject the gospel.

Originally posted by Robtard
If the only way into heaven is accepting Jesus as your own personal savior, how do "good" people who never had the chance to, gain entry; is there a back-door to heaven?

What if you're someone born on an Island (or other), where Christianity never reached, but you happen to be a decent person. You don't covet your tribesmen's wives, you respect your parents, you never murdered or have stolen anything; you and your tribe happen to live in complete peace.

What's this person to do in Jesus-God's infinate kindness and wisdom?

They go to Hell. According to Christian mythology, the human race was condemned to Hell, 6,000 years ago. All of the children of Adam will automatically go to hell regardless of what they do. God, knowing that was not fair, decided to make a way for humans to be forgiven. This way to salvation in Jesus. Therefore, only those who accept Jesus as their Savior will go into heaven.

Now , why can't God let everyone into heaven? Well according to the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas he will. Therefore, everyone will go to heaven, but we are not supposed to tell anyone. After all, if no one will go to Hell, then no one would try to do good.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm glad you asked this question because from most to all other Christian beliefs, it is a very depressing and damning belief.

Mormons believe in work for the dead. Someone stands in as a proxy and a person or person's having authority and worthy of that authority perform the work on that proxy such as baptism.

If you don't do appreciate anything about Mormonism, you can at least appreciate that in our religion, we believe in a perfect plan of salvation where all will have the opportunity to accept or reject the gospel.

There's a flaw in that, how can a person accept Jesus once they're dead, as they'd be in hell for not accepting as one most in life, to gain the "golden ticket" in Jesus Wonka's magical-confectionery-play-land.

I've never read the Book of Mormon (just snippets), is there an addition to John 3:16/4:16, like an added clause?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They go to Hell. According to Christian mythology, the human race was condemned to Hell, 6,000 years ago. All of the children of Adam will automatically go to hell regardless of what they do. God, knowing that was not fair, decided to make a way for humans to be forgiven. This way to salvation in Jesus. Therefore, only those who accept Jesus as their Savior will go into heaven.

Now , why can't God let everyone into heaven? Well according to the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas he will. Therefore, everyone will go to heaven, but we are not supposed to tell anyone. After all, if no one will go to Hell, then no one would try to do good.

Well, that's my question, how do the people who never had the chance to learn of Jesus-God get into heaven?

Is the Gospel of Thomas accepted as being part of the NT? It also directly contradicts what John said; how can the Bible which is "inerrant" have contradiction?

Originally posted by Robtard
Well, that's my question, how do the people who never had the chance to learn of Jesus-God get into heaven?

Is the Gospel of Thomas accepted as being part of the NT? It also directly contradicts what John said; how can the Bible which is "inerrant" have contradiction?

The Gnostic Gospels are considered to be heretical. According to Christian mythology, no one can get into heaven my works. Therefore, the people who never had the chance to learn of Jesus-God, go to hell.

Originally posted by Robtard
If the only way into heaven is accepting Jesus as your own personal savior, how do "good" people who never had the chance to, gain entry; is there a back-door to heaven?

What if you're someone born on an Island (or other), where Christianity never reached, but you happen to be a decent person. You don't covet your tribesmen's wives, you respect your parents, you never murdered or have stolen anything; you and your tribe happen to live in complete peace.

What's this person to do in Jesus-God's infinate kindness and wisdom?

John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life."

John 4:16 says, "'Go and get your husband,' Jesus told her."

I'm not sure what sort of flaw you are implying, or what relationship you are trying to draw between Nicodemus the Pharisee (John 3) and the Samaritan woman (John 4), but there is neither flaw nor contradiction in these passages.

Now to your question: What happens to those who lived a good life but never knew about Jesus; do they still go to hell?

Yes. They still go to hell. And why? Because they are imperfect sinners who are unsuitable for God's perfect heaven. Once more, they know it!

God has given everyone a conscience -- an inner sense of right and wrong -- a sense that there has to be something beyond the tangibles of this world. While this inner sense is insufficient to save a person, it is more than sufficient to make a person conscious of his sins. Here's how the Bible puts it:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

While the special revelation of the Bible might not be universally available, the general revelation of God's created order is open to every competent person. ("Competent" excludes very young children or mentally disabled persons who are not able to comprehend their guilt before God. "The Lord preserves the simple." )

It might be nice to think that some lost tribe in some deep jungle might actually live sinless lives, but the Bible says otherwise. Unfortunately, every person who has ever been born (except Jesus) was born with a sinful nature. We are all sinners who constantly do things we know are wrong . When our friends from the long lost judge tribe stand before the Lord on judgment day, they will be without excuse. Each of them will be guilty of imperfection, and this is more than enough to condemn them.

"Hold on!" someone might protest. "That's not fair! How can God condemn people, when they haven't even had a chance to believe in Jesus?"

And they'd be right. It's not fair. If God were fair, He would immediately throw every sinner into hell and be done with it. Judicial fairness demands that all offenders be equally punished in accordance with the law, and the law says all sinners must die .

But God isn't fair. He is so much MORE than fair. The Bible says that God is GRACIOUS .

Yahweh loves human beings so much, that He has taken extraordinary action to save some of us, even though all of us deserve hell. Grace is usually defined as "unmerited favor". Even though we can't hope to deserve it, God extends His grace to every person who hears the message about Jesus and chooses to believe.

But this brings us back to our friends in the jungle. If they have never heard of Jesus, they are facing a doomed eternity apart from God. And that's why crazy Christians like me spend our time tell as many people as will listen about the wonderful love of God in Christ. In fact, it's the reason I'm talking to you now. Jesus had a lot to say about God's grace. One thing He told His disciples as He sent them out preaching.... "Freely you have received. Freely give." For those who have received the forgiveness God offers in Jesus Christ, it is our great privilege and responsibility to pass on what we know.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They go to Hell. According to Christian mythology, the human race was condemned to Hell, 6,000 years ago. All of the children of Adam will automatically go to hell regardless of what they do. God, knowing that was not fair, decided to make a way for humans to be forgiven. This way to salvation in Jesus. Therefore, only those who accept Jesus as their Savior will go into heaven.

Now , why can't God let everyone into heaven? Well according to the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas he will. Therefore, everyone will go to heaven, but we are not supposed to tell anyone. After all, if no one will go to Hell, then no one would try to do good.

Are you SURE you haven't read the da Vinci Code?

Originally posted by Robtard
There's a flaw in that, how can a person accept Jesus once they're dead, as they'd be in hell for not accepting as one most in life, to gain the "golden ticket" in Jesus Wonka's magical-confectionery-play-land.

I've never read the Book of Mormon (just snippets), is there an addition to John 3:16/4:16, like an added clause?

Actually, Mormon's believe that when someone dies, they go to one of two places. Spirit Paradise or Spirit Prison.

Spirit Prison is reserved for bad people or people who haven't ahd the opportunity to accepted the Gospel of Jesus Christ yet. I believe this "prison" or "paradise" is actually the perspective of the spirit rather than an actual place, but that is my personal belief.

Well, the gospel is taught to those spirits who are in "prison".

This prison is what most Christian religions believe to be hell. Mormons believe most Christian religions have perverted its meaning to be hell. Hence why we call our gospel "The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ."

Indeed, we believe that all* will inherit some sort of heavenly glory who are born on Earth...so yes, we believe that all will go to some sort of heaven.

*Some people born on the Earth will not go to heaven because they have "denied the Holy Ghost". This means that they have received a sure knowledge that the gospel is true. This could be a person who was visited by heavenly messengers and given direction or an Apostle or Stake President. This person MUST have a sure knowledge that the gospel is true and THEN turn away from it even after this person has received a sure knowledge that it is true from the Holy Ghost...in other words, denying the Holy Ghost to be with them and denying the things which they KNOW to be true. This person has partaken of God's perfection and righteousness but turns away and doesn't want any part of it. This type of person goes to what you would call hell. We call it outer darkness. This is where Satan and his fallen spirits will go to after "Judgment Day".

Originally posted by Robtard
Well, that's my question, how do the people who never had the chance to learn of Jesus-God get into heaven?

Is the Gospel of Thomas accepted as being part of the NT? It also directly contradicts what John said; how can the Bible which is "inerrant" have contradiction?

The Gospel of Thomas is NOT a part of the New Testament. Unlike the 27 documents found in the NT, Thomas and other similar works belong to the pseudoepigrapha -- a group of gnostic and other "gospels" that were produced by a variety of pseudonymous authors beginning in the mid second century AD.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Are you SURE you haven't read the da Vinci Code?



Actually, Mormon's believe that when someone dies, they go to one of two places. Spirit Paradise or Spirit Prison.

Spirit Prison is reserved for bad people or people who haven't ahd the opportunity to accepted the Gospel of Jesus Christ yet. I believe this "prison" or "paradise" is actually the perspective of the spirit rather than an actual place, but that is my personal belief.

Well, the gospel is taught to those spirits who are in "prison".

This prison is what most Christian religions believe to be hell. Mormons believe most Christian religions have perverted its meaning to be hell. Hence why we call our gospel "The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ."

Indeed, we believe that all* will inherit some sort of heavenly glory who are born on Earth...so yes, we believe that all will go to some sort of heaven.

*Some people born on the Earth will not go to heaven because they have "denied the Holy Ghost". This means that they have received a sure knowledge that the gospel is true. This could be a person who was visited by heavenly messengers and given direction or an Apostle or Stake President. This person MUST have a sure knowledge that the gospel is true and THEN turn away from it even after this person has received a sure knowledge that it is true from the Holy Ghost...in other words, denying the Holy Ghost to be with them and denying the things which they KNOW to be true. This person has partaken of God's perfection and righteousness but turns away and doesn't want any part of it. This type of person goes to what you would call hell. We call it outer darkness. This is where Satan and his fallen spirits will go to after "Judgment Day".

It should also be noted that the Jesus Mormons believe in is significantly different than the Jesus of Christian orthodoxy. Thus, when we talk about "believing in Jesus", we are using the same words to say two very different things.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
It should also be noted that the Jesus Mormons believe in is significantly different than the Jesus of Christian orthodoxy. Thus, when we talk about "believing in Jesus", we are using the same words to say two very different things.

Please define what you mean.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
It should also be noted that the Jesus Mormons believe in is significantly different than the Jesus of Christian orthodoxy. Thus, when we talk about "believing in Jesus", we are using the same words to say two very different things.

And is Christian Orthodoxy defined by the Roman Catholic Church or the Greek Orthodox Church?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Please define what you mean.

While I am not a Mormon, it has been my experience that Mormons do not believe Jesus is Elohim. Evangelicals do. One God, three Persons -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Also, if I understand Mormon theology correctly -- including the doctrine of eternal progression -- Elohim is not the one and only God, as the Bible teaches:

"Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and His Redeemer the Lord of hosts: 'I am the first, and I am the last, and there is no God besides me.'"

Originally posted by Quark_666
And is Christian Orthodoxy defined by the Roman Catholic Church or the Greek Orthodox Church?

Christian orthodoxy (little o) is defined by the Bible and subscribed to by all true Christians.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Christian orthodoxy (little o) is defined by the Bible and subscribed to by all true Christians.

True Christians?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
While I am not a Mormon, it has been my experience that Mormons do not believe Jesus is Elohim. Evangelicals do. One God, three Persons -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

You've got that right...we just aren't convinced that one being can be three beings (unless of course God tells us otherwise but so far we've only heard from the council of Nicea).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
True Christians?

The Bible makes it clear that not all who say "Hi, I'm a Christian" are telling the truth . Things like believing in only one God, or believing that Jesus is God the Son, are essential to authentic Christian theology. Those who believe in multiple gods, or think that Jesus was merely mortal, might be very religious, but they are not biblical Christians.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
The Bible makes it clear that not all who say "Hi, I'm a Christian" are telling the truth . Things like believing in only one God, or believing that Jesus is God the Son, are essential to authentic Christian theology. Those who believe in multiple gods, or think that Jesus was merely mortal, might be very religious, but they are not biblical Christians.

If you don't keep Kosher you also wouldn't be following the teachings of the Bible . . .

Originally posted by Quark_666
You've got that right...we just aren't convinced that one being can be three beings (unless of course God tells us otherwise but so far we've only heard from the council of Nicea).

Well, let's here it from the Bible.

"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously, and godly in this present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of OUR GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR, CHRIST JESUS; who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds."

I realize Mormons prefer the less accurate rendering of the King James Version that hides the Christocentricity of this passage, but that does nothing to change the fact that the Bible says Jesus is Yahweh.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you don't keep Kosher you also wouldn't be following the teachings of the Bible . . .

God set aside the Kosher requirement, since it has served its purpose --namely, to further distinguish God's chosen people Israel from the surrounding Gentile nations. But in Christ, ethnicity is no longer a consideration. The gospel has been opened to up Jew and Gentile alike . Thus food regulations are no longer relevant .

Originally posted by Tim Rout
The Bible makes it clear that not all who say "Hi, I'm a Christian" are telling the truth . Things like believing in only one God, or believing that Jesus is God the Son, are essential to authentic Christian theology. Those who believe in multiple gods, or think that Jesus was merely mortal, might be very religious, but they are not biblical Christians.

So, a true Christian is a biblical Christians? Which bible? Or are there different type of True Christians, depending on their bible?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, a true Christian is a biblical Christians? Which bible? Or are there different type of True Christians, depending on their bible?

I'm not sure how to say it any more clearly, my friend. There is only one Bible. It was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Unfortunately, for those of us who speak other languages, the Bible has to be translated.

There are no perfect translations, though some are more faithful to the original languages than others. In order to avoid error and ensure that the intent of the original is preserved, I advise people to use multiple translations. Read a passage in several different versions to be sure you're grasping the full depth of meaning.

Any bilingual person who has tried to do some translation work, knows how difficult it is to render one language into another. The best translators remember to translate the meaning of words, even if one has to reconstruct sentences to fit the grammar of the receptacle language. Therefore, while a given translation of the Bible might do a good job of rendering the meaning of the original (which is the important part), few evangelicals would presume to call any translation verbally inspired.

When evangelical Christians speak of "the Bible", we are referring to the 66 books of the historic Christian canon (39 Old Testament, 27 New Testament). We do not include either the apocrypha or the pseudoepigrapha.

All men are dead in their sin, and all men are condemned to the second death. However, I believe that those who have not heard the Gospel but have served their Creator under different names (i.e., pagan religions) and who have lived a life according to the Law written upon their hearts (i.e., lived morally) will not descend to the depths of hell because they have not known God's will. However, they cannot enter the kingdom of God because they do not have Christ. Therefore, they will live somewhere in-between, perhaps like the Asphodel Meadows.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
All men are dead in their sin, and all men are condemned to the second death. However, I believe that those who have not heard the Gospel but have served their Creator under different names (i.e., pagan religions) and who have lived a life according to the Law written upon their hearts (i.e., lived morally) will not descend to the depths of hell because they have not known God's will. However, they cannot enter the kingdom of God because they do not have Christ. Therefore, they will live somewhere in-between, perhaps like the Asphodel Meadows.

Do you have some biblical basis for belief in Greek mythology, or are you just speculating?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Do you have some biblical basis for belief in Greek mythology, or are you just speculating?

Those are his OWN personal beliefs.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I'm not sure how to say it any more clearly, my friend. There is only one Bible. It was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Unfortunately, for those of us who speak other languages, the Bible has to be translated.

There are no perfect translations, though some are more faithful to the original languages than others. In order to avoid error and ensure that the intent of the original is preserved, I advise people to use multiple translations. Read a passage in several different versions to be sure you're grasping the full depth of meaning.

Any bilingual person who has tried to do some translation work, knows how difficult it is to render one language into another. The best translators remember to translate the meaning of words, even if one has to reconstruct sentences to fit the grammar of the receptacle language. Therefore, while a given translation of the Bible might do a good job of rendering the meaning of the original (which is the important part), few evangelicals would presume to call any translation verbally inspired.

When evangelical Christians speak of "the Bible", we are referring to the 66 books of the historic Christian canon (39 Old Testament, 27 New Testament). We do not include either the apocrypha or the pseudoepigrapha.

I know of at least 3 bible that all have different translations. Now they maybe very similar but they do not have the same books.

Ethiopian Orthodox Bible
Catholic Bible
King James Bible

And there are more...

The bible you are talking about is the King James Bible. So, you believe that Catholics and Ethiopian Christians are not true Christians?

Why are they not true Christians and you are?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Those are his OWN personal beliefs.

Good. As long as we're clear about that.

I should mention...there are some Christians who believe God will not punish those who have never heard of Jesus -- or will give them some opportunity to choose after death, but before judgment. While there is no biblical basis for such beliefs, I have heard them expressed by a few believers.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Good. As long as we're clear about that.

I should mention...there are some Christians who believe God will not punish those who have never heard of Jesus -- or will give them some opportunity to choose after death, but before judgment. While there is no biblical basis for such beliefs, I have heard them expressed by a few believers.

But do you believe that?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Do you have some biblical basis for belief in Greek mythology, or are you just speculating?
Something like the Asphodel Meadows. Comparison != believing in it, Marchello.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Something like the Asphodel Meadows. Comparison != believing in it, Marchello.

I believe that Tim Rout is not a sock. He just believes some of the same things as Marchello. I have been talking to him through pm's and Marchello would never reply to me.

As for as the original question, in The Inferno, Dante "sees" the un-baptized infants and "noble pagans" in the uppermost level of hell, where they do not enjoy the blessings of heaven, but neither do they suffer. I find this to be the closest thing in the official Christian faith to what I used to believe, but I do not know where the divine comedy stands in relation to scripture.

Originally posted by Jbill311
As for as the original question, in The Inferno, Dante "sees" the un-baptized infants and "noble pagans" in the uppermost level of hell, where they do not enjoy the blessings of heaven, but neither do they suffer. I find this to be the closest thing in the official Christian faith to what I used to believe, but I do not know where the divine comedy stands in relation to scripture.

It doesn't stand anywhere in relation to scripture.

IIRC, Dante placed his first wife next to Jesus and Popes that he didn't like in the 7th layer of hell

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But do you believe that?

I do not. As I mentioned earlier, one of my primary motivations for preaching the gospel is my sincere belief that others are doomed if I don't. I know a few Calvinists who'd think I'm nuts for saying that, but I believe God's sovereign grace covers both the outcome and the means.

Arminianism for the win.

Originally posted by Jbill311
As for as the original question, in The Inferno, Dante "sees" the un-baptized infants and "noble pagans" in the uppermost level of hell, where they do not enjoy the blessings of heaven, but neither do they suffer. I find this to be the closest thing in the official Christian faith to what I used to believe, but I do not know where the divine comedy stands in relation to scripture.

The unbaptized pagans, like Aristotle, were not technically in Hell, they were on a plain before the first layer, and Dante and Virgil had to pass through it on the way to Hell.

Also, iirc, they were constantly being bit by insects.

The Catholic Church banned the book for a long while, I don't think any major religious organization officially supports it, although it has been fundamental in setting the imagery of Hell in pretty much every branch of Christianity.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Arminianism for the win.

Actually, I am a Calvinist. I'm just accused of talking like an Arminian sometimes.

Yes, I realize you are a Calvinist. I am an Arminianist, however.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
If God were fair, He would immediately throw every sinner into hell and be done with it. Judicial fairness demands that all offenders be equally punished in accordance with the law, and the law says all sinners must die .
Sure sounds unfair to me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I believe that Tim Rout is not a sock. He just believes some of the same things as Marchello. I have been talking to him through pm's and Marchello would never reply to me.
It seems to me like he's an attempt of JIA to see if he can be "less annoying."

Originally posted by King Kandy
Sure sounds unfair to me.

Thankfully, God does not measure fairness by any standard but His own.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Yes, I realize you are a Calvinist. I am an Arminianist, however.

Congratulations!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I know of at least 3 bible that all have different translations. Now they maybe very similar but they do not have the same books.

Ethiopian Orthodox Bible
Catholic Bible
King James Bible

And there are more...

The bible you are talking about is the King James Bible. So, you believe that Catholics and Ethiopian Christians are not true Christians?

Why are they not true Christians and you are?

Uh yes...now I see the confusion.

You're right. Not all "Christian Churches" recognize the canon of Scripture as stipulated previously -- 39 books OT, 27 books NT. Some of them add books.

As I have mentioned earlier, the majority of evangelicals (minus fundamentalists) recognize as authentic, any professing Christian from any tradition who subscribes to the five essential doctrines of biblical Christianity. These being:

1. The doctrine of Scripture
2. The doctrine of God
3. The doctrine of humanity
4. The doctrine of sin
5. The doctrine of salvation

Both the Roman Catholic Church, and all Eastern Orthodox Churches reject the doctrine of salvation -- namely, that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone . As a consequence, evangelicals do not recognize them as brothers and sisters in Christ.

This, by the way, has nothing to do with the King James Bible, unless you were pointing out that the KJV contains a 66 book canon. I have to admit I was somewhat confused when you made this point, since the 1611 KJV included the apocrypha.

As to the value of the apocrypha itself, there are some scholars (evangelicals among them) who see worthwhile history recorded in its pages -- especially concerning the intertestimental period. But conservative scholars would not elevate the apocrypha to the level of Scripture. Liberal theologians generally demote the remainder of the Bible, rather than promote the apocrypha.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Uh yes...now I see the confusion.

You're right. Not all "Christian Churches" recognize the canon of Scripture as stipulated previously -- 39 books OT, 27 books NT. Some of them add books.

As I have mentioned earlier, the majority of evangelicals (minus fundamentalists) recognize as authentic, any professing Christian from any tradition who subscribes to the five essential doctrines of biblical Christianity. These being:

1. The doctrine of Scripture
2. The doctrine of God
3. The doctrine of humanity
4. The doctrine of sin
5. The doctrine of salvation

Both the Roman Catholic Church, and all Eastern Orthodox Churches reject the doctrine of salvation -- namely, that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone . As a consequence, evangelicals do not recognize them as brothers and sisters in Christ.

This, by the way, has nothing to do with the King James Bible, unless you were pointing out that the KJV contains a 66 book canon. I have to admit I was somewhat confused when you made this point, since the 1611 KJV included the apocrypha.

As to the value of the apocrypha itself, there are some scholars (evangelicals among them) who see worthwhile history recorded in its pages -- especially concerning the intertestimental period. But conservative scholars would not elevate the apocrypha to the level of Scripture. Liberal theologians generally demote the remainder of the Bible, rather than promote the apocrypha.

OK, sorry for the confusion. Now, why is your beliefs correct, and all those other people's wrong.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Arminianism for the win. G-go Red Sox?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life."

John 4:16 says, "'Go and get your husband,' Jesus told her."

I'm not sure what sort of flaw you are implying, or what relationship you are trying to draw between Nicodemus the Pharisee (John 3) and the Samaritan woman (John 4), but there is neither flaw nor contradiction in these passages.

Now to your question: What happens to those who lived a good life but never knew about Jesus; do they still go to hell?

Yes. They still go to hell. And why? Because they are imperfect sinners who are unsuitable for God's perfect heaven. Once more, they know it!

God has given everyone a conscience -- an inner sense of right and wrong -- a sense that there has to be something beyond the tangibles of this world. While this inner sense is insufficient to save a person, it is more than sufficient to make a person conscious of his sins. Here's how the Bible puts it:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

While the special revelation of the Bible might not be universally available, the general revelation of God's created order is open to every competent person. ("Competent" excludes very young children or mentally disabled persons who are not able to comprehend their guilt before God. "The Lord preserves the simple." )

It might be nice to think that some lost tribe in some deep jungle might actually live sinless lives, but the Bible says otherwise. Unfortunately, every person who has ever been born (except Jesus) was born with a sinful nature. We are all sinners who constantly do things we know are wrong . When our friends from the long lost judge tribe stand before the Lord on judgment day, they will be without excuse. Each of them will be guilty of imperfection, and this is more than enough to condemn them.

"Hold on!" someone might protest. "That's not fair! How can God condemn people, when they haven't even had a chance to believe in Jesus?"

And they'd be right. It's not fair. If God were fair, He would immediately throw every sinner into hell and be done with it. Judicial fairness demands that all offenders be equally punished in accordance with the law, and the law says all sinners must die .

But God isn't fair. He is so much MORE than fair. The Bible says that God is GRACIOUS .

Yahweh loves human beings so much, that He has taken extraordinary action to save some of us, even though all of us deserve hell. Grace is usually defined as "unmerited favor". Even though we can't hope to deserve it, God extends His grace to every person who hears the message about Jesus and chooses to believe.

But this brings us back to our friends in the jungle. If they have never heard of Jesus, they are facing a doomed eternity apart from God. And that's why crazy Christians like me spend our time tell as many people as will listen about the wonderful love of God in Christ. In fact, it's the reason I'm talking to you now. Jesus had a lot to say about God's grace. One thing He told His disciples as He sent them out preaching.... "Freely you have received. Freely give." For those who have received the forgiveness God offers in Jesus Christ, it is our great privilege and responsibility to pass on what we know.

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

I misplaced the colon; John 14:6; you knew that.

Anyhow, you failed to answer the question, what is man who has never had the chance to either accept or deny Jesus-God as his personal savior to do? Why would God in his infinite wisdom and power set a path for a man to never have the chance?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Thankfully, God does not measure fairness by any standard but His own.
Well i'm not sure why I would want to follow someone that close-minded.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Thankfully, God does not measure fairness by any standard but His own.

That never seemed like a poorly thought out cop-out for monotheism?

Personally I believe the same thing but then again I don't believe in the same gods as you.

Anyone else get the impression he goes into religious websites and post like an ignorant blathering atheist?

Originally posted by Robtard
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

I misplaced the colon; John 14:6; you knew that.

Anyhow, you failed to answer the question, what is man who has never had the chance to either accept or deny Jesus-God as his personal savior to do? Why would God in his infinite wisdom and power set a path for a man to never have the chance?

Please do not presume to discern what I know. I did not know why you cited John 4:16, and did not assume you meant John 14:6. I avoid making assumptions; they usually get me in trouble.

In answer to your question: What is a person who has never heard of Jesus supposed to do?

Answer: Die. The unavoidable destiny of all unforgiven sinners is hell.

Why would God in His infinite wisdom and power set a path for a man that never gives Him a chance?

Answer: Because He wanted to. Again, a human definition of fairness might require God to give everyone a chance, but the biblical definition of fairness requires that God send everyone to hell. The fact that He selectively permits some to be saved is a product of GRACE, not fairness. Remember what Yahweh said to Moses: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." This concept was reiterated by the Apostle Paul in Romans 9:15.

Consequently, we see that the body of Christ is made up of people to whom God has extended His sovereign grace . It is a sin for the creature to suggest that his Creator is unfair . To do so is to judge God by human standards, and we lack that authority.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well i'm not sure why I would want to follow someone that close-minded.

And, of course, that is your choice. I, on the other hand, willingly submit my whole life and being to the authority of my Creator and Redeemer.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK, sorry for the confusion. Now, why is your beliefs correct, and all those other people's wrong.

Here's the challenge. No matter what "brand" of Christianity a person might espouse, it is necessary to establish some basic ground rules for the "who's right" debate, or we'll just end up talking in circles.

In the case of Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and conservative Protestantism, we have common ground in the 66 elemental books of the historic biblical canon. While some might add a few books to this collection, none reject the afore mentioned 66. So our arguments would begin with an acceptance of the Bible's authority as the inspired written Word of God.

Additionally, all three groups affirm the deity of Jesus Christ, including His literal bodily resurrection, ascension, and ultimate return.

Acknowledgment of these ground rules is necessary if we are to have a meaningful debate over who's version of Christianity is the most faithful to Scripture. If you were willing, for the sake of argument, to accept these same stipulations, I would be happy to present a case in support of conservative Protestantism. If you are unwilling to permit this groundwork, my arguments would be meaningless.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
And, of course, that is your choice. I, on the other hand, willingly submit my whole life and being to the authority of my Creator and Redeemer.
So how about taking some responsibility for yourself?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Please do not presume to discern what I know. I did not know why you cited John 4:16, and did not assume you meant John 14:6. I avoid making assumptions; they usually get me in trouble.

In answer to your question: What is a person who has never heard of Jesus supposed to do?

Answer: Die. The unavoidable destiny of all unforgiven sinners is hell.

Why would God in His infinite wisdom and power set a path for a man that never gives Him a chance?

Answer: Because He wanted to. Again, a human definition of fairness might require God to give everyone a chance, but the biblical definition of fairness requires that God send everyone to hell. The fact that He selectively permits some to be saved is a product of GRACE, not fairness. Remember what Yahweh said to Moses: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." This concept was reiterated by the Apostle Paul in Romans 9:15.

Consequently, we see that the body of Christ is made up of people to whom God has extended His sovereign grace . It is a sin for the creature to suggest that his Creator is unfair . To do so is to judge God by human standards, and we lack that authority.

Then God wouldn't be a "kind, just and forgiving God", if God purposely set men to fail and didn't give them the choice (negates freewill) to either accept Jesus-God or not. Which God do you worship again?

Funny, your ilk often attribute human qualities to God.

Originally posted by Robtard
is there a back-door to heaven?

There is, but if you go through it, god sends an earthquake to the holy land.

Originally posted by Devil King
There is, but if you go through it, god sends an earthquake to the holy land.

That was a LOL.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So how about taking some responsibility for yourself?

If I took responsibility for my own destiny, I would be placing myself on the same path you're walking -- the road to destruction. I've been there and I'm not going back. Only God has the power to rescue a person from sin and death. Only God has the wisdom to help a person live life to the fullest.

God's teachings are often hard to take. Jesus once said some things that made people so mad, crowds of them refused to follow Him anymore. He turned to the twelve disciples and asked them if they were leaving too. Simon Peter answered:

"Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."

And likewise Tim Rout answers: Where else can I go? You, Jesus, are the only one who has the eternal life I need.

Self-righteousness is a stumbling block for many. But an honest person can see his own faults. An introspective person can even discern his utter moral poverty before God. And a wise person knows enough to repent and receive God's forgiveness before the clock runs out.

Originally posted by Robtard
Then God wouldn't be a "kind, just and forgiving God", if God purposely set men to fail and didn't give them the choice (negates freewill) to either accept Jesus-God or not. Which God do you worship again?

Funny, your ilk often attribute human qualities to God.

You are correct in asserting that some Christians believe in free will. This includes most Eastern Orthodox theologians, most Roman Catholic theologians, and most Arminian Protestants.

That said, I belong to a slightly different subdivision of Protestantism known as the Reformed (or Calvinist) tradition. We believe free will is essentially an illusion. All my former arguments are based on a Calvinistic hermeneutic. You are therefore asking me to comment on a doctrine (free will) that I do not espouse.

However, you point out a serious dilemma theologians have been discussing for centuries. If free will is true, then God is a tyrant if He doesn't offer salvation to absolutely everyone. This has led some Arminians to postulate alternative theories.

Some Arminians have suggested that God gives the uninformed a chance to choose for or against Jesus the moment after death. However, this runs contrary to the Bible's assertion that death is followed by summary judgment, not a cosmic evangelism crusade .

Other Arminians have suggested that God simply pardons the uninformed out of hand. But again, this is inconsistent with the Bible's teaching on human conscience; specifically, that God will judge people based on their general knowledge of His holy nature reflected in the creation . It is clear from the context that such general revelation is sufficient to condemn people for their sins, but insufficient to direct them to Christ.

Belief in free will is common among Christians. Unfortunately, it is not common in the pages of the Bible. While I respectfully decline to debate with my brothers and sisters who espouse free will, I also respectfully decline to defend it in answer to your challenge.

And finally, I would like to address your last remark about those of my "ilk" -- I take it you mean Bible believing Christians -- who attribute human qualities to God. While some Christians have doubtless done this, my arguments are free from such abstractions. The qualities I attribute to God, are the qualities He attributes to Himself in the pages of Scripture. It is simple to see where you went off course in your logic. Evangelical theology is no easy discipline.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
You are correct in asserting that some Christians believe in free will. This includes most Eastern Orthodox theologians, most Roman Catholic theologians, and most Arminian Protestants.

That said, I belong to a slightly different subdivision of Protestantism known as the Reformed (or Calvinist) tradition. We believe free will is essentially an illusion. All my former arguments are based on a Calvinistic hermeneutic. You are therefore asking me to comment on a doctrine (free will) that I do not espouse.

However, you point out a serious dilemma theologians have been discussing for centuries. If free will is true, then God is a tyrant if He doesn't offer salvation to absolutely everyone. This has led some Arminians to postulate alternative theories.

Some Arminians have suggested that God gives the uninformed a chance to choose for or against Jesus the moment after death. However, this runs contrary to the Bible's assertion that death is followed by summary judgment, not a cosmic evangelism crusade .

Other Arminians have suggested that God simply pardons the uninformed out of hand. But again, this is inconsistent with the Bible's teaching on human conscience; specifically, that God will judge people based on their general knowledge of His holy nature reflected in the creation . It is clear from the context that such general revelation is sufficient to condemn people for their sins, but insufficient to direct them to Christ.

Belief in free will is common among Christians. Unfortunately, it is not common in the pages of the Bible. While I respectfully decline to debate with my brothers and sisters who espouse free will, I also respectfully decline to defend it in answer to your challenge.

And finally, I would like to address your last remark about those of my "ilk" -- I take it you mean Bible believing Christians -- who attribute human qualities to God. While some Christians have doubtless done this, my arguments are free from such abstractions. The qualities I attribute to God, are the qualities He attributes to Himself in the pages of Scripture. It is simple to see where you went off course in your logic. Evangelical theology is no easy discipline.

You could have just said "I'm not really a Christian, as I do not follow the teachings of Christ" or the OT for that matter. I understand where you're coming from now, just like many other sects, you've taken the Bible and molded it around your own bias; that's the pedestal you stand on and bark down from.

In other words: a christian dog?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Here's the challenge. No matter what "brand" of Christianity a person might espouse, it is necessary to establish some basic ground rules for the "who's right" debate, or we'll just end up talking in circles.

In the case of Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and conservative Protestantism, we have common ground in the 66 elemental books of the historic biblical canon. While some might add a few books to this collection, none reject the afore mentioned 66. So our arguments would begin with an acceptance of the Bible's authority as the inspired written Word of God.

Additionally, all three groups affirm the deity of Jesus Christ, including His literal bodily resurrection, ascension, and ultimate return.

Acknowledgment of these ground rules is necessary if we are to have a meaningful debate over who's version of Christianity is the most faithful to Scripture. If you were willing, for the sake of argument, to accept these same stipulations, I would be happy to present a case in support of conservative Protestantism. If you are unwilling to permit this groundwork, my arguments would be meaningless.

That is fine and all, but the answer I was looking for was faith. There comes a point were you believe what you believe because you have faith that it is true. That is the place were we all meet, and share the same belief. You cannot prove the bible to be true, and if you did, it would be irrelevant. Faith is all we really have.

Originally posted by queeq
In other words: a christian dog?

No, I wasn't calling him a dog.

You insinuated that he barked...

Originally posted by queeq
You insinuated that he barked...

And?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Bark

"a:to make the characteristic short loud cry of a dog b: to make a noise resembling a bark" -

Love your ava BTW.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
not a cosmic evangelism crusade .

Yeah, that's what life is for!


Originally posted by Tim Rout
I respectfully decline to debate with my brothers and sisters who espouse free will, I also respectfully decline to defend it in answer to your challenge.

Originally posted by Devil King
Religious people rarely engage others who think as they do in any seriouse biblical discussion.

Dk scores.

However, in Trouts defense... posting postcards like that is not really a 'serious biblical discussion'.... then again, Trout is mostly discussing on his own.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is fine and all, but the answer I was looking for was faith. There comes a point were you believe what you believe because you have faith that it is true. That is the place were we all meet, and share the same belief. You cannot prove the bible to be true, and if you did, it would be irrelevant. Faith is all we really have.

Well...I'm terribly sorry I didn't catch that. (Note to self: Only tell Shaky what he wants to hear.) Thanks for clearing that up.

While I do not dispute the necessity of faith, since as a Christian I believe it is essential to a person's life and destiny, I would want to examine an important question: "Faith in what?"

To provide a logical response to your earlier challenge, I must have some factual, logical, substantive basis for the discussion. That basis remains the Bible. Different Christians believe the Bible for different reasons. God doesn't really care WHY someone believes His Word, as long as they do. In my case, I find the literary and historical evidence in support of the Bible convincing, and the evidence against the Bible weak (at best).

If my faith comes in to play on the issue of biblical authority, it is the same sort of self-extending certitude one might use when serving on a jury. The law does not require that a prosecutor prove guilt beyond ALL doubt, but only beyond all reasonable doubt. Can I prove the Bible true beyond all doubt? No, I cannot. But I believe the evidence supporting the Bible is sufficiently cogent to justify my belief in the Bible.

Originally posted by queeq
"a:to make the characteristic short loud cry of a dog b: to make a noise resembling a bark" -

Love your ava BTW.

"to advertise by persistent outcry <barking their wares>" Hence the reason I said "no", when you first asked.

Thanks.

Did I tell you I wasn't entirely serious about the dog comment?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Well...I'm terribly sorry I didn't catch that. (Note to self: Only tell Shaky what he wants to hear.) Thanks for clearing that up.

While I do not dispute the necessity of faith, since as a Christian I believe it is essential to a person's life and destiny, I would want to examine an important question: "Faith in what?"

To provide a logical response to your earlier challenge, I must have some factual, logical, substantive basis for the discussion. That basis remains the Bible. Different Christians believe the Bible for different reasons. God doesn't really care WHY someone believes His Word, as long as they do. In my case, I find the literary and historical evidence in support of the Bible convincing, and the evidence against the Bible weak (at best).

If my faith comes in to play on the issue of biblical authority, it is the same sort of self-extending certitude one might use when serving on a jury. The law does not require that a prosecutor prove guilt beyond ALL doubt, but only beyond all reasonable doubt. Can I prove the Bible true beyond all doubt? No, I cannot. But I believe the evidence supporting the Bible is sufficiently cogent to justify my belief in the Bible.

So, you have faith that the bible is true. A Muslim has faith that the Koran is true, and I have faith that the Lotus Sutra is true. Why is your faith better then the rest?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you have faith that the bible is true. A Muslim has faith that the Koran is true, and I have faith that the Lotus Sutra is true. Why is your faith better then the rest?

While faith plays a role in my recognition of the Bible, my faith is based on the evidence -- just as a juror's verdict must be based on the evidence. I believe my holy book is superior to all others, because I believe my evidence is superior to all others. In the end, all our human subjectivities won't amount to a hill of beans. If the Muslims are right, for example, then we are both doomed infidels. But I believe that the anecdotal, historical and literary evidence points to the Bible, not the Koran, so I'm betting on the evidence.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
While faith plays a role in my recognition of the Bible, my faith is based on the evidence -- just as a juror's verdict must be based on the evidence. I believe my holy book is superior to all others, because I believe my evidence is superior to all others.

If the evidence seemed more in favor of the Koran, would you change your mind?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
In the end, all our human subjectivities won't amount to a hill of beans. If the Muslims are right, for example, then we are both doomed infidels.

I don't seem to be aware of that particular bit of theology.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Well, let's here it from the Bible.

"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously, and godly in this present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of OUR GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR, CHRIST JESUS; who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds."



lets see, which verse should I pick for this response? I think I'll pick 1 John 5:7-8

There is a huge list of references on both sides of the argument. Who cares? All it does is prove that some of them are literal and the rest are metaphorical.

Actually, there are three possibilities:

The contradictions (as so many non-Christians have already pointed out) are proof that the Bible is untrue.
The references to the Godhead as 1 being are metaphorical while the references to the Godhead as 3 are literal.
The references to the Godhead as 3 beings are metaphorical while the references to the Godhead as 1 are literal.


I don't see how any of the references prove either view...including Titus 2:11-14.

Originally posted by Quark_666
If the evidence seemed more in favor of the Koran, would you change your mind?

I don't seem to be aware of that particular bit of theology.

I think only a fool would espouse a religion he knows to be false. If the evidence supported Islam or some other faith, then by all means I would pursue it.

But remember...I don't simply subscribe to a theology. I began with the literary/historical evidence, learned to trust the Bible, then ultimately entered into a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ by faith. It is Jesus who makes Christianity superior to all other religions. Thus my faith isn't so much in a book, but in a Person. As directed by Scripture, I have trusted Jesus as my Savior and acknowledged Him as my Lord. The tangible evidence of my own life, as empowered by the Holy Spirit, is entirely unshakable.

Unfortunately, it is meaningless to put forth one's own experiences as evidence. That is why I avoid saying things like "Jesus has radically changed my life and He can do the same for yours." As true as that statement might be, it is not a valid basis for debate. Any religious person might claim to have had momentous spiritual experiences. Nevertheless, you will generally find most evangelicals cemented firmly in their convictions because those convictions are based on a personal knowledge of God the Son, and not just the theoretical propositions of a religion.

As for the doom of infidels, I understand from my limited comprehension of Islamic theology that Allah will judge those who reject his authority (like I do), reject his prophet Mohammad (like I do), and claim that God exists as three persons (like I do). I do not pretend to understand the Muslim conception of hell, but it seems to me Allah doesn't spank infidels gently.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
If I took responsibility for my own destiny, I would be placing myself on the same path you're walking -- the road to destruction. I've been there and I'm not going back. Only God has the power to rescue a person from sin and death. Only God has the wisdom to help a person live life to the fullest.

God's teachings are often hard to take. Jesus once said some things that made people so mad, crowds of them refused to follow Him anymore. He turned to the twelve disciples and asked them if they were leaving too. Simon Peter answered:

"Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."

And likewise Tim Rout answers: Where else can I go? You, Jesus, are the only one who has the eternal life I need.

Self-righteousness is a stumbling block for many. But an honest person can see his own faults. An introspective person can even discern his utter moral poverty before God. And a wise person knows enough to repent and receive God's forgiveness before the clock runs out.
Well I guess this discussion is over then. I can't respect someone who won't be willing to take control of his life.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
You are correct in asserting that some Christians believe in free will. This includes most Eastern Orthodox theologians, most Roman Catholic theologians, and most Arminian Protestants.

That said, I belong to a slightly different subdivision of Protestantism known as the Reformed (or Calvinist) tradition. We believe free will is essentially an illusion. All my former arguments are based on a Calvinistic hermeneutic. You are therefore asking me to comment on a doctrine (free will) that I do not espouse.

However, you point out a serious dilemma theologians have been discussing for centuries. If free will is true, then God is a tyrant if He doesn't offer salvation to absolutely everyone. This has led some Arminians to postulate alternative theories.

Some Arminians have suggested that God gives the uninformed a chance to choose for or against Jesus the moment after death. However, this runs contrary to the Bible's assertion that death is followed by summary judgment, not a cosmic evangelism crusade .

Other Arminians have suggested that God simply pardons the uninformed out of hand. But again, this is inconsistent with the Bible's teaching on human conscience; specifically, that God will judge people based on their general knowledge of His holy nature reflected in the creation . It is clear from the context that such general revelation is sufficient to condemn people for their sins, but insufficient to direct them to Christ.

Belief in free will is common among Christians. Unfortunately, it is not common in the pages of the Bible. While I respectfully decline to debate with my brothers and sisters who espouse free will, I also respectfully decline to defend it in answer to your challenge.

And finally, I would like to address your last remark about those of my "ilk" -- I take it you mean Bible believing Christians -- who attribute human qualities to God. While some Christians have doubtless done this, my arguments are free from such abstractions. The qualities I attribute to God, are the qualities He attributes to Himself in the pages of Scripture. It is simple to see where you went off course in your logic. Evangelical theology is no easy discipline. do you support mike huckabee?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
my faith is based on the evidence



if there was much evidence, then there would be little need for faith.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well I guess this discussion is over then. I can't respect someone who won't be willing to take control of his life. completely agree

Originally posted by Quark_666


lets see, which verse should I pick for this response? I think I'll pick 1 John 5:7-8

There is a huge list of references on both sides of the argument. Who cares? All it does is prove that some of them are literal and the rest are metaphorical.

Actually, there are three possibilities:

The contradictions (as so many non-Christians have already pointed out) are proof that the Bible is untrue.
The references to the Godhead as 1 being are metaphorical while the references to the Godhead as 3 are literal.
The references to the Godhead as 3 beings are metaphorical while the references to the Godhead as 1 are literal.


I don't see how any of the references prove either view...including Titus 2:11-14.

Option (d): The references to the Godhead as 3, and the references to the Godhead as 1 are equally literal. Remember, Christian orthodoxy proposes only one God, existing eternally as three co-equal persons. You invent condradiction where none exists.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Option (d): The references to the Godhead as 3, and the references to the Godhead as 1 are equally literal. Remember, Christian orthodoxy proposes only one God, existing eternally as three co-equal persons. You invent condradiction where none exists. well if god is supposed to be one yet he is three it is a fallacy which you refuse to own up to. go play in the freeway so you can go meet the douche of a god you love so much

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Remember, Christian orthodoxy proposes only one God, existing eternally as three co-equal persons. You invent condradiction where none exists.
Um, that kind of IS the contradiction.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Option (d): The references to the Godhead as 3, and the references to the Godhead as 1 are equally literal. Remember, Christian orthodoxy proposes only one God, existing eternally as three co-equal persons.

Okay, option D then. But it is hard to support option D in opposition to C or B, wouldn't you say?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
You invent condradiction where none exists.

Lol, I actually believe the contradictions in the Bible to be mostly paradigms (I though you could tell from the way I worded possibilities B and C). But I generally include any opinions that have reasonable support, which is why I just accepted your "possibility D" as a possibility.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Please do not presume to discern what I know. I did not know why you cited John 4:16, and did not assume you meant John 14:6. I avoid making assumptions; they usually get me in trouble.

In answer to your question: What is a person who has never heard of Jesus supposed to do?

Answer: Die. The unavoidable destiny of all unforgiven sinners is hell.

Why would God in His infinite wisdom and power set a path for a man that never gives Him a chance?

Answer: Because He wanted to. Again, a human definition of fairness might require God to give everyone a chance, but the biblical definition of fairness requires that God send everyone to hell. The fact that He selectively permits some to be saved is a product of GRACE, not fairness. Remember what Yahweh said to Moses: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." This concept was reiterated by the Apostle Paul in Romans 9:15.

Consequently, we see that the body of Christ is made up of people to whom God has extended His sovereign grace . It is a sin for the creature to suggest that his Creator is unfair . To do so is to judge God by human standards, and we lack that authority.


I forget the name of the school of thought, but sometime in the 18th century (around the time of Oscar Wilde) believed that there was a group of people chosen by god to ascend into heaven after death, and their actions in life had no bearing on their final destination. Your interpretation of God's choices seems to mimic this belief, but it has a tint of moral (pre?) determinism that I don't like.


Inimalist, I was speaking of the first circle of hell limbo, "where reside the virtuous pagans", born without god's light, who are not tormented, save that they have no hope--Canto 4

Originally posted by Tim Rout
The Bible makes it clear that not all who say "Hi, I'm a Christian" are telling the truth .

Isn't that what ALL Christian denominations are yelling at each other?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Things like believing in only one God, or believing that Jesus is God the Son, are essential to authentic Christian theology. Those who believe in multiple gods, or think that Jesus was merely mortal, might be very religious, but they are not biblical Christians.

Ah, yes, back to the Council of Nicia...

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Christian orthodoxy (little o) is defined by the Bible and subscribed to by all true Christians.

Originally posted by Quark_666
And is Christian Orthodoxy defined by the Roman Catholic Church or the Greek Orthodox Church?

Originally posted by Quark_666
Isn't that what ALL Christian denominations are yelling at each other?

Ah, yes, back to the Council of Nicia...

Actually, most Christian denominations -- especially those of an evangelical bent -- get along rather well, thank-you.

And once again, your preoccupation with Nicaea is at best uninformed. Mormon theology contradicts biblical theology. You can dance around it all you like and uphold your beloved Mormon prophets all you please, but at the end of the day the LDS Church does not teach the Jesus of the Bible. Therefore, you continue to find yourselves unacknowledged in the evangelical community.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
While faith plays a role in my recognition of the Bible, my faith is based on the evidence -- just as a juror's verdict must be based on the evidence. I believe my holy book is superior to all others, because I believe my evidence is superior to all others. In the end, all our human subjectivities won't amount to a hill of beans. If the Muslims are right, for example, then we are both doomed infidels. But I believe that the anecdotal, historical and literary evidence points to the Bible, not the Koran, so I'm betting on the evidence.

But the over whelming evidence is that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that humans evolved from lower animals. Also, of the trillions of humans that have died on the Earth, no one has ever come back to life, including a man named Jesus. Therefore your belief is based of faith and not evidence.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the over whelming evidence is that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that humans evolved from lower animals. Also, of the trillions of humans that have died on the Earth, no one has ever come back to life, including a man named Jesus. Therefore your belief is based of faith and not evidence.

Many Christians hold to the theory of Theistic Evolution, that seeks to harmonize tensions between secular science and the Bible. I and many other Christians reject evolution altogether, because we are unconvinced that the evidence supports it. Same evidence...different interpretation.

Secondly, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is only fiction if one sets aside the historicity of the New Testament, and evangelicals strongly affirm the reliability of the New Testament. You're assertions are based on a preemptive disbelief of the Bible and therefore prove nothing.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Secondly, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is only fiction if one sets aside the historicity of the New Testament, and evangelicals strongly affirm the reliability of the New Testament. You're assertions are based on a preemptive disbelief of the Bible and therefore prove nothing.

Historicity? What is that, like Truthiness?

Where is this evidence you claim?

Originally posted by Devil King
Historicity? What is that, like Truthiness?

Where is this evidence you claim?

I'm not sure how to say this any more simplistically. The evidence IS the New Testament itself. When Bible critics claim there is no evidentiary support for the resurrection of Jesus, they base their assertion on the assumption that the New Testament is not a reliable history book. It is!

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I'm not sure how to say this any more simplistically. The evidence IS the New Testament itself. When Bible critics claim there is no evidentiary support for the resurrection of Jesus, they base their assertion on the assumption that the New Testament is not a reliable history book. It is!

I'm not asking you to respond simply; I'm asking you to respond matter-of-factly.

The evidence that validates the bible, is the bible itself? It is very clearly NOT a reliable historical document.

You fail to substantiate even a single claim.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Many Christians hold to the theory of Theistic Evolution, that seeks to harmonize tensions between secular science and the Bible. I and many other Christians reject evolution altogether, because we are unconvinced that the evidence supports it. Same evidence...different interpretation.

Secondly, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is only fiction if one sets aside the historicity of the New Testament, and evangelicals strongly affirm the reliability of the New Testament. You're assertions are based on a preemptive disbelief of the Bible and therefore prove nothing.

And why are you unconvinced about evolution? I know what the answer is for a lot of fundamentalists; it is because evolution does not agree with the bible. The reason they place the bible over the evidence for evolution is because of their faith in the bible.

Secondly, I am simply trying to show you that the core of your belief is faith, and not evidence. I am not trying to prove anything about the bible.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the over whelming evidence is that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that humans evolved from lower animals. Also, of the trillions of humans that have died on the Earth, no one has ever come back to life, including a man named Jesus. Therefore your belief is based of faith and not evidence.

Between 20 and 30 billion people.....

Originally posted by dadudemon
Between 20 and 30 billion people.....

between 20 and 30 billion, what?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And why are you unconvinced about evolution? I know what the answer is for a lot of fundamentalists; it is because evolution does not agree with the bible. The reason they place the bible over the evidence for evolution is because of their faith in the bible.

Secondly, I am simply trying to show you that the core of your belief is faith, and not evidence. I am not trying to prove anything about the bible.

I am unconvinced about evolution because I do not trust secular humanists to properly interpret the evidence. I also believe that Christian who propose Theistic Evolution are making unjustified compromises. That said, I specialize in systematic theology. For creation science I would point you toward specialists like Dr. Steve Austin.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7796171740936188298&q=answers+in+genesis&total=295&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Regarding your second premise: The core of my belief system is a person, Jesus Christ. I came to know Jesus through the message of the Bible. I came to believe the Bible because the internal evidence contained in the New Testament led me to conclude the message of the New Testament is believable. I know you want me to say "it's all just a leap of faith", but that would be a lie. If we objectively apply the same standards of analysis to the Gospels, for example, that we would apply to other ancient literature (like Homer's Iliad), then one can only conclude that the Gospels are not myth, not epic, not midrash, and by no means propagandistic pseudonymous fiction. They are, in fact, exactly what they claim to be. Biographies.

Originally posted by Devil King
between 20 and 30 billion, what?

People....humans.

As Lord XYZ would put it, I was being pedantic.

Originally posted by dadudemon
People....humans.

As Lord XYZ would put it, I was being pedantic.

20 to 30 billion humans, what?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I am unconvinced about evolution because I do not trust secular humanists to properly interpret the evidence. I also believe that Christian who propose Theistic Evolution are making unjustified compromises. That said, I specialize in systematic theology. For creation science I would point you toward specialists like Dr. Steve Austin.
Wait, so basically you just said that you don't trust anyone who disagrees with you.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I am unconvinced about evolution because I do not trust secular humanists to properly interpret the evidence.

so, reality must only be interpreted by people who subscribe to the same ideas as you? Is that like the bible being it's own proof?

Originally posted by Devil King
so, reality must only be interpreted by people who subscribe to the same ideas as you? Is that like the bible being it's own proof?

No. It simply means I apply the same logic process you do. I do not trust secular humanists who begin their arguments with dogmatic statements like, "There is no God," and "Miracles are a myth." Such statements cannot be scientifically proven.

Now then, have I come to trust the research of PhDs who also believe the Bible and love Jesus? Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. It depends on the quality of their work. I'm just a regular person like you are. I have only my own mind to think with, and like every reasonable person, I have to evaluate my sources rationally. Me trusting scientists who espouse an atheistic philosophy, would be as silly as you basing a belief in God on my word alone. Again...it's about handling the evidence logically.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
No. It simply means I apply the same logic process you do. I do not trust secular humanists who begin their arguments with dogmatic statements like, "There is no God," and "Miracles are a myth." Such statements cannot be scientifically proven.

So, you accuse me of not listening or considering the conclusions of people who don't think as I do, thus making the accusation that I don't listen when people say what I don't want to hear, and this somehow proves your claim? That's not only a lovely and bullshit accusation, but does absolutely nothing to substantiate your own claims. So, we're both wrong, but how does that make you right?

Again, I'll ask you to post this overwhelming preponderance of evidence that supports the fairy tales presented in the bible. You've already stated that the bible is it's own best evidence and that the evidence is there for us to see, thus implying that further evidence is unnecessary when weighed against the sorely lacking real-world evidence that does not exist to substantiate the bible.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Actually, most Christian denominations -- especially those of an evangelical bent -- get along rather well, thank-you.

And once again, your preoccupation with Nicaea is at best uninformed. Mormon theology contradicts biblical theology. You can dance around it all you like and uphold your beloved Mormon prophets all you please, but at the end of the day the LDS Church does not teach the Jesus of the Bible. Therefore, you continue to find yourselves unacknowledged in the evangelical community.

Lol, we'de love to be acknowledged as Christians, but who ever said anything about evangelicals? Anyway, we're off subject. We're supposed to be talking about John 3:16 and John 14:16 right now.

We can continue this conversation in the Mormon thread if you so desire.

Originally posted by Devil King
So, you accuse me of not listening or considering the conclusions of people who don't think as I do, thus making the accusation that I don't listen when people say what I don't want to hear, and this somehow proves your claim? That's not only a lovely and bullshit accusation, but does absolutely nothing to substantiate your own claims. So, we're both wrong, but how does that make you right?

Again, I'll ask you to post this overwhelming preponderance of evidence that supports the fairy tales presented in the bible. You've already stated that the bible is it's own best evidence and that the evidence is there for us to see, thus implying that further evidence is unnecessary when weighed against the sorely lacking real-world evidence that does not exist to substantiate the bible.

I would love to respond to your first paragraph, but I am having some difficulty unwinding it. You seem to have taken offense, though I'm not sure why. I simply said that scholars who come to the table with their conclusions already determined, should not be received as valid critical sources. As I understand it, this is the point you have made about Christian scholars, and it is the point I would thus make about humanist scholars. And here I thought I was being fair minded....

As to my presenting the internal literary evidence in support of the New Testament canon, the very wording of your second paragraph makes your challenge unanswerable. When you make biased predications that the Bible contains fairytales, you let the cat go flying right out of the bag. You are not an honest broker. You are not an objective critical thinker. You begin with the assumption that the contents of the New Testament are bogus, and therefore it is impossible to enter into an intelligent debate with you. It's a waste of time...and my time is too valuable to waste.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I would love to respond to your first paragraph, but I am having some difficulty unwinding it. You seem to have taken offense, though I'm not sure why. I simply said that scholars who come to the table with their conclusions already determined, should not be received as valid critical sources. As I understand it, this is the point you have made about Christian scholars, and it is the point I would thus make about humanist scholars. And here I thought I was being fair minded....

As to my presenting the internal literary evidence in support of the New Testament canon, the very wording of your second paragraph makes your challenge unanswerable. When you make biased predications that the Bible contains fairytales, you let the cat go flying right out of the bag. You are not an honest broker. You are not an objective critical thinker. You begin with the assumption that the contents of the New Testament are bogus, and therefore it is impossible to enter into an intelligent debate with you. It's a waste of time...and my time is too valuable to waste.

Sure, blame it on my "wording", rather than blaming it on the total lack of substantial evidence you have to post that won't be easily countered by an actual lack of evidence. It's fun to hide behind accusations of offense or anger, but they are a poor substitute for actually having anything to say, which you apparently don't.

My first paragraph is a simple thing to understand, just like my second. You are basing your lack of response on your accusation that I only listen to what I want to hear, and that somehow bolsters your claims? It doesn't, and again, you have wasted your chance to post anything in the way of actual evidence. Perhaps you'll do as much sooner or later.

There's nothing "fair-minded" about saying "I only listen to what I want, just like you!" and assuming that acts as actual evidential support for one's position.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I would love to respond to your first paragraph, but I am having some difficulty unwinding it. You seem to have taken offense, though I'm not sure why. I simply said that scholars who come to the table with their conclusions already determined, should not be received as valid critical sources. As I understand it, this is the point you have made about Christian scholars, and it is the point I would thus make about humanist scholars. And here I thought I was being fair minded....
So in that case, what kind of source WOULD be acceptable to everyone here?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
As to my presenting the internal literary evidence in support of the New Testament canon, the very wording of your second paragraph makes your challenge unanswerable. When you make biased predications that the Bible contains fairytales, you let the cat go flying right out of the bag. You are not an honest broker. You are not an objective critical thinker. You begin with the assumption that the contents of the New Testament are bogus, and therefore it is impossible to enter into an intelligent debate with you. It's a waste of time...and my time is too valuable to waste.
Really? I thought you came here to try and CHANGE peoples mind...

Originally posted by Tim Rout
No. It simply means I apply the same logic process you do. I do not trust secular humanists who begin their arguments with dogmatic statements like, "There is no God," and "Miracles are a myth." Such statements cannot be scientifically proven.

Now then, have I come to trust the research of PhDs who also believe the Bible and love Jesus? Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. It depends on the quality of their work. I'm just a regular person like you are. I have only my own mind to think with, and like every reasonable person, I have to evaluate my sources rationally. Me trusting scientists who espouse an atheistic philosophy, would be as silly as you basing a belief in God on my word alone. Again...it's about handling the evidence logically.

As far as I know, the logical validity of any argument exists independently of the person making the argument. If the stupidest person in the world recites a logical proof written by Plato or Einstein, that does not make the proof invalid.

Originally posted by Jbill311
As far as I know, the logical validity of any argument exists independently of the person making the argument. If the stupidest person in the world recites a logical proof written by Plato or Einstein, that does not make the proof invalid.


So, what would you say is his "logical validity"?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I am unconvinced about evolution because I do not trust secular humanists to properly interpret the evidence. I also believe that Christian who propose Theistic Evolution are making unjustified compromises. That said, I specialize in systematic theology. For creation science I would point you toward specialists like Dr. Steve Austin.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7796171740936188298&q=answers+in+genesis&total=295&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Regarding your second premise: The core of my belief system is a person, Jesus Christ. I came to know Jesus through the message of the Bible. I came to believe the Bible because the internal evidence contained in the New Testament led me to conclude the message of the New Testament is believable. I know you want me to say "it's all just a leap of faith", but that would be a lie. If we objectively apply the same standards of analysis to the Gospels, for example, that we would apply to other ancient literature (like Homer's Iliad), then one can only conclude that the Gospels are not myth, not epic, not midrash, and by no means propagandistic pseudonymous fiction. They are, in fact, exactly what they claim to be. Biographies.

That is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Please provide your extraordinary proof. ...And try to make it short...

Originally posted by Tim Rout
No. It simply means I apply the same logic process you do. I do not trust secular humanists who begin their arguments with dogmatic statements like, "There is no God," and "Miracles are a myth." Such statements cannot be scientifically proven.

Now then, have I come to trust the research of PhDs who also believe the Bible and love Jesus? Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. It depends on the quality of their work. I'm just a regular person like you are. I have only my own mind to think with, and like every reasonable person, I have to evaluate my sources rationally. Me trusting scientists who espouse an atheistic philosophy, would be as silly as you basing a belief in God on my word alone. Again...it's about handling the evidence logically.

Do you believe in god because of faith?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Between 20 and 30 billion people.....

Did I say trillion?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Did I say trillion?

Maybe you did; but it doesn't disprove your point.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Did I say trillion?



Don't sweat it, bro. I was being a jerk just for shits and giggles.

Originally posted by Devil King
Maybe you did; but it doesn't disprove your point.

Yeah...what this guy said.

Originally posted by dadudemon


Don't sweat it, bro. I was being a jerk just for shits and giggles.



Yeah...what this guy said.

I didn't take it wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I didn't take it wrong.

I wouldn't expect a nice Buddhist like you to lose his cool anytime soon of that...I just wanted you to be sure that it was jest on my part.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I wouldn't expect a nice Buddhist like you to lose his cool anytime soon of that...I just wanted you to be sure that it was jest on my part.

So, what of the planet being 4.5 billion years old v. 6000 years old?

Originally posted by Devil King
So, what of the planet being 4.5 billion years old v. 6000 years old?

Since I have said this before on three separate occasions....I believe that God created the Universe over the course of billions of years.

Edit: Any body who believes otherwise is mistaken.

Double Edit: In the Mormon Doctrine and Covenants, it says that the Earth has a temporal existance of 6000 years. That's obviously wrong...unless of course it is a misinterpretation on what that is really supposed to mean. (I figure that God's dispensation with man is 6000 years old. Maybe he wanted man to reach a certain intellectual point before he indoctrinated them.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Since I have said this before on three separate occasions....I believe that God created the Universe over the course of billions of years.

Edit: Any body who believes otherwise is mistaken.

Double Edit: In the Mormon Doctrine and Covenants, it says that the Earth has a temporal existance of 6000 years. That's obviously wrong...unless of course it is a misinterpretation on what that is really supposed to mean. (I figure that God's dispensation with man is 6000 years old. Maybe he wanted man to reach a certain intellectual point before he indoctrinated them.) ill let you in on a lil secret: (whispers VERY quietly) we've found evidence that humans have been alive for 25-50 thousand years

Originally posted by chickenlover98
ill let you in on a lil secret: (whispers VERY quietly) we've found evidence that humans have been alive for 25-50 thousand years

ZOMG!!!

And this whole time I thought we lived at the most a little over 120 years.


Smart ass for the win.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Since I have said this before on three separate occasions....I believe that God created the Universe over the course of billions of years.

Edit: Any body who believes otherwise is mistaken.

Double Edit: In the Mormon Doctrine and Covenants, it says that the Earth has a temporal existance of 6000 years. That's obviously wrong...unless of course it is a misinterpretation on what that is really supposed to mean. (I figure that God's dispensation with man is 6000 years old. Maybe he wanted man to reach a certain intellectual point before he indoctrinated them.)

Then, why doesn't it say so in the bible, or in the book of mormon, if they are the infallible word of god?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Please provide your extraordinary proof. ...And try to make it short...

Do you believe in god because of faith?

Do I believe in God because of faith? No. I believe in God because of the evidence. I have entered into a relationship with God by faith. But that faith stands on the firm foundation of the Bible.

And I disagree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All claims require reasonable evidence. I cited my source. Go deal with him.

Short enough for you?

Originally posted by Devil King
Then, why doesn't it say so in the bible, or in the book of mormon, if they are the infallible word of god?

I assume that word "if" is supposed to "that"? If so, then I can answer your question.



In the BoM, it does say that if there are mistakes, they are the mistakes of men.

It is quite common among Mormon's to realize that mistakes in the Bible. We believe it to be th word of God as long as it is translated correctly. We DO know that there are mistakes...that is one of the fundamental reasons that Mormons exist.



If I didn't interpret your question correctly, let me know and I will try again.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life."

John 4:16 says, "'Go and get your husband,' Jesus told her."

I'm not sure what sort of flaw you are implying, or what relationship you are trying to draw between Nicodemus the Pharisee (John 3) and the Samaritan woman (John 4), but there is neither flaw nor contradiction in these passages.

Now to your question: What happens to those who lived a good life but never knew about Jesus; do they still go to hell?

Yes. They still go to hell. And why? Because they are imperfect sinners who are unsuitable for God's perfect heaven. Once more, they know it!

God has given everyone a conscience -- an inner sense of right and wrong -- a sense that there has to be something beyond the tangibles of this world. While this inner sense is insufficient to save a person, it is more than sufficient to make a person conscious of his sins. Here's how the Bible puts it:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

While the special revelation of the Bible might not be universally available, the general revelation of God's created order is open to every competent person. ("Competent" excludes very young children or mentally disabled persons who are not able to comprehend their guilt before God. "The Lord preserves the simple." )

It might be nice to think that some lost tribe in some deep jungle might actually live sinless lives, but the Bible says otherwise. Unfortunately, every person who has ever been born (except Jesus) was born with a sinful nature. We are all sinners who constantly do things we know are wrong . When our friends from the long lost judge tribe stand before the Lord on judgment day, they will be without excuse. Each of them will be guilty of imperfection, and this is more than enough to condemn them.

"Hold on!" someone might protest. "That's not fair! How can God condemn people, when they haven't even had a chance to believe in Jesus?"

And they'd be right. It's not fair. If God were fair, He would immediately throw every sinner into hell and be done with it. Judicial fairness demands that all offenders be equally punished in accordance with the law, and the law says all sinners must die .

But God isn't fair. He is so much MORE than fair. The Bible says that God is GRACIOUS .

Yahweh loves human beings so much, that He has taken extraordinary action to save some of us, even though all of us deserve hell. Grace is usually defined as "unmerited favor". Even though we can't hope to deserve it, God extends His grace to every person who hears the message about Jesus and chooses to believe.

But this brings us back to our friends in the jungle. If they have never heard of Jesus, they are facing a doomed eternity apart from God. And that's why crazy Christians like me spend our time tell as many people as will listen about the wonderful love of God in Christ. In fact, it's the reason I'm talking to you now. Jesus had a lot to say about God's grace. One thing He told His disciples as He sent them out preaching.... "Freely you have received. Freely give." For those who have received the forgiveness God offers in Jesus Christ, it is our great privilege and responsibility to pass on what we know. You scare me pitt_nuts

Originally posted by King Kandy
So in that case, what kind of source WOULD be acceptable to everyone here?

Really? I thought you came here to try and CHANGE peoples mind...

I am under no illusion that any source or group of sources would be received by everyone here. Even in the most scholarly circles it is difficult to arrive at a universal consensus on every issue.

That said, good science needs to be objective science. Just because a Christian PhD says "There is a God," we should not assume that he is right based on his word alone. Just because a secular humanist PhD says "There is no God," we must likewise insist on seeing the evidence. I believe the Bible is a source of convincing evidence for the existence of God. Countless millions have believed the evidence down through the centuries, and hundreds of millions believe it still today.

Incidentally, I believe it is impossible for me to convince even one person to follow Jesus. God is the only one with the power to change hearts . My words are merely a tool in His hand . It is through hearing the message about Jesus that a person is changed by God.

"Yet faith comes from listening to this message of the good news --- the good news about Christ."

Originally posted by Robtard
If the only way into heaven is accepting Jesus as your own personal savior, how do "good" people who never had the chance to, gain entry; is there a back-door to heaven?

What if you're someone born on an Island (or other), where Christianity never reached, but you happen to be a decent person. You don't covet your tribesmen's wives, you respect your parents, you never murdered or have stolen anything; you and your tribe happen to live in complete peace.

What's this person to do in Jesus-God's infinate kindness and wisdom? According to Christians, and I'm guessing John, only Chrisitians can be that good.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I assume that word "if" is supposed to "that"? If so, then I can answer your question.

In the BoM, it does say that if there are mistakes, they are the mistakes of men.

It is quite common among Mormon's to realize that mistakes in the Bible. We believe it to be th word of God as long as it is translated correctly. We DO know that there are mistakes...that is one of the fundamental reasons that Mormons exist.

If I didn't interpret your question correctly, let me know and I will try again.


I've written the correct interpretation on a couple of gold tablets and buried them in my back yard.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Do I believe in God because of faith? No. I believe in God because of the evidence. I have entered into a relationship with God by faith. But that faith stands on the firm foundation of the Bible.

And I disagree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All claims require reasonable evidence. I cited my source. Go deal with him.

Short enough for you?

Your standards are too low. Extraordinary claims always require extraordinary proof. If you have lower standards then that, then you run the possibility of delusion. Therefore, I can only conclude that your beliefs are not based of faith, as you have told me again and again, but are based on delusion. The evidence you speak of in the bible can only be found in the bible. Because someone says they are right is not evidence that they are right.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your standards are too low. Extraordinary claims always require extraordinary proof. If you have lower standards then that, then you run the possibility of delusion. Therefore, I can only conclude that your beliefs are not based of faith, as you have told me again and again, but are based on delusion. The evidence you speak of in the bible can only be found in the bible. Because someone says they are right is not evidence that they are right.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your standards are too low. Extraordinary claims always require extraordinary proof. If you have lower standards then that, then you run the possibility of delusion. Therefore, I can only conclude that your beliefs are not based of faith, as you have told me again and again, but are based on delusion. The evidence you speak of in the bible can only be found in the bible. Because someone says they are right is not evidence that they are right.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your standards are too low. Extraordinary claims always require extraordinary proof. If you have lower standards then that, then you run the possibility of delusion. Therefore, I can only conclude that your beliefs are not based of faith, as you have told me again and again, but are based on delusion. The evidence you speak of in the bible can only be found in the bible. Because someone says they are right is not evidence that they are right.

I have told you again and again that my beliefs are based on evidence. But if you want a more detailed argument, it won't be quick or short...so be patient. There are no instant answers to complex questions. I will post an article in this string; I wrote it for another forum in answer to the challenge, "The resurrection of Jesus is a myth." It doesn't address all your issues, but perhaps it will provide a starting point for further discussion. The article is divided into four sections due to posting limitations.

Originally posted by Devil King
I've written the correct interpretation on a couple of gold tablets and buried them in my back yard.

That's the thing about "latter day saints", there can always be a latter day. Can I be your second in command? I also purpose we take 15% and not the measly 10%, I want to retire soon.

Timmy, if you're just going to copy-paste page length passages from whichever version of the Bible your happen subscribe too, take it someplace else. It's annoying. Why not use your own thoughts and words to express the opinion.

Tim Rout can you make the same argument without the bible?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Tim Rout can you make the same argument without the bible?

Originally posted by Da Pittman


Then it does not meet the standard of extraordinary proof.

Extraordinary proof requires multiple sources that lead to only one conclusion.

Like using the Koran or other writings even older then the bible, like the Lotus Sutra, or any of the Sutras of Buddha. There are people who have done this kind of research like Joseph Campbell. Using him as a resource would even be adequate.

Originally posted by Robtard
Timmy, if you're just going to copy-paste page length passages from whichever version of the Bible your happen subscribe too, take it someplace else. It's annoying. Why not use your own thoughts and words to express the opinion.

The Bible is my source of authority. I cite it in support of my arguments. Unsupported personal opinions are meaningless.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Tim Rout can you make the same argument without the bible?

No. My argument relies on the eyewitness accounts contained in the Bible. Those who reject the Bible (and the New Testament in particular) are unlikely to be impressed with my argument. That said, one might argue the same thing for evolutionists, were they required to make their case without the scholarship of secular humanists behind them.

Your demand for so called "extraordinary evidence" is arbitrary. My premise is simple; the New Testament contains 27 documents written by at least 8 independant historians. If you like, then, each book of the New Testament can be seen as corroboration for other Bible books. There you go -- multiple sources.

Keep in mind, there is no contemporary evidence supporting the authenticity of Homer's Iliad. All available manuscript evidence for his great epic dates more than three centuries after he wrote it. Yet no serious scholar challenges its authorship or authenticity. The internal evidence of Homer's work is self-supporting.

While the Iliad is by nature pseudo-fictional epic, the New Testament Gospels are by nature carefully recorded historical biography. It is inequitable of you to impose a higher critical standard on the New Testament than objective scholarship demands.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
The Bible is my source of authority. I cite it in support of my arguments. Unfounded personal opinions are meaningless.

But you only have one source, and you are trying to prove that source with its self. That does not work, unless you believe the source to begin with.

That would be like me telling you that the Lotus Sutra is the absolute truth, and then quoting the parts of the Lotus Sutra that say it is the absolute truth. Unless you believe the Lotus Sutra is the absolute truth, quoting from the Lotus Sutra is not convincing.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
No. My argument relies on the eyewitness accounts contained in the Bible. Those who reject the Bible (and the New Testament in particular) are unlikely to be impressed with my argument. That said, one might argue the same thing for evolutionists, were they required to make their case without the scholarship of secular humanists behind them.

Your demand for so called "extraordinary evidence" is arbitrary. My premise is simple; the New Testament contains 27 documents written by at least 8 independant historians. If you like, then, each book of the New Testament can be seen as corroboration for other Bible books. There you go -- multiple sources.

Keep in mind, there is no contemporary evidence supporting the authenticity of Homer's Iliad. All available manuscript evidence for his great epic dates more than three centuries after he wrote it. Yet no serious scholar challenges its authorship or authenticity. The internal evidence of Homer's work is self-supporting.

While the Iliad is by nature pseudo-fictional epic, the New Testament Gospels are by nature carefully recorded historical biography. It is inequitable of you to impose a higher critical standard on the New Testament than objective scholarship demands.

Evolution makes sense on a logical level and there is evidence to support it, so a sound conclusion can be reached.

There is no proof that God told Moses via burning bush his laws, and that goes all the way up to Jesus coming from the dead, moving that boulder and flying into heaven.

As Shaky and others have pointed out, all you're saying is "the Bible is fact, because the Bible says so."

Originally posted by Tim Rout
No. My argument relies on the eyewitness accounts contained in the Bible. Those who reject the Bible (and the New Testament in particular) are unlikely to be impressed with my argument. That said, one might argue the same thing for evolutionists, were they required to make their case without the scholarship of secular humanists behind them.

Eyewitness accounts alone are too low of a standard for scientific inquiry.

No, you cannot argue that the same is true for evolutionists. Evolutionists do not rely on below standard evidence. I would suspect that you have never studied evolution, beyond the Christian propaganda that would be on most Christian web sites about evolution. I say this because you make unsubstantiated claims that ignore current findings and ideas about evolution. Science does not respect the position of people, and rather they are humanists or not. Science only respect observations of nature. Science also never stands still. Review and reexamination by scientists around the world is what drives the progress of science. Sure some people may have agendas, but this content reevaluations will cast those ideas to the side.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Your demand for so called "extraordinary evidence" is arbitrary. There is, for example, no contemporary evidence supporting the authenticity of Homer's Iliad. All available manuscript evidence for his great epic dates more than three centuries after he wrote it. Yet no serious scholar challenges its authorship or authenticity. The internal evidence of Homer's work is self-supporting.

Your argument is erroneous. I have never made the claim that Homer's Iliad was true. Do you believe that Homer's Iliad is a true story?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
While the Iliad is by nature pseudo-fictional epic, the New Testament Gospels are by nature carefully recorded historical biography. It is inequitable of you to impose a higher critical standard on the New Testament than objective scholarship demands.

Again you have made an extraordinary claim and not supplied any evidence out side of the bible.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Your argument is erroneous. I have never made the claim that Homer's Iliad. Do you believe that Homer's Iliad is a true story?


Be funny if he does, considering it's littered with mythology and supernatural happenings, err wait.

Originally posted by Robtard
Evolution makes sense on a logical level and there is evidence to support it, so a sound conclusion can be reached.

There is no proof that God told Moses via burning bush his laws, and that goes all the way up to Jesus coming from the dead, moving that boulder and flying into heaven.

As Shaky and others have pointed out, all you're saying is "the Bible is fact, because the Bible says so."

The New Testament is a collection of ancient literature. My insistence is this: The New Testament documents should be evaluated using the same objective standards we apply to other ancient literature. I agree that one must examine New Testament writings with a critical eye, but that's not what you guys have been doing. I provide a long and detailed argument, to which each of you responds with dismissive contempt. You show your true colors.

So now the ball is back in your court. Prove to me that the New Testament is NOT a reliable history book. Surely you must be able to do so with eloquent ease, given your frequent accusations against it.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
The New Testament is a collection of ancient literature. My insistence is this: The New Testament documents should be evaluated using the same objective standards we apply to other ancient literature. I agree that one must examine New Testament writings with a critical eye, but that's not what you guys have been doing. I provide a long and detailed argument, to which each of you responds with dismissive contempt. You show your true colors.

So now the ball is back in your court. Prove to me that the New Testament is NOT a reliable history book. Surely you must be able to do so with eloquent ease, given your frequent accusations against it.

I have never show contempt! All I have said is that you have not met a high enough standard.

Why do you reject faith?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Your argument is erroneous. I have never made the claim that Homer's Iliad was true. Do you believe that Homer's Iliad is a true story?



Neither did I make the claim that Homer's Iliad was an account of real history. In fact, I specifically referred to it as pseudo-fictional epic. My argument was simply this: One must evaluate the New Testament by the established standards of historical criticism. Serious scholars agree that Homer's Iliad was really written by Homer. Applying this same standard, we can also conclude that the Gospel of Luke (for example) was really written by Luke. Homer was writing a work of obvious fiction. Luke was writing real history and never claimed otherwise.

Your dismissal of eyewitness testimony might be very comforting to you, but it wouldn't fly in a court of law. People face legal penalty every day on the testimony of eyewitnesses. And when one considers the extraordinary multiplicity of eyewitness testimony contained in the New Testament, it becomes difficult to set aside. But set it aside you will. That's what scoffers do.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
The New Testament is a collection of ancient literature. My insistence is this: The New Testament documents should be evaluated using the same objective standards we apply to other ancient literature. I agree that one must examine New Testament writings with a critical eye, but that's not what you guys have been doing. I provide a long and detailed argument, to which each of you responds with dismissive contempt. You show your true colors.

So now the ball is back in your court. Prove to me that the New Testament is NOT a reliable history book. Surely you must be able to do so with eloquent ease, given your frequent accusations against it.

We have, you haven't. The Iliad is loaded with mythology and supernatural happenings, e.g. Hermes helps King Priam sneak into Achilles camp. Do you seriously think scholars take that as actually happening?

Now, it is very possible there was a war, as Homer described, but logic dictates that the implausible parts are just fiction and used to enhance the story. Same goes for the Bible, was there a Jesus? Sure, there probably was a guy named Jesus who preached a kinder view of God, was he actually God in the flesh born from a virgin? You do the math using your "critical eye".

Balls back in your court.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have never show contempt! All I have said is that you have not met a high enough standard.

Why do you reject faith?

Your assertion assumes facts not in evidence. I do not reject faith.

Originally posted by Robtard
We have, you haven't. The Iliad is loaded with mythology and supernatural happenings, e.g. Hermes helps King Priam sneak into Achilles camp. Do you seriously think scholars take that as actually happening?

Now, it is very possible there was a war, as Homer described, but logic dictates that the implausible parts are just fiction and used to enhance the story. Same goes for the Bible, was there a Jesus? Sure, there probably was a guy named Jesus who preached a kinder view of God, was he actually God in the flesh born from a virgin? You do the math using your "critical eye".

Balls back in your court.

Ponder with great care my use of the words "pseudo-fictional epic". I never said Homer wrote real history, even if the generalities of the battle have some historical basis. But the authors of the New Testament certainly DID claim to be writing real history and I would love to see you to prove them wrong.