...then good.
"6For this is contained in Scripture:
“Behold, I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone, And
he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”
7This precious value, then, is for you who believe;
but for those who disbelieve, “The stone which the builders rejected,
This became the very corner stone,”
8and, “A stone of stumbling and a rock of
offense”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to
this doom they were also appointed.
9But you are a chosen race, A royal priesthood, a
holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim
the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous
light;
10for you once
were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received
mercy, but now you have received mercy." 1 Peter 2:6-10
"22For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks
search for wisdom;
23but we
preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling
block and to Gentiles foolishness,
24but to those who are the called, both Jews and
Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."
1 Cor 1:22-24
Put in simple English, the message of the passages above is that the Gospel IS offensive.
Those who are 'disobedient to the word' stumble. To their doom.
"we
preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling
block and to Gentiles foolishness"
The Jews were looking for a Messiah who would save them from Roman rule, establishing His Kingdom.
They saw no savior in Christ, recognized no proper sacrifice in His cross.
The Greeks were looking for wisdom, and saw no wisdom, but utter foolishness in a supposed King
who allowed Himself to be put to death.
BUT...among Jews first and then the rest of the world, God still declares "to those who are the called, both Jews and
Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."
11 comments:
Catholics who have been assured of Heaven since they were baptized as infants have no part of the Kingdom of God. Baptism follows Salvation, and in order to be saved, one must recognize that they are a sinner and need Salvation. A baby cannot recognize anything like that.
There have been generations of Catholics each damning the next generation to hell, which is terribly sad, but just as real as sunshine. Belief in a wrong gospel espoused and affirmed by a wrong church is wrong cubed and squared.
They claim to be the true church. They claim that the actual body and blood of Christ are present in the eucharist. Paganism. Not Christ. Offensive to Christ and Christians.
Catholics don't believe that. They believe you can be baptized and still go to Hell if you have the bad sense of timing to die before confessing one's sins to a priest (well, at least many believe that).
"in order to be saved, one must recognize that they are a sinner and need Salvation"
Is that sufficient to be saved, or is it merely necessary to be saved? In other words, what else must one do and/or believe to be saved? The answer varies depending on who you ask.
"They believe you can be baptized and still go to Hell if you have the bad sense of timing to die before confessing one's sins to a priest (well, at least many believe that)."
You're trying to stuff a needle through the eye of a camel, James. The most mistaken word in the sentence is "IF".
If you have a bad sense of timing.
If you do not have last rites.
If you have unconfessed sins.
All of that is religious pagan ritual.
If one is saved by Christ, he is a new creature, and can never lose his salvation.
If one is saved by Christ, there is absolutely NO chance that he will end up in hell.
James, you've heard this from me before, you might have heard it from a TV preacher, but you will never hear this in a Catholic church:
God saves whom He will, and even the faith to believe and accept Christ is a gift from God, as He does it all.
"in order to be saved, one must recognize that they are a sinner and need Salvation" is exactly what I'm talking about-sinful man can never recognize that he is a sinner in need of Salvation-the conviction that we ARE sinners is a work of God.
After becoming a Christian, all of my sins were forgiven-past, present and future. I cannot sin so greatly that God would give up on me and send me to hell.
"Is that sufficient to be saved, or is it merely necessary to be saved? In other words, what else must one do and/or believe to be saved? The answer varies depending on who you ask."
Thanks for setting the ball up on the tee, James. One of the leaders of Israel, a Pharisee named Nicodemus had such questions for Jesus. He visited him at night so as not to be seen by his fellow Pharisees, and Jesus told him that he must be born again.
Nicodemus was an observant Jew who had kept all of the laws and traditions of Israel, and Jesus swept all of that aside and told him that he MUST be born again.
James, I was 'confirmed' in a Lutheran church. I had been an altar boy, and I sang in the choir all through high school.
But I wasn't saved until two years later and at that moment I was born again, and it was God bringing me into His family. Now I pass by that dead church on the way to my church.
You might think that I rip on Catholics a bit too much.
'shrugs'
It really only comes down to this: true Christians are indwelt by God's Holy Spirit.
All others-religious types, sacrilegious types, wishful hopers and those who have been lied to by parents as lost as they are...not Christian. Not part of God's family. Headed for hell.
You don't know me, James, except through the posts on FDW. I am the only Christian in my family. My parents both died and were not saved. My brother died and was not saved.
The family I have left go to church for funerals and weddings, and if you accused them of being Christians, they would cuss you out.
Read John chapter three; after Nicodemus Jesus talks with a Samaritan woman who had been married more times than Liz Taylor, and who was living with a man who was not her husband. Jesus shared the Gospel with her, and you'll have to read it to find out what happened next.
First, note that I was slightly mocking the "sense of timing" thing. I don't endorse this view as rational, but I'm merely highlighting that Catholics don't believe that baptism guarantees salvation.
BTW, there are Protestants that have slightly similar views as well in that, while one may not earn one's salvation, one can - through unrepented sin - forfeit Heaven. There was a controversy between John MacArthur and (Zane?) Hodges some time ago over MacArthur's "Lordship" theology which some believed led to a works-based theology.
For what it's worth, my view is this: people have a mixture of good and evil. Some of us are aware of our evil inclinations and strive to deny them. It's called living according to your conscience.
Here's the problem: most of us have blind spots in our consciences that enable us to think we're acting according to right principles when we're not. This includes Christians who, under the guise of righteousness or some other thing commit awful deeds. Look at Calvin whose zeal led to the unjust treatment of other Christians, or Richard Furman who was forceful in his support for American slavery.
On the more extreme side, there are people who are, in a sense, "lost" and operate below even an animal level. Their consciences are either dead or inactive, and only a radical, supernatural intervention can change their paths. The world is filled with such monsters: I'm thinking of the men who kidnap civilians and decapitate them on camera or who slaughter their countrymen in mass genocides or sell the bodies of women for sex as traffickers throughout the country (which is becoming an issue in the States).
Other than that, I don't think it's as simple as a binary saved/unsaved. We may all be surprised when we die how much in error we were and for how much "fine tuning" we will need. (Yes, I do believe in the continuation of the soul.)
In terms of your family, well ... although it's none of my business, I sense that there's more to your disappointment than the fact that they weren't believers. Were they also simply unkind people? They sound unpleasant. But again ... not really any of my business so you don't have to answer.
James, reading through your last comment, I was struck by how, with 'aware of our evil inclinations and strive to deny them. It's called living according to your conscience.' and 'blind spots in our consciousness' plus 'there are people who are, in a sense, "lost" and operate below even an animal level.' you have no room in your theology for God. Rather than all those suppositions, I accept the reality that God made us, that sin came in, which separated us from God.
God Himself set up the idea of a sacrifice that must be made to pay for the sin, and the only right, perfect sacrifice was God Himself dying for our sins.
See the difference? Your world view has no room for God, and my world view recognizes that it is all about God.
I had to look up Richard Furman, as I had never heard of him; and you take one more swing at your favorite pinata, Calvin.
Should I recount the millions of "non-Christians behaving badly" who have done much worse than either of these two?
And yes, James, it really is as simple as "saved/unsaved" and God does the choosing for both. The idea of "fine tuning" is rejected by Scripture which states that we die once and then comes the judgement. No mulligans. No next life to get it right. This is it.
I appreciate you treading softly regarding my family, but they were pretty great people, especially my Dad. How good they were as people has nothing to do with whether or not they would go to Heaven or hell. It isn't a popularity contest. It isn't about how nice we are. God decides. He even lets in someone who supports slavery, which is wrong.
There were many Christians on the wrong side in the Civil War, but that didn't send them to hell, because it's not about us, it's about God.
"There were many Christians on the wrong side in the Civil War, but that didn't send them to hell, because it's not about us, it's about God."
Are you saying that Christians may have been "wrong" in terms of the morality of slavery but made it to Heaven despite those beliefs? I think many would agree with you.
What's interesting is that if I say that someone is a "gay Christian" who is a follower of Christ but believes the Bible doesn't condemn having a monogamous gay relationship, I'm told that's impossible and that they're not a "true Christian".
Don't you see this as a contradiction? Why can you be a "Christian slaveholder" who can go to Heaven but not a gay Christian? How is buying and selling human beings for profit more "moral" than being gay? I don't see it.
"Are you saying that Christians may have been "wrong" in terms of the morality of slavery but made it to Heaven despite those beliefs?"
Yes. Yes. Yes.
I don't mind repeating myself: God does the choosing as to who goes where.
I was 'saved' over 30 years ago. I could sin terribly every day for the rest of my life and never be in danger of hell. I would have a LOT to answer for before God, but I could do it.
History lesson-In Christ's time, the Jews and most of the known world were enslaved by Rome. Some of His disciples followed Him in the hope that He would destroy the Romans, freeing them.
What did Christ say? Paraphrase:Pray for your enemies. Obey those in government ruling over you. If you are a slave, work all the harder for your owners, especially if they are also Christians. (Read Paul's letter to Philemon).
Do I agree that the Christians endorsing slavery in this country were wrong? Of COURSE!
Did they have to answer to God for their actions? Also of course-but those mistaken ideas that they held on earth would not keep them out of Heaven any more than my beliefs would keep me out.
Okay, on to the homosexual stuff!
My definition: conflate is a contraction of confuse and inflate-to conflate differing ideas is to lump them together erroneously and then suggest that the combined issue is worse than the parts.
James, with your making a moral judgement on slavery, you don't mind if I follow what the Bible says about homosexuality, do you?
"if I say that someone is a "gay Christian" who is a follower of Christ but believes the Bible doesn't condemn having a monogamous gay relationship, I'm told that's impossible and that they're not a "true Christian"."
Yet you have trouble believing that a slave owner gets into Heaven. huh.
The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality, calling it sin. You have read or heard all of the verses that I could quote, but let's cut to the finish: you know that God calls it sin.
A Christian is one who is indwelt by God's Holy Spirit. I've mentioned that dozens of times on the blog.
A Christian has agreed with God that his sins, whatever they are, are worthy of death and hell. He repents, which means that he turns away from those sins and, if God saves that person, that person will no longer want to sin-rather, they, by being indwelt by God's Spirit, become a new creation, a Christian.
A Christian who does not follow Scripture, if he or she disagrees with God, saying that homosexuality is moral and good...that person is not a Christian, because he has not repented, agreed with God that his sin is wrong and worthy of death.
I'm stopping now as I've used too many words. Show me in the Bible where God condemns slavery. Go for it.
Doug, you have me thoroughly confused. You seem to be contradicting yourself in several ways.
So let me make this simple:
Does the Bible condemn slavery? Yes or No?
If "No", on what basis do you say that our American forefathers were "wrong"?
If "Yes", why do slaveholders go to Heaven for not repenting of something they didn't believe to be a sin in the first place (and it seems clear that the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention never did) but gays do not?
Now I'll answer your question:
"Show me in the Bible where God condemns slavery. Go for it."
It doesn't, as far as I'm aware. It regulates it and gives details on whom one may sell into slavery as well as other details.
Confusion is all on your side of the screen, James, but that's okay. I haven't contradicted myself, unless you mean that your assumptions aren't matching your conclusions.
That's a fancy way of saying that we may be worlds apart in our thinking, as Patton said regarding Americans and Brits-two peoples separated by a common language.
"If "Yes", why do slaveholders go to Heaven for not repenting of something they didn't believe to be a sin in the first place (and it seems clear that the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention never did) but gays do not?"
Because-sit down, James-because you are thinking about the situation wrong, no matter how many times I state what to me is obvious: repenting or not repenting has no effect on what Christ did. As I said above,I could sin every day until I die and I am still going to Heaven because it isn't about whether I can keep from sinning, it is all about what Christ did on the cross to wipe out my sins FOREVER.
You're coming at this from the Catholic point of view, where if a Catholic dies without extreme unction, without the ritual of a priest hearing their confession,their soul may be in trouble. That's pagan. That is wrong.
Once saved by Christ, even slaveowners go to Heaven. If not saved by Christ, the sweetest, nicest people in the world go to hell. Because it isn't about how nice we are, or how bad we are-it's all about whether or not Christ has saved the person.
It really is black and white.
As far as I'm aware, the Bible is silent about slavery. Maybe because all forms of man enslaving other men come from the poisoned pool of human existence. It keeps happening because man keeps doing to one another. I don't blame God for what Man does to himself.
We seem to be talking past each other, so let me keep this to Yes/No questions .. I understand the "faith is all that matters" concept, believe me.
--- Is owning slaves a sin? Yes or No?
If YES:
--- Will a slaveholder, once saved, continue living as an unrepentant slaveholder and claim to have "saving faith"? Yes or No?
If NO:
--- Then at least I'll understand that when you referred to Christians on the "wrong side" of history, you were talking about the abolitionists!
Not trying to irritate you, James. Try this on for size:
Is owning slaves a sin? Yes or No?
Definite maybe. I can see that you have made up your mind that it IS a sin.
I can also see situations where it isn't. Not being flip-let's look at this.
Plantation owner in 1850 Georgia, Randall James (fictitious) owns 100 slaves.
He comes to know Jesus-he is 'saved'. His first impulse is to free all of his
slaves, which he does. Manumission-they are free to go if they like.
They have no homes, no possessions of their own, so they would be paupers.
If they stray beyond the boundaries of James's plantation, they could be captured and resold to someone else, as the rest of the South does not share James's new found faith.
Let's back up to James's moment of conversion. He is a new creature, a new person, and now lives for God, wants to please his Master. He prays and asks God what He should do with his slaves?
And God tells him to take care of them, bless them, pray for them, as the kindness God has shown Randall James should be an example of how he treats his fellow man.
So James retains 'ownership' of the men and women to protect them.
Slavery is galling, is evil,is morally repugnant...and a fact of life. There are billions of people enslaved today by governments (China, North Korea, Cuba) and religions (Islam).
The worst slavemaster is sin. Only those who have been freed from sin know the chains they have been set free from.
You really threw me with the last line, James, about abolitionists in my mind being on the wrong side of history.
I do not side with the slave owners and, as I mentioned, the Republican Party grew out of abolitionist ideals, confronting Slavery as evil.
Christians have obeyed the governments they live under, out of respect for God Who tells us to do so.
For example: Christians in Germany went to war at the insistence of their government which was headed by a madman. They obeyed God by obeying the government they lived under. It's very possible that German Christian shot and killed American Christian and they both end up in Heaven eventually, Praising God.
I asked you to read Paul's letter to Philemon. Paul converted Philemon earlier. Onesimus was a run away slave who had stolen some money as he left Philemon.
Onesimus became a Christian, possibly hearing the Gospel through Paul. Paul sent him back to Philemon with the letter saying that Philemon should regard Onesimus as a brother in Christ, and if Philemon is put out about the money Onesimus had taken, he should charge it to Paul's account.
What do you think of that?
Post a Comment