I’m lost without him. And I presume (by faith from the testimony of scriptures that I accept) that what is true of me is pretty universally true. That is … I think we (none of us) know God without knowing Christ. That doesn’t mean that I have all the right “religious-speak” regarding Christ down pat - in fact I think Christ saves people who may have never even heard of him or did not know who he was. The many who lived before Christ became incarnate have also been (or had the opportunity to) respond to his Spirit too - in whatever culture or language they had. Christ is my alignment to God, and my only hope of coming into obedience to that, by his work for me and in me. If Christ is not God’s messiah to us, then I do not know God (and am not even sure I would want to - would probably be better if there were no God at all in such a case - but who could say?). All I know is that Christ is my cornerstone, my one foundation that I cling to (or should always cling to) as true. Apart from that foundation I am at the mercy of my own sin. And even while on that foundation, I still am called to do the works of repentance and love. I don’t know of any other source for these motivations. And whoever responds in love to his neighbor is responding to Christ and doing His work. Christ is at work in that person’s kindness (love) even if that person has not yet been brought to a point of explicitly knowing or stating things in formal creedal languages of this or that confession. I don’t believe Christ is bound by our own earthbound “books of life” that we presume to be keeping on behalf of the Creator.
I think others who lived this earth in such a way that they never had access to his teaching/testimony like we do, still were responding to the moving Spirit from wherever they were. They weren’t given as much to work with perhaps, but we are each accountable for what we are given. And that is a sobering thought for all of us now who claim boldly that we understand. That’s all I can write for now … and perhaps it is quite enough.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
45
A stand up answer according to faith. I expect nothing less from you Mervin and you always deliver.
The billion up to Christ and the hundred billion since, certainly in the very main, were definitely not given as much to work with as the recent helplessly privileged minority of us.
I have every confidence in the faithfulness of Christ to make up all we all lack.
As a pluralist who believes in wider-hope theories, I understand and accept all this. I think it misses the point I am trying to make though. As a Christian I struggle with this. I feel many people are Christians based upon their personal experiences with God/Jesus/Holy Spirit while reading the Bible or being witnessed to, etc.
Christianity as a religion does make some specific fact claims (such as God incarnate, the resurrection etc). My question is how do we go from Christian personal experience to the validity of some of the major fact-claims of our religion when people in other religions tend to have similar faith experiences with God? I think my question is more epistemological in nature. The responses which I appreciated seem to be there is some truth in all religions. I agree but feel my question is actually presupposing that so its not a valid solution to it. It leads me to be suspicious of using my personal experiences with God to justify any historical-fact claims of my religion. Because I would think Jews and Muslims are goin to similarly justify their religious fact-claims based upon their experiences with God. Plus to me, geography plays a huge role in what “religion” a person ends up finding God in. How do we get out of this maze?
You put it very well, Vinnie. It has always seemed to me that the phenomenology of religious experience doesn’t really support religious doctrine all that well.
I"m not a Christian but it does seem to me that in reflection there are sometimes insights which can surpass what one can fashion through rational deliberation. My impression is that there is something more within than just my own deliberate efforts. If I’d been raised successfully within a religion I’m sure I would have linked whatever this something more we all tap into to God. Lacking that I mostly just let it stand as a mystery and attribute it to the same processes of consciousness which gives rise to my sense of self. There simply is something prior which supports us and makes possible our kind of experience to which we are indebted. Does it need to be a God? I don’t think so but precisely what it is is less important than that we have a successful relationship with it. For that reason, I don’t think religious doctrine is necessarily a mistake. If the iconography and mythos of religion helps to link a person to this something more … does it matter that it is absolutely and exclusively true? I don’t think so. In a sense, if it works to make one whole and able to lead a good life, what does it matter?
For example consider the verses you shared about saved under the name of Christ. Many don’t understand what that means. The actual context is lost on many but the gospels explain it very well.
When reading through the gospels and epistles we see that Jesus is the only way to the father. We see having faith in Jesus means more than just saying his name. Something very few believe. To be saved in the name of Jesus is referring to only Jesus can save us. There is no one else we can call upon to save us. Muhammad can’t save us. The sutras of Buddha can’t save us.
To have faith is to have belief verified through actions including bearing the fruit of the spirit.
Matthew 7:13
New American Standard Bible
The Narrow and Wide Gates
13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.
James 2:19-20
New American Standard Bible
19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to acknowledge, you foolish person, that faith without works is useless?
I feel that often people accuse others of trying to out God in a box when the reality is that it’s not God we are putting in a box. It’s holding firm to the gospel.
1 Corinthians 15:1-2
New American Standard Bible
The Fact of Christ’s Resurrection
15 Now I make known to you, brothers and sisters, the gospel which I preached to you, which you also received, in which you also stand, 2 by which you also are saved, if you hold firmly to [a]the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
Galatians 1:8, 2 Corinthians 11:4 and Ephesians 6 all talk about staying in truth and righteousness.
The sad fact is that not everyone who says Lord Lord will be known by Christ. I
Finally! You’re the type of guy I’ve been looking for. My position has more representation here than I expected.
Of course, discourse is encouraged. No hard feelings guys.
If you can list salvation as one of your accomplishments in life then unlike that guy in Matthew 19 you can go away with the feeling that you have it all take care of and you are now entitled to a rich afterlife.
And if you think I am not one of those guys, then you are RIGHT!
It doesn’t take much to turn a religion into an evil force in the world and the feeling of entitlement does that for Christianity. That is the story told in world history. Christians feeling they are entitled to slave labor, so why not put the people of Africa to good use. Christians feeling they are entitled to the land in the Americas so why not exterminate the natives just like God ordered the extermination of those in Palestine to make way for his chosen people. Christians feeling entitled to all the resources, wealth, and rulership over the world, so they divided it all up between the nations of Europe and America and established their dominion and control.
One doesn’t have to embrace the culture, narrow minded exclusivity, entitlement, and enmity to the rest of the world in order to believe in the Bible and Christianity.
If you stick around a while @Isaac_Philo, and continue to read with an open mind, you’ll quickly discover that the Forum is a very large tent. There is all sorts here, whether Christian or otherwise.
I was going to say the same. You have disciples from all kinds of denominations, political stances, and societal expectations on what is and what is not normal or expected of citizens. The most common thread you’ll find among the Christians here is that some parts of the Bible was wrote in a manner not to be read literally. Something most Christians already do when you get to symbolisms of revelation or psalms 74. Many here just apply that also to how genesis 1-11 is wrote and the war accounts. Beyond that, and even within that, there are tons of different theological positions. If we all agreed the threads would be really short lol.
Christianity is a pretty large tent. I am frequently startled by the failure of some to comprehend this. I think it is primarily fostered by a battle mentality: Christians against the world.
But Christianity including all its forms and variations is still the biggest religion: 2.38 billion compared to 1.91 billion in Islam, 1.19 billion nonreligious, 1.16 billion Hindu, 506 million Buddhist, etc… Which is one of the reasons I looked in askance at Isaac’s talk of a “culture inundated with Godlessness.”
The biggest problem isn’t that the world isn’t Christian enough, but that Christians need to be better Christians. And I mean all of them. It’s not that the super religious ones are ok and all the others need to be more religious as if that is what God wants most – the Bible says otherwise!
P.S. I was amused to see the Unitarian Universalists listed as a different religion and it makes me wonder exactly who are counted as Christian in that 2.38 billion. It is not like some of the disputed groups are going to change the numbers by any great amount: 16.7 million LDS(mormon), and 8.5 million Jehovah witnesses, being the largest. Looking that up, I stumbled across the explanation for not including the UU which is that they apparently don’t call themselves Christian anymore.
I would say there are some interesting cases of miracles and religious visions, which defy explanation, as there certainly are. But I think there are interesting cases of miracles both inside ‘and’ outside of Christianity. Rather, I believe Christianity is the religion which rings true best to me, in the sense that it is a metanarrative (about how we are all are sinners and need to repent) that is quite plainly true. Also whilst care for creation is good, we also need to distinguish humans from animals when making ethical decisions between the two, and I think the notion of the Imago Dei gives a good justification for that.
This may seem close to fideism, but I think Dr Rota’s formulation of Pascal’s Wager can help to avoid this. As long as there is a decent amount of evidence, it is reasonable to believe, even if we are not 100% sure.
As one who frequently condemns Pascal’s Wager I was prompted to look this up. I ended up listening to the “classical theism” (Catholic) webcast where they listed the following objections to Pascal’s wager:
You cannot control your beliefs
Many gods/religion objection.
It’s not Christian because it is profit seeking rather than about love.
My response to these objections are
This idea you cannot control your beliefs is nonsensical and Rota’s solution is just word games. You choose your beliefs for a variety of reasons and the only question is whether this Pascal’s wager provides a good reason or not. To be sure a benefit for believing may not sound like a good reason to you because you are not a pragmatist in matters of belief.
This certainly does change things because the god and religion changes the benefits. And I see no reason to restrict the choices either. The fact that Buddhism would certainly not condemn atheism just goes to show how the benefits are greatly changed. And classifying Hinduism as not being monotheistic is just plain ignorant.
No Pascal’s wager is not Christian. But the reason given is a strawman argument.
In any case these are certainly not my objections. My objections are the following:
The assignment of benefit values are completely subjective and self serving.
Those particular assignment of benefit values are based on the premise that belief in God is all that God cares about. But the evidence from both the Bible and the world doesn’t support this premise at all. Rota’s version only changes this to Christian religious practices being all that God cares about which is likewise dubious in the light of what the Bible says.
Pascal’s Wager is the opposite of faith according to Paul in Romans 10. He says that faith doesn’t imagine you can say who is going to heaven and who is going to hell. Faith doesn’t look for rewards and accepts that you are not entitled to any rewards. So expecting rewards nullifies any supposed faith.
So contrary to the premise of Pascal’s wager I think it is all too possible that these are the results: God exists, you don’t believe, but doing what is right for its own sake earns the highest rewards. God exists, but you believe because of Pascal’s wager so get the worst results. God does not exist and you do believe then you live a stressful life fearing a nonexistent threat. God does not exist and you don’t believe so you have the peace of mind that death is the end and absolutely nothing to worry about.
So I can assign benefit values (rationally scaling everything to a +/-100 scale): +100,-100,-50,+50 Then your calculation of the expected result assuming equal probabilities is: belief -75 (poor expectation), disbelief +75 (good expectation).
Just demonstrating how subjective are the assignment of benefit values to these possibilities.
As for me, I believe God does exist but don’t expect that belief to earn me anything and instead do what is right for its own sake and have faith that God will do what He can for me and my regard for God is entirely based on who He is and not at all upon some expectation of benefits.
I have some sympathy with Matthew Bates here; especially as Paul wrote about following Jesus with allegiance in the face of persecution, not just the act of believing. However, I can see what Schreiner says, too.
Maybe I’d better start a new thread for this! Sorry; Moderators, please feel free to redirect me.
Thanks.
I also whole-heartedly agree that a central theme within the Bible is that Christians need to be better Christians, and 100% include myself in that class. I am also grateful that by, God’s grace, the Holy Spirit assists us in this endeavour. Otherwise, knowing my own hearts proclivity towards sin, it would certainly be a fools errand.
Hmmmm… new idea… and it may alter my understanding of faith, but at most to add on to the facets I already consider… faith as choice, faith as a means of knowledge, faith as doing things without expectation of payment, faith as trust that something (such as life, goodness, God, love,…) is worthwhile.
You may notice that “belief” is NOT one of those I consider.
Allegiance? eh?
Brings to mind the battle/warfare metaphor which is certainly not one of my favorites.
Bates says, “The advantage of allegiance is that it includes the idea that good works are necessary for final salvation.” This is certainly not something I would say. I would say rather that an advantage of allegiance is that it doesn’t mislead us into thinking faith is just some intellectual work of belief, but something which engages our whole being – it is who we choose to be.
But I guess my conclusion is that “allegiance” is only good as a metaphor for faith – some might find it a useful way of explaining things.
As for election I believe that is only about participation in God’s providence. I do not believe individual and corporate salvation are mutually exclusive. That would seem to be largely a matter of personality. I certainly don’t buy into the idea that salvation is only for those with a herd mentality and that the lone champion is damned any more than people are damned for being a scientist. I don’t think the Bible supports such a claim either.
My guess is that it is very very Roman Catholic just like that “classic theism” webcast. (Not to say this is a necessarily bad thing… but to remind everyone that we are not all Roman Catholic LOL)
The way protestants and especially evangelicals like to harp on the notion of salvation by grace and faith as opposed to work, they would avoid saying it the way Bates does without negating the explanation of James that faith without works is dead. And you may notice how I cast the faith as belief notion into the mold of “intellectual work” as a way of supporting this.
From my understanding, he’s Protestant, even though he teaches at a Roman Catholic college. He felt this presents a bridge between the two understandings.
Books I recommend are The Intelligible Universe: A Cosmological Argument by Hugo Meynell (if you can find it, since it is out of print) and Miracles by C.S. Lewis.
The New Testament does not shy away from the idea of evidence for God from creation (Rom 1:20). To say that the universe just happens, as a brute fact, to conform to laws or abstract formulations is incoherent. What does explain the predictable conformity of nature to abstractions is intelligent will at the ground floor, so to speak, upholding it (Heb 1:3).
A purely physical or materialistic philosophy struggles with the phenomenon we know more directly and certainly than any other–our own consciousness (1 Cor 2:11).
Then there is the moral order written in the human heart (John 1:9; Rom 2:15) which defies explanation as mere instinct. Objective, immutable moral values lie outside physical descriptions. Again, it is easier to envision a real moral dimension to the world if intelligent will, characterized by love, is at the root of everything.
Jesus Christ as the embodiment of self-sacrificing love answers to my own experience of the moral reality better than the sages, mystics, and claimants to spiritual truth associated with other religious traditions.
Of course, there is much more that could be said concerning these points. However, Jesus himself was not averse to providing evidence for belief (Mark 2:8-12; John 10:37-38). I think that insofar as we can, we should do likewise.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
63
That’s post hoc of believing in the first place. Cart before horse. Affirming the consequent. Nature just happens from eternity and there’s nothing abstract about its laws. Order does not imply or require meaning. Except when it gets up to our level of awareness. Are you suggesting a God-of-the-gaps magic explanation for it? All over the infinitesimal universe? That that is somehow the trump card?
