Does a person become a Christian overnight?

Faith & Science Conversation
62

? born of a woman who is chased by the devil like in Revelation 12? Your theology is looking stranger and weirder by the second.

This is why the book of Revelation is loved by the cults, because picking and choosing they can make it fit whatever nonsense they want to push.

As for me, I think is is obvious that the book of Revelation is not a good foundation for sound theology. No war in heaven at all is fine by me. But I am certainly not going to buy into these abuses of the book to make up whatever nonsensical theology these groups want to push.

And thus the idiocy of those portraying Jesus as blond and blue eyed remaking God in the physical image of the Anglo Saxon protestant. LOL

There is no problem for theistic evolutionists because they do not buy into this nonsense. Created in the image of God has NOTHING to do with physical appearance and biology!!!

1 Like
63

That’s a nice story, but it has nothing to do with the scriptures.

Being “in the image of God” has next to nothing to do with any attributes, it has to do with us being the “statues” in the temple of Creation who represent God to all in the temple. It is better translated “as the image of God”, especially given the type of literature it is.

Why have you started resorting to lies? Try actually reading what I wrote!

To toss your reasoning back at you, I could assert that you’re saying it’s better to just keep stealing from everyone rather than changing at all.

1 Like
64

It becomes clear as I read this commentary that you have done the same picking and choosing with this as you have done with Revelation itself. For his conclusion is that the war described Revelation 12 refers to a spiritual contest begun after the resurrection of Jesus. He identifies the woman with the Christian church. And thus there is no support in Revelation for this theology of a war in heaven at the beginning of time.

I certainly agree that enmity of Lucifer begins with the consequences of the fall where He is named adversary (or Satan). But this is exactly why Lucifer is a scapegoat for the blame which Eve put on the snake is an abdication of responsibility and thus giving it power over her and mankind. And fairness has nothing to do with this because the angels are not children but servants for God to give any role He chooses. After all, it was better for us to blame this angel than to blame God as Adam did indirectly (“that woman you gave me”).

65

That’s a great analogy!

It doesn’t have to be. You should listen to this:

For the video version:

Revelation 12:1-6 is about the birth of the Messiah. Verse 7 does not belong where verse 4 is. John did not mix that up.

So you want to override the text with your personal idea of how things must fit?

Where in Genesis 3 is a “deceiver of all the world” mentioned?

You’re using theology from medieval morality plays that read Satan’s nature later back into the start. Actually read the text and the picture is different.

Expositor’s and Elliot fail to actually read the text as it stands. Listen or watch the links above to understand why.

66

Luther and many in the East state that we must become a Christian anew every day. It’s a thought worth pondering.

3 Likes
67

Especially given that perhaps the main reason it was accepted by the early church was that they read it and saw what it talked about happening around them!

68

Why can’t you understand principles? Stealing is stealing, whether it is from a person or a faceless business. IT IS NOT AN IMPROVEMENT OR CHANGE!

Richard

PS if you are habouring (not reporting) a criminal (thief) you are an accessory after the fact and committing a crime.

69

So you are saying just go ahead and steal instead of making progress.

How is it that you can’t see that this kid had made a major change? You focus on the stealing as though it defines him, and fail to see that his heart had to change before his actions did.

Having dealt with such people off and on, I can tell you exactly the result you would have gotten admonishing him with what you’ve written here: he would have said, “F you”, and probably given up coming to church because you would have been giving him the second most common reason young people leave or reject Christianity: rules and condemnation.

In a book about pastoral theology I once read that if some theology is wrong pastorally, then it is just wrong. Your theology here would have driven away someone making their first steps in sanctification, and that alone makes it wrong.

So – why is it wrong? Because you’re preaching Law, not Gospel; the Law always condemns and you’re just condemning. A Gospel response to the change in his life would have been, “Awesome! Let’s grab some pizza”, and then patience for the right time to ask what about stealing from people’s personal businesses.

You claim a lot to have the Holy Spirit, but that’s not what your response shows.

1 Like
70

Taken as you mean it, that would send pretty much all Catholic and Episcopalian and Lutheran and Methodist and Orthodox priests/ministers to jail.

1 Like
71

I guess we have lost something of the devotion and heart of the early followers of Christ (I did not use here the word ‘Christian’ as the term provoked justifiable criticism).
Stealing is against the will of the Lord and a believer should not steal. That is an obvious teaching in the scriptures. Even being hungry is not an acceptable excuse.

What is the alternative if the person does not have enough of money to buy food?
In the long term, the person should try to get an honest work to earn what is needed for basic life.
In the short term, other believers should support the person, both by helping the person to get the needed food and the other basic needs, for example from wellfare sources, and by giving the necessary food themselves if they can afford it.

There are so many in need that we may feel that we cannot feed all hungry. That is true, we cannot help all. What we can do is stand beside those brothers and sisters we see, giving the support we can. That support is needed when someone turns towards God and starts to follow Jesus. The question is just are we willing to give that much?

2 Likes
72

There is no progress here.

Because he hadn’t Stealing is still stealing regardless who from.

That is not the point here. The point is that you are rationalising stealing from a business as better than stealing from an individual. Why?

This has virtually nothing to do with theology other than the commandment “thou shalt not steal”

Jesus said that he did not come to overturn the law. Being a Christian means obeying civil Law. Paul was talking about the Laws of Moses.

Sorry that is not good enough. Look, if you need to steal we can see if we can help you, but you must stop stealing.

I have warned you before about judging the Holy Spirit. He no more controls my action and thoughts than He did Paul, but then again, you seem to think He did control Paul. Ah well, I think to a greater or lesser extent so did Paul think that.

I suppose I could claim that the Holy Spirit prompts and guides my words while I preach. I wonder, would that make it so?

Richard

73

  1. Well given i am a bachelor degree qualified teacher, i suppose i am automatically guilty of engaging in teaching even on these forums (so theres that now that you bring it up).

  2. Its only a fools errand to those Christians who are resistant to the notion of using a little theolgical comprehension and logic. Reminds me a little of the story of Cain and Abel now you mention it (so, theres that too).

  3. There are individuals read these forums who are not sure. They want to be Christian but are clearly torn between belief in the bible and belief in what is clearly atheistic naturalism. Whether or not you agree, my presence here offers balance so that people can decide for themselves from opposing views. Most here do not agree with me, but as in the case with human freewill, some obviously will and do agree (even if only in part).

  4. Finally, whilst i regularly offer very significant theological challenges to the accepted doctrines on this forum and I am also equaly challenged by the doctrines of individuals here as well. I have learned a lot from peole here. So, education rules the day in any case, except to those who view this as a fools errand like yourself. In which case im not sure why you are here becauser to you, this isnt a place to learn but to indoctrinate (funny thing is, education psychologists will tell you, they [education and indoctrination] are largely both one and the same)

The distinguishing factor between the “education and indoctrination” (ie the openness of inquiry), is a furphy. It can be staged in any setting. North Korea is a classic example, Iran another

74

And what on earth gives you that idea? My platform has always been one of free will and free choice. Indoctrination is contrary to that platform.

That is a trifle self righteous don’t you think? That your message is the correct view of scripture? Or rather the other views are false (same difference)

It is a fools errand because everyone knows that you cannot argue someone into faith or belief.

I agree that you pose an opposing view to the general one here but your claims about aetheistic naturalism do not match the predominant viewpoint.

I also agree that it is the viewer, rather than the participants that are of more interest but I wonder how well your arguments fair? Your damnation of science does you no favours, especially as science is the second pillar that holds up this forum

Don’t get me wrong, you are not alone in your goal to convert or teach, there are several other people with the same vanity and self confidence.

As a point of note, I have always found the best way to teach is to offer all sides of an argument so that the recipient can make a valid and informed choice. As such your views have merit, but not necessarily the one you intend.

On a final note, the thing of greatest interest is how people claiming Biblical authority or inerrancy can produce such opposing doctrines. That, in itself might suggest that there is no consensus about what scripture teaches so any thought of inerrancy or harmony goes up in smoke.

Richard

1 Like
75

Sword — it has been a few days since you posed the question. “Accepting Christ as your Savior” means – by every account I can think of —that we acknowledge the need for forgiveness from God. This forgiveness is because we sense that we are not all we ought to be —from God’s perspective, as well (sometimes) as from our own–and that the only way to attain salvation is by recognizing the saving work that Jesus did on the cross.

So if “that” is what you mean, then of course that is the definition of how becoming a Christian occurs. It has nothing to do with us aside from our decision to ask for God to forgive our sins based on what Jesus did—no small moment,frankly, given our own contrariness.

So that is where it starts. Presumably it leads to the person seeking to live more in line with God’s teachings in the biblical text.

I said “presumably.” And yes, hopefully too.

And then there is the parable of the sower etc as applied to this concept.

76

What a cold-hearted attitude.

Of course it’s the point! You’re spouting nothing but legalism, no grace, no encouragement, just condemnation.

I’m not rationalizing anything – I’m telling you about an actual change of heart in a kid that started him on a path theologians would call sanctification. He wasn’t even rationalizing because he never saw anything wrong with stealing – but thanks to a bit of work by the Holy Spirit he started to, and thankfully there was no one like you spouting Law instead of Gospel to turn him back.

And you say you know the Holy Spirit!
The theology is that the Spirit changes hearts, and this kid’s was being changed. If you can only see law and condemnation, and show no grasp of grace at all, you need to go back to Theology 101.

Ancient theological maxim: lex semper accusat, law always condemns – and in condemning, it kills. You’re on the side of killing new life in Christ, the side of snuffing out a smoldering wick and breaking off bruised reeds.

The Gospel isn’t good enough?!?

He didn’t need to steal, so your offer of help would have gotten a laugh (and probably a curse). He stole because he could – and that’s what makes that small change of heart such a big event: the Spirit cracked his view of the world, and then proceeded to widn that crack.

Judging the Spirit? I should ask what you’re smoking that you can’t read the plain words on the page! If I was judging, it was you for quenching the Spirit by ignoring grace.

People don’t change overnight, no matter how much your legalistic view of the world might demand it; they change in pieces, in baby steps, sometimes stumbling, sometimes almost giving up. I shared an example of that and all you had to offer was judgment and condemnation which thankfully you weren’t around to slap on that kid and drive him from Christ. Sure, sometimes the Spirit changes someone all at once, but that’s pretty rare, so most of the time the thing to give is encouragement, not condemnation.

77

No, what people are torn between is imposing a modern worldview onto the scriptures that makes the entire Bible look foolish and a confidence that when the scripture tells us that the world God made tells us about Him we can proceed with honest research.

Balance? How can you provide balance when what you advocate for is lies about the world, about science, about other Christians, about scripture! You’ve been shown that you are pushing lies, but you just ignore it! Just one example:

The opening Creation story in Genesis follows the order of the Egyptian creation story – that is a fact. Indeed it is a fact that make excellent sense for a number of reasons, the foremost one being that taking someone else’s ‘theology’ and correcting it was a primary method of arguing against that ‘theology’. It’s something Moses was perfect for since he would have known the Egyptian version quite well and he did a superb job of crushing the Egyptian view with just about every single verse.

The account also fits the category “temple inauguration”, which everyone back then would have recognized by the balance between the two sets of days followed by the placing of an image in that temple, after which Yahweh “rested” – a common ANE way of saying that deity bestowed approval on the new temple. The twist is that the usual temple inauguration account had a king or other mighty/important figure constructing the temple, then filling it, and last of all putting up the deity’s image and asking the deity to inhabit both image and temple, taking up his/her “rest”. This is a fact about the first Creation account, and denying it just makes you look foolish.

78

That always makes me cringe. It tends to suggest that the person is doing something that requires the “correct” response from Jesus.
It’s more accurate to say “Surrender to Jesus”. Paul portray us as God’s enemies until Christ takes hold of us, and what enemies do is not accept so much as surrender.

2 Likes
79

@St.Roymond

This has nothing to do with the Holy Spitit, or theology. This is about whether stealing from a business is any improvement.

You steal from my business you steal from me. You ate also stealing from my customers, because I have to recoup the loss from somewhere.

If it i a corporate or "faceless " business you are still stealing from people. People own or have shares in these companies. Any loss will affect both thier profits and the viability of the company. Any loss will have to be recovered, perhaps by cutting staff or raising prices and so on.

There is no such thing as a victimless crime.

And to do it because you can?

So it’s alright to kill if you can?

The 11th commandment: thou shalt not get caught?

This is not legalism this is reality. But then again reality seems to be personal not universal.

Richard

80

I agree but I can understand the various expressions used for the surrender. There has been a relatively long history of using expressions like ‘accept Christ as your savior’. I have used this kind of expressions earlier but have switched to using the word ‘surrender’ because it is more accurate. Whatever words we use the aim is the same. There is a danger that someone understands the words in a wrong, too selfish way but the goal is towards a relationship where Jesus is the Lord.

I see something similar in the use of the words that tell how our location relative to Jesus changes. There has been a relatively long tradition of using expressions like ‘Jesus moves to your heart’. It is somewhat biblical because there are some verses telling about Christ in us (perhaps 5-6). Yet, there are far more verses speaking about us in Christ (>160 if I remember correctly). In those circles where I move, the majority of teachers and speakers have started to prefer the expression of ‘us moving in Christ’ because it gives a better description of what happens spiritually and reveals more about our position during the life as the followers of Jesus. If Jesus moves to my heart, I am the householder; if I move in Christ, Jesus is the householder.

As you seem to like hymns, a sidekick to that direction: many of the old songs loved by believers in protestant churches include expressions that are obscure to outsiders and include parts that sound nice but are theologically somewhat questionable. In my denomination, we have been discussing about a need to move towards a language that can be understood by outsiders that have very little knowledge about the teachings of Christianity. If we move towards using such language, we may also get rid of some theologically questionable details in the songs.

2 Likes
81

OK…yeah I can see your point. We aren’t doing Jesus a favor in “accepting Christ”. We are acknowledging a reality and, also, the fact that this is not something we earned by dint of the wonderfulness of ourselves.

1 Like