arunma
Flaming Calvinist
"Bishop" John Shelby Spong. He is a former bishop in the Episcopal church, the American branch of the Anglican Communion, and his beliefs are heterodox to the extent that he might not even believe in a personal deity of any sort. The fact that people such as this are tolerated within the Anglican Communion causes me great concern as to the spiritual state of the Anglican Church. Does not this denomination believe in excommunication? This is not merely a case of a single rogue bishop. Rowan Williams, who is the Archbishop of Canterbury, has expressed support for liberal theologians and has made statements denying the accuracy of the Bible and in support of false religions. Most recently he made comments last Christmas suggesting that the Biblical account of Christ's birth is in error. I can look up the details if you are not familiar with them.
You seem severely agitated that I have criticized the Anglican Church. I want you to know that I do this not because I enjoy criticism for its own sake, but because I have legitimate concerns about the doctrine of your denomination. This is not to say that all Anglican churches are apostate. Indeed, many American Episcopal churches protested the liberalism of our country's branch of the Anglican Communion by associating themselves with Bible-believing Anglican bishops in Africa (this came in response to the ordination of Bishop Gene Robinson, who is openly homosexual and has committed the sin of separating from his wife). Secundulus, the original poster of this thread, identifies himself as an Anglican, and I call him a beloved brother in Christ. But the Anglican Church seems to tolerate sin and false doctrine amongst its leaders. I do not say the things that I do out of hatred for anyone, but out of love for Jesus Christ and hatred of the things that blaspheme him. I will fully admit that I hate false doctrine and false religions. This is not because I hate the people who believe in them (quite the opposite!), but because false religions and doctrine condemn people to hell.
I certainly do not seek hostility here, and I hope that you will not consider me your enemy. But I cannot deny anything that I've said in order to gain your favor.
Catherine, though you cite the parable of the sheep and the goats as a convincing proof that non-Christians will go to heaven, I do not believe you have properly interpreted the parable. It says,
And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.' (Matthew 25:40)
The word "brothers" is never used in the New Testament lightly, but is a form of address for fellow Jews and fellow Christians. The world will be judged by how it responded to the evangelistic witness of Christians. This is confirmed in Christ's commissioning of the twelve,
As you enter the house, greet it. And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it, but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town. (Matthew 10:12-15)
In this passage from the same Gospel, our blessed Lord specifically ties the proper reception of Christians to receiving the peace of God. Moreover, it condemns to hell everyone who rejects the Gospel. This includes Hindus who do not reject Hinduism and believe in Jesus Christ.
You are correct in one matter: referring to Jesus Christ as Lord doesn't save anyone. So consider this: many Hindus place the Soverign Lord Jesus Christ in the pantheon of their false and detestable Hindu gods, and thus they call him "lord." Clearly they do not trust him for their salvation, yet the Bible says that one must trust in Christ for justification in order to be saved (Romans 4:5). What then will become of the Hindu who called Jesus "lord" but sought to be liberated from the cycle of birth and death and reach Vaikunta by paying for his negative karma? This is nothing short of salvation by works!
I implore you to consider what you are saying: that a man can work his way into the grace of God. Consider the parable of Christ. One man prays to himself, "Lord Vishnu, I offer fruit, ghee, curd, and honey to you, and read the Sri Satynarayana story every full moon day, and I have never eaten beef." Another says, "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, have mercy on me." Which one went home justified? Please search the Scriptures before you answer. The Lord Jesus never had anything positive to say about the gods of the Gentiles! Eternal life is that we might know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent (John 17:3).
What I say is unimportant. What matters is what the Bible says. You cite a misinterpretation of one of Christ's parables as evidence that non-Christians can be saved, but I do not believe that your doctrine agrees with what Scripture says about false religions. It says,
Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. (1 John 2:22-23)
And there it is: no one who denies the Son Jesus Christ has God the Father! If you believe in this Scripture, then no Hindu can have eternal life.
But I myself have said as much. I stated in an earlier post (post number 14 in this thread) that I do not impute the guilt of these persecutors on all Hindus, but rather that all Hindus (indeed all humans) are condemned to hell for their own sins, and can only be saved by Jesus Christ. I have demanded an apology from no Hindu. In fact if the Hindus on this board wish to discount the persecutors as fellow Hindus, I do not even object to this. So may I ask why you charge me with wrongdoing?
What I have said, however, is that Hindu teaching includes a fundamental premise that a Hindu is defined as one by his or her birth, and is not free to deny the idolatry of Hinduism in order to follow Christ. Hindus who convert to Christianity, and apparently even the children of such converts, are regarded as confused Hindus who need to be forced back into this awful and idolatrous faith. Now, it could very well be that the Hindus who are killing Christians are in violation of other Hindu teachings (and perhaps this even disqualifies them from being obedient Hindus), but their actions are, in my best judgment, a symptom of the belief that Hindus are defined as Hindus by birth. I regard Hinduism as something to be abandoned rather than repaired, so I am by no means asking Hindus to alter anything about their beliefs. But is important for Christians on this forum, especially Christians in the West, to better understand the reasons for the persecution of our brothers and sisters in India.
This is especially true of liberal and nominal Western Christians. Indian Christians are currently suffering the loss of property and even their own lives because they consider Christ Jesus to be of more value to them than their lives. Now you believe that other religions are valid means of salvation, so please put yourself in this situation. You are British, and your ancient European history is one of paganism and idolatry. If someone told you that you are pagan because you are British, and that you must worship pagan gods or be put to death, would you be faithful to Christ even unto death? Or would you consider your own life to be more valuable than your faith in Christ because you believe that there is salvation to be found in paganism? I do not know what your answer would be, and I am not asking you to provide one. But you should consider this carefully, because God does not allow his people to be martyred without cause. These people have followed the example of Christ, and have shown with their lives the level of devotion that God requires of his people. Weak theology which says that other religions can save the human soul can never produce this sort of faith.
The Bible does not anywhere claim to be inerrant, and therefore such a belief is not Biblical, nor demanded in our faith. Therefore, you are quite right many of our bishops don't believe it, and neither do I.This is not the same thing as saying the Bible is not inspired by God. It says it is, and therefore it is. It does not say it is inerrant, and therefore it is not.
But the Bible does say this,
The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; (Psalm 19:7)
The Bible does not contain half-truths. The testimony of God can be regarded as sure because it is perfect.
I have already mentioned many passages of Scripture which speak to the contrary. Furthermore, if Hindus may be saved by the grace of God, then why does the Bible say this?
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:36)
and,
This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering-- since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. (2 Thessalonians 1:5-10)
Clearly one cannot be a Christian who denies what the apostles taught ("our testimony to you"). The grace of God is mediated by faith. Grace is free, but it is not cheap, because it cost the infinitely precious blood of Jesus Christ. Please do not be offended when I say that you are wrong to promise salvation to those who commit adultery with false idols.
Upvote
0
