God's Test of Human Souls: Is it fair?

[copernicus]

I don't know why. You seem like an intelligent guy to me. Have you even bothered read it yet?

Why don't you look into it and tell us what it says.

Hordeprime very kindly printed the passage for all to read above. For all of my "intelligence", I still see the passage as entirely consistent with premises 1 thru 5. Since you brought the passage up, but seem unable or unwilling to explain its relevance, we appear to have no basis for further discussion of it. I can't make your case for you.

 

[copernicus]

In response to Logic:
I'm not even going to touch that, do you understand how unjust and cruel that concept is?
Judgment is not cruel at all. Our God is a Just God. He gave us the criteria to enter heaven...He must follow through on His Word, because He is a JUST God. He gave you the free will to either accept His criteria (Jesus) or reject Him. To me that is beautiful not cruel...He is actually giving us a chance, where no chance existed by our own accord.

But we don't all get the same chance, which contradicts your claim that God is "just". Nor is it clear why he needs to test any of us anyway, since his perfect knowledge would make the answer clear beforehand. The logic of your position gets even worse when you claim that failures end up being tortured for eternity. First, God sets up a test that he doesn't need to make. Then he injects the test with stories of reward and threats of punishment. Then he actually carries out the threats against those that he knew would fail in the first place. How can this be beautiful to anyone but a sadist?

The conditions are not the same for everyone, think about moslems who think the same thing about you. You had a chance to accept Allah as lord, but you rejected it, was Allah's test fair for both you and them if you've only had a good deal of exposure to christianity?

Still...We all fall short of the glory of God. It matters not what religion someone is. Allah...first of all isn't God. There is only ONE true God and that is the One I serve. He is The Father, His Son Jesus sits at His right hand in Heaven and His Holy Spirit dwells within those who believe in Him. Being from the civilized world with knowledge at my finger tips..I could have made Allah my God. But I chose to reject him, why? Because I have a free will to do so. Just as you have the free will and choice to reject Jesus.

It must matter what religion someone is, since, by your lights, muslims will all go to hell for choosing to worship a false god. On the other hand, Allah is the same God of Abraham that the Christian god is. Muslims all count themselves as "children of Abraham". You just believe that they have a false picture of the Abrahamic god. Many muslims believe that you will end up in hell for having offended their much truer version of god. How will you feel if they are right? Not only will you be tortured for eternity, but you'll have egg on your face.

You're saying that God has already planned for some of us to suffer eternal damnation, he must have weanted us to.

No. It isn't God's plan. Believe it or not God is a loving God...but again He is a just God and has a criteria laid out for us. If we reject Jesus we will suffer eternal damnation. It is such a simple plan. "For God so loved the world that he gave His only Son...that whoever believes in Him should not perish...but have everlasting life." Praise Jesus Forevermore!!

Your opinions about God seem to contradict themselves. God knows exactly how we choose to face moral dilemmas, but he makes us go through those choices anyway. Then he punishes those he knew would fail in the first place. Yet you claim that that wasn't his "plan". Was God hoping that things wouldn't turn out the way he knew they would? You call it a "simple plan", but it strikes me as a horribly confused one. You say "Believe it or not God is a loving God". But your description of him is that of a needlessly cruel god.

 

[12volt_man]

Hordeprime very kindly printed the passage for all to read above. For all of my "intelligence", I still see the passage as entirely consistent with premises 1 thru 5. Since you brought the passage up, but seem unable or unwilling to explain its relevance, we appear to have no basis for further discussion of it. I can't make your case for you.

I'm not asking you to make my case for me. As I've explained to you before, my case is found in Romans 5.

The whole point of this passage, which I don't believe you've read yet, is that God does not reward us for passing some imaginary "test" because we have already failed the test by sinning and falling short of God's glory.

Likewise, God does not punish us for failing such a test because He has reached out a hand of reconciliation to us, even while we were in rebellion against Him.

I don't know how to make it any simpler to you.

 

[copernicus]

I'm not asking you to make my case for me. As I've explained to you before, my case is found in Romans 5.

I didn't find it there, but finally you seem willing to explain a little of what you found there yourself.

The whole point of this passage, which I don't believe you've read yet, is that God does not reward us for passing some imaginary "test" because we have already failed the test by sinning and falling short of God's glory.

OK, we failed test #1 and are all doomed at the get-go. Test #2--acceptance of Jesus--carries the reward of redemption. Romans 5 does not say that everyone gets forgiven unconditionally. They have a second chance--another test to fail. This is not substantively different from my point in the OP. Since different people are given different inducements to accept Christ, the test conditions are still different.

Likewise, God does not punish us for failing such a test because He has reached out a hand of reconciliation to us, even while we were in rebellion against Him.

That's your interpretation of it, but not all Christians have the same perspective on scripture that you do. I'm not one to argue the fine points of scripture and doctrine with, since I'm completely neutral on how it ought to be interpreted. The fact remains that God punishes *some* souls for *some* reason, right? Having been offered the "brass ring" of redemption, those souls fail to grasp it. They flunk the final test. Punishment ensues. Again, this all fits well with premises 1-5 in the OP. IMO, anyway. You seem to disagree.

I don't know how to make it any simpler to you.

No, you've clarified it perfectly for me. Thanks for taking the time to give your perspective. God has offered us a second chance at eternal life, but only if we pass one last test.

 

[12volt_man]

This is not substantively different from my point in the OP. Since different people are given different inducements to accept Christ, the test conditions are still different.

No, it's greatly different from your point.

God does not reward us for passing your mythical "test", nor does He punish us for failing it.

He offers us reconciliation in spite of our failings.

There is no test.

That's your interpretation of it, but not all Christians have the same perspective on scripture that you do.

And I've asked you to demonstrate two different Christian interpretations and you can't.

This is a central tenet of Christianity that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, nevertheless, God demonstrated His great love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

I'm not one to argue the fine points of scripture and doctrine with, since I'm completely neutral on how it ought to be interpreted. The fact remains that God punishes *some* souls for *some* reason, right? Having been offered the "brass ring" of redemption, those souls fail to grasp it. They flunk the final test. Punishment ensues. Again, this all fits well with premises 1-5 in the OP. IMO, anyway. You seem to disagree.

I absolutely disagree. You have not only not read the chapter I've suggested, but you're misrepresenting the central beliefs of Christianity.

God has offered us a second chance at eternal life, but only if we pass one last test.

No, there is no test. Please read Romans 5, as this chapter explains this in great detail. God offers us reconciliation because of His grace, not because we have passed some mythical "test" of yours.

 

[copernicus]

No, it's greatly different from your point.

God does not reward us for passing your mythical "test", nor does He punish us for failing it.

He offers us reconciliation in spite of our failings.

There is no test.

Then there is no Judgement Day after the Second Coming, right?

And I've asked you to demonstrate two different Christian interpretations and you can't.

I wasn't aware that you were asking me to demonstrate any Christian interpretations. Perhaps you forgot. I'm not the one who is the Christian. I am quite willing to discuss your interpretations, though.

This is a central tenet of Christianity that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, nevertheless, God demonstrated His great love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

So you say. But why am I still theoretically facing hell then? Something's wrong with this picture.

I absolutely disagree. You have not only not read the chapter I've suggested, but you're misrepresenting the central beliefs of Christianity.

The passage is printed in this thread, and I have read it. I do not claim to be discussing everyone's Christian doctrine, and I made that clear in the OP. I was just discussing versions of God that conform to premises 1-5. You may not have noticed, but there is more than one version of Christianity out there, much to the dismay of most Christians. And there seems to be a neverending supply of Christians who have got it figured out where all the other versions have gone awry.

No, there is no test. Please read Romans 5, as this chapter explains this in great detail. God offers us reconciliation because of His grace, not because we have passed some mythical "test" of yours.

The offer is not unconditional. The "test" is the conditions required for us to be able to "accept" the offer. We all learn our fate on "Judgment Day", yes? That is when we find out who passes and who fails.

 

[Codeman]

So you say. But why am I still theoretically facing hell then? Something's wrong with this picture.

theoretically, you haven't accepted the gift.

The offer is not unconditional

sure it is

The "test" is the conditions required for us to be able to "accept" the offer.

huh?

We all learn our fate on "Judgment Day", yes?

yup.

That is when we find out who passes and who fails.

its not really a pass fail thing. its more of a choice. like you can choose to rob a bank, or not. Its kinda your call.

 

[12volt_man]

Then there is no Judgement Day after the Second Coming, right?

Yes, all of us will stand before God and be judged. We will be judged as to whether we are seperated from God by sin or reconciled to God through Chist, not on the basis of your mythical "test".

I wasn't aware that you were asking me to demonstrate any Christian interpretations.

Yes. Actually, this is the second time I've asked you.

Perhaps you forgot. I'm not the one who is the Christian. I am quite willing to discuss your interpretations, though.

But you are the one making the claim. Since you've made this claim twice now, how about being a sport and backing it up for us? Or are you just making it up?

So you say. But why am I still theoretically facing hell then? Something's wrong with this picture.

Because you, like all of us, are seperated from God by sin, apart from Christ.

The passage is printed in this thread, and I have read it.

I don't believe you have. You haven't referred to it once and, when I asked you about it, you weren't able to answer. Given that and the fact that you flat out refused to read it for yourself, I have to assume that you still haven't read it.

Like I've said, I can't imagine what it is about a passage from a book you say you don't even believe that frieghtens you so.

I do not claim to be discussing everyone's Christian doctrine, and I made that clear in the OP.

You did claim to be discussing "everyone's Christian doctrine" when you made the statement, "all Christians do seem to believe that life is some kind of test of our character. Good people are rewarded with salvation, and bad people are not."[/I

Further, your exact words were, "Is 1-5 a fair description of beliefs that Christians hold?" By "beliefs Christians hold", it is assumed that you mean those doctrines generally accepted by Christians as codified in the major creeds and confessions of the faith and as taught in scripture.

So, are you or aren't you?

I was just discussing versions of God that conform to premises 1-5.

Which versions? If you're going to come to a Christian message board, post on in a Christian thread in a Christian forum and make such claims that Christians disagree on these doctrines and that "there is more than one version of Christianity out there", then it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate these things.

You may not have noticed, but there is more than one version of Christianity out there, much to the dismay of most Christians.

No, there's not. If a teaching deviates from scripture, then it is not a Christian teaching. Period.

And there seems to be a neverending supply of Christians who have got it figured out where all the other versions have gone awry.

Why don't you name some of these "other versions" for us?

The offer is not unconditional. The "test" is the conditions required for us to be able to "accept" the offer. We all learn our fate on "Judgment Day", yes? That is when we find out who passes and who fails.

Again, there is no test, except in your misunderstanding of Christianity.

You asked what Christians believe. I showed you from the scriptures, which is the final court of arbitration for the Christian what Christianity teaches. That's all anyone can do.

If you continue to make the same false statements as to what Christians believe, even after being shown otherwise directly from the scriptures then that, foolish as it may be, is your choice.

 

[Robby]

Yes, all of us will stand before God and be judged. We will be judged as to whether we are seperated from God by sin or reconciled to God through Chist, not on the basis of your mythical "test".

Well what you believe is even worse. God allows people to be born saddled with a "sin-nature" that they had no choice in accepting. So, because people sin (act according to their nature) god will send them to hell.

 

[Robby]

God does not reward us for passing your mythical "test", nor does He punish us for failing it.

He offers us reconciliation in spite of our failings.

There is no test.

Yes there is. The test now is to see if you are smart enough, wise enough, and virtuous enough to "choose" jesus.

 

[copernicus]

Hi, Codeman. Thanks for your perspective.

So you say. But why am I still theoretically facing hell then? Something's wrong with this picture.

theoretically, you haven't accepted the gift.

What makes you think that?

The offer is not unconditional

sure it is

This is good news. The specific conditions I had in mind were (1) sincere belief in God, (2) acceptance of Jesus Christ as my personal lord and savior, and (3) adherence to the correct Christian moral code. However, I'm glad to hear that no such conditions are placed on the gift. What a relief.

We all learn our fate on "Judgment Day", yes?

yup.

Thanks to you, I already know my fate. I'm going to heaven. By the way, why do they call it Judgment Day? What is being "judged"? Has there been some kind of contest that requires judges?

That is when we find out who passes and who fails.

its not really a pass fail thing. its more of a choice. like you can choose to rob a bank, or not. Its kinda your call.

You can be certain that I'll accept the offer of that unconditional gift. In general, given the choice whether to rob a bank or the like, I usually decline to do so.

 

[copernicus]

Yes, all of us will stand before God and be judged. We will be judged as to whether we are seperated from God by sin or reconciled to God through Chist, not on the basis of your mythical "test".

Gosh, you have a much harsher view of things than Codeman. BTW, that "reconciliation" decision there--that's what I call a "test". You may choose to call it something else.

Yes. Actually, this is the second time I've asked you.

Must have missed it the first time. Anyway, not being a Christian, I'm not really in a position to demonstrate those kinds of things to you. As I said, I'm willing to discuss specific beliefs that you may hold.

But you are the one making the claim. Since you've made this claim twice now, how about being a sport and backing it up for us? Or are you just making it up?

I'm willing to back up the claims made in the OP. If you think that I haven't been doing that, please explain what you have a problem with.

Because you, like all of us, are seperated from God by sin, apart from Christ.

Not true. The theory is that Christ died to eliminate that separation. You said so yourself.

I don't believe you have. You haven't referred to it once and, when I asked you about it, you weren't able to answer. Given that and the fact that you flat out refused to read it for yourself, I have to assume that you still haven't read it.

I'm sorry that you jumped to that conclusion. I have commented on your brief comments about Romans 5, because they seemed not to follow from the language of the passage.

You did claim to be discussing "everyone's Christian doctrine" when you made the statement, "all Christians do seem to believe that life is some kind of test of our character. Good people are rewarded with salvation, and bad people are not."

There are Christians who do not agree with my rendition of premises 1-5. I was careful to point out that my conclusions about God were based on those premises. God of Love, whom I would certainly count as a Gnostic Christian, made clear that the argument did not apply to him. I agreed.

Further, your exact words were, "Is 1-5 a fair description of beliefs that Christians hold?" By "beliefs Christians hold", it is assumed that you mean those doctrines generally accepted by Christians as codified in the major creeds and confessions of the faith and as taught in scripture.

Yes, that is a quote from the OP. Some have successfully answered in the negative. So far, I don't believe that you have.

So, are you or aren't you?

No. However, the argument seems to apply to your Christian beliefs, your cavils based on Romans 5 notwithstanding.

Which versions? If you're going to come to a Christian message board, post on in a Christian thread in a Christian forum and make such claims that Christians disagree on these doctrines and that "there is more than one version of Christianity out there", then it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate these things.

I can't possibly name all of them. Here is a partial list: your version (apparently), Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Catholicism, Marionites, Coptic Christians, and many of the various Protestant religions (including Mormonism).

You may not have noticed, but there is more than one version of Christianity out there, much to the dismay of most Christians.

No, there's not. If a teaching deviates from scripture, then it is not a Christian teaching. Period.

I don't take sides on who is deviating from scripture. That's between you and all those false Christians out there.

Why don't you name some of these "other versions" for us?

See above.

Again, there is no test, except in your misunderstanding of Christianity.

You asked what Christians believe. I showed you from the scriptures, which is the final court of arbitration for the Christian what Christianity teaches. That's all anyone can do.

If you continue to make the same false statements as to what Christians believe, even after being shown otherwise directly from the scriptures then that, foolish as it may be, is your choice.

OK. I'm content to let Christians express their own views about their religion, but I'll point it out when they appear to contradict themselves. Your claim that there is no "test" that our souls must pass on "Judgment Day" seems to be just such a contradiction.

 

[12volt_man]

Gosh, you have a much harsher view of things than Codeman.

Not really. I don't see where he and I disagree.

BTW, that "reconciliation" decision there--that's what I call a "test". You may choose to call it something else.

But it's not a test. It's simply an offer of reconciliation. You may accept it or not. You are not rewarded for accepting. You are not punished for denying.

This is roughly equivilent of saying that throwing a rope to a drowning man is a "test".

Anyway, not being a Christian, I'm not really in a position to demonstrate those kinds of things to you.

So then, you just make these claims with no thought to whether or not you can back them up?

I'm willing to back up the claims made in the OP. If you think that I haven't been doing that, please explain what you have a problem with.

Not true. The theory is that Christ died to eliminate that separation. You said so yourself.

Actually, I've never said that.

I'm sorry that you jumped to that conclusion. I have commented on your brief comments about Romans 5, because they seemed not to follow from the language of the passage.

I haven't jumped to any conclusion. I'm drawing the only logical conclusion based on the fact that (a) you flat out refused to read the passage and (b) you do not refer to the passage even one time, despite being asked several times to comment on it.

There are Christians who do not agree with my rendition of premises 1-5. I was careful to point out that my conclusions about God were based on those premises. God of Love, whom I would certainly count as a Gnostic Christian, made clear that the argument did not apply to him. I agreed.

So then, which is it? Is it all Christians, as you stated in your opining post? Or is it not all Christians as you seem to be saying here? (assuming gnostic Christianity were an orthodox brand of Christianity)

Yes, that is a quote from the OP. Some have successfully answered in the negative. So far, I don't believe that you have.

Now, you're just trying to be disingenuous. You know that I have. Every post I've made to you has be based on the fact that your premise is wrong.

I can't possibly name all of them. Here is a partial list: your version (apparently), Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Catholicism, Marionites, Coptic Christians, and many of the various Protestant religions (including Mormonism).

But you do realize that out of this list, three do not hold to orthodox Christian teaching and Mormonism is not only not a "protestant religion", but an entirely different religion altogether?

If you don't even know that Mormonism isn't Christian, then how is it that you feel qualified to comment on Christian beliefs?

I don't take sides on who is deviating from scripture.

No one is asking you to take sides but it's disingenuous on your part to claim that Christians disagree on something based on what heterodox religious movements teach.

OK. I'm content to let Christians express their own views about their religion, but I'll point it out when they appear to contradict themselves. Your claim that there is no "test" that our souls must pass on "Judgment Day" seems to be just such a contradiction.

OK. Like I said, you asked what Christians believe. I showed you from scripture what Christianity teaches. You wouldn't read it.

If you ask a question and ignore the answer, then I don't know what else to say.

 

[copernicus]

Not really. I don't see where he and I disagree.

He simply claimed that redemption was without condition. You made clear that there are conditions, although you seem not to want to admit that.

But it's not a test. It's simply an offer of reconciliation. You may accept it or not. You are not rewarded for accepting. You are not punished for denying.

Heaven is not a reward? That sounds a bit bizarre to me. I suppose that being excused from eternal torture, which you claim all of us are headed for, could be counted as some kind of reward, couldn't it? I don't think that we disagree on the essentials here, just word usage. And I'm comfortable with usage of words like "test" and "reward", even if you disagree with it. I'm not really up for splitting hairs over word usage, though.

This is roughly equivilent of saying that throwing a rope to a drowning man is a "test".

I would refine the analogy thusly: First, you shout to the drowning man (after observing him fall into the water and done nothing to prevent it). "Halloooo out there! I say! You appear to be drowning. Would you like to worship me and do everything I say? If so, let me know, and I shall toss you this rope. I hope you accept my offer, for I love you and don't wish to see you drown! If not, then Good Day to you, Sir." Doubtless, you will find something to object to in my analogy, but it is the way that I see the "offer".

So then, you just make these claims with no thought to whether or not you can back them up?

Why do you say that? What specific claims are you talking about?

Not true. The theory is that Christ died to eliminate that separation. You said so yourself.

Actually, I've never said that.

Sorry, but I had interpreted you to be claiming that Christ died to provide us with salvation by eliminating our "Original Sin" debt. You have stated that we had an "unconditional" offer of redemption from that debt. If the offer is unconditional, then I accept it and the matter is forgotten. If there are conditions, then this is beginning to sound like one of those spam emails that claims I have won a gift of some kind. All I have to do is send a check for "postage and handling" or come in to listen to a sales pitch or agree to purchase another item or... Well, you get the drift. Such "offers" are not unconditional.

I haven't jumped to any conclusion. I'm drawing the only logical conclusion based on the fact that (a) you flat out refused to read the passage and (b) you do not refer to the passage even one time, despite being asked several times to comment on it.

First of all, you are not in a position to know whether I have read the passage. Secondly, I have referred to it as much as you have. If you think that there is specific language in it that backs up your claims, then cite the language. Waving your hand at the whole thing doesn't work for me. The meaning that you want me to get out of it does not magically appear. A better strategy is to give a synopsis of what the passage means to you. You have actually done so to my satisfaction, and I have explained why your synopsis was not really a counterclaim to the OP. All of this seems to boil down to how we interpret words like "test" and "unconditional"--a semantic argument.

So then, which is it? Is it all Christians, as you stated in your opining post? Or is it not all Christians as you seem to be saying here? (assuming gnostic Christianity were an orthodox brand of Christianity)

Gnosticism is, by definition, not an orthodox brand of Christianity, and I was not thinking of it when I wrote the OP. I'm happy to soften any sweeping claims that I made about Christian beliefs, which ought to include gnosticism, IMHO. The OP was an invitation to discuss my premises and how well they fit with Christian beliefs. So far, I think that they fit rather well with your brand of Christianity, but I note that you take vehement exception to that.

Yes, that is a quote from the OP. Some have successfully answered in the negative. So far, I don't believe that you have.

Now, you're just trying to be disingenuous. You know that I have. Every post I've made to you has be based on the fact that your premise is wrong.

I'm a little tired of hearing you tell me what I "know", and I am being quite honest with you. I don't think that you've made the case that any of my premises is inconsistent with your version of Christian doctrine. I note that you disagree vehemently with my view and that you base your disagreement on your intperpretation of Romans 5. Basically, I think that our argument boils down to a choice of words rather than the substance of the argument.

But you do realize that out of this list, three do not hold to orthodox Christian teaching and Mormonism is not only not a "protestant religion", but an entirely different religion altogether?

I consider any Christian doctrine that considers itself to adhere to the "Nicene Creed" to be orthodox, and that includes every group that I listed, including Mormonism. You may wish to exclude Mormons from orthodox Christianity, but I do not share your belief on that subject. The only group calling itself "Christian" but not adhering to the Nicene Creed would be Gnosticism. To my knowledge, anyway.

If you don't even know that Mormonism isn't Christian, then how is it that you feel qualified to comment on Christian beliefs?

You are entitled to your opinions, as I am to mine. This forum is devoted to communication between Christians and non-Christians. I am a non-Christian who is qualified to give a non-Christian perspective on the religion, and I have been a student of religion and non-religious philosophy all my life. I claim no special status as an expert in Christian doctrine. What are your credentials to speak with authority on Christian doctrine?

 

[12volt_man]

He simply claimed that redemption was without condition. You made clear that there are conditions, although you seem not to want to admit that.

Codeman's point is that God's gift of salvation is completely unmerited on our part and I agree wholeheartedly with that.

Heaven is not a reward? That sounds a bit bizarre to me. I suppose that being excused from eternal torture, which you claim all of us are headed for, could be counted as some kind of reward, couldn't it? I don't think that we disagree on the essentials here, just word usage. And I'm comfortable with usage of words like "test" and "reward", even if you disagree with it. I'm not really up for splitting hairs over word usage, though.

Why not? It's important. To call it a "test" assumes that it is earned. It is not.

Had you read Romans 5, you would have known this.

I would refine the analogy thusly: First, you shout to the drowning man (after observing him fall into the water and done nothing to prevent it). "Halloooo out there! I say! You appear to be drowning. Would you like to worship me and do everything I say? If so, let me know, and I shall toss you this rope. I hope you accept my offer, for I love you and don't wish to see you drown! If not, then Good Day to you, Sir." Doubtless, you will find something to object to in my analogy, but it is the way that I see the "offer".

Yes, absolutely I object. Once again, you have grossly misunderstood the most basic of Christian doctrines.

God's salvation is not conditioned on the fact that we worship Him or "do everything He says". In fact, had you bothered to read Romans 5, you would have seen that it clearly tells us For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Why do you say that? What specific claims are you talking about?

You have said repeatedly that there are many "versions of Christianity" and that Christians disagree on the interpretation of this chapter, which you haven't even read yet.

I have asked you several times now to demonstrate these things. You haven't demonstrated that Christians disagree or that there are many different "versions of Christianity".

You listed five religious movements, four of which are heretical and are not Christian denominations. You say that Christians disagree but you can't show that this is true. You tried in vain to seperate codeman and me, but when our beliefs and our posts here are examined, there is no disagreement.

You keep commenting on Christianity and what Christians do or do not believe and then, when pressed, you say you can't be held accountable for your statements because you're not a Christian.

You can't have it both ways. Either back up your statements or stop wasting our time and making a fool of yourself.

Sorry, but I had interpreted you to be claiming that Christ died to provide us with salvation by eliminating our "Original Sin" debt. You have stated that we had an "unconditional" offer of redemption from that debt.

How very convenient. You declare that I have said something that I clearly did not say, then, when pressed, you say that this was merely your interpretation but you still can't show what I said that would lead you to believe this.

Then, to top it off, in your last post, you say that I said that salvation is conditional. Now you say that I said it was unconditional.

Not only have you not read Romans 5, I don't believe that you even read your own posts.

First of all, you are not in a position to know whether I have read the passage.

Anyone who reads your posts is in a position to know that you haven't read it.

You even show more proof that you haven't read it in your last post, as I have pointed out above.

Secondly, I have referred to it as much as you have.

OK. Feel free to tell us what # post you cited it in.

Gnosticism is, by definition, not an orthodox brand of Christianity

So then, it was disingenuous of you to include it when you say that Christians disagree.

I'm happy to soften any sweeping claims that I made about Christian beliefs, which ought to include gnosticism,

You just said that Gnosticism is not an orthodox brand of Christianity. If it is heterodox (and, remember, Paul condemned it as heretical), then it shouldn't be included.

IMHO. The OP was an invitation to discuss my premises and how well they fit with Christian beliefs. So far, I think that they fit rather well with your brand of Christianity, but I note that you take vehement exception to that.

Not only me, but the major creeds and confessions of the faith, scripture and 2000 of orthodox Christian teaching.

I'm a little tired of hearing you tell me what I "know", and I am being quite honest with you.

I don't believe that you are.

You say that you've read the passage I suggested but, clearly, you haven't. You've been caught putting words in my mouth and using outright deception.

I don't think that you've made the case that any of my premises is inconsistent with your version of Christian doctrine.

I have and the passage of scripture that I have quoted makes the case emphatically. If you wish not to read it, then that's up to you.

I note that you disagree vehemently with my view and that you base your disagreement on your intperpretation of Romans 5. Basically, I think that our argument boils down to a choice of words rather than the substance of the argument.

No, there is a substantial difference.

As I've explained several times to you and as Romans 5 explains, had you bothered to read it, there is no test.

We are not rewarded for passing your mythical test, nor are we punished for failing. There is only sinful man and the Holy and Righteous Christ reaching out a hand of reconciliation to us.

I consider any Christian doctrine that considers itself to adhere to the "Nicene Creed" to be orthodox, and that includes every group that I listed, including Mormonism. You may wish to exclude Mormons from orthodox Christianity, but I do not share your belief on that subject.

Then you are either ignorant of the Nicene Creed or you are ignorant of Mormonism. Mormonism contradicts the Nicene Creed on many key points. They also deny many key points of orthodox Christian doctrine.

The only group calling itself "Christian" but not adhering to the Nicene Creed would be Gnosticism.

So, any group who adheres to the Nicene Creed should be included in orthodox Christianity, but Gnosticism, which does not, should also be?

You are entitled to your opinions, as I am to mine. This forum is devoted to communication between Christians and non-Christians. I am a non-Christian who is qualified to give a non-Christian perspective on the religion, and I have been a student of religion and non-religious philosophy all my life. I claim no special status as an expert in Christian doctrine.

So then, why do you comment on it?

What are your credentials to speak with authority on Christian doctrine?

For starters, I am a Christian who has studied the scriptures for going on seventeen years now. I am also a teacher in my church, as well as a lay minister and served as a deacon for approximately five years.

I am the de facto worship leader at our church and have led the Bible study and teaching in our Wednesday night services.

In addition, I co-founded and co-lead a cooperative fellowship between our local SBC churches and some local Calvary Chapel churches, which is designed to be a church away from the home church for sailors, fishermen, watermen and others on the Upper Chesapeake Bay.

 

[Crispie]

Question

Is it fair to use fallible logic to disprove infallible logic?

 

[copernicus]

12volt_man, this is getting somewhat tedious and repetitive, so I'll just respond to those elements of your last post that seem in need of a reply. I won't continue to assert that I read Romans 5, since you seem determined to believe that either I must agree with your interpretation of it or I didn't read it. Apparently, you are quite obsessed with that claim, and nothing I say will change your mind.

...To call it a "test" assumes that it is earned. It is not.

A test is an objective comparison with a standard. I do not think that a test has anything to do with "earning". I have no idea what you mean by that.

God's salvation is not conditioned on the fact that we worship Him or "do everything He says". In fact, had you bothered to read Romans 5, you would have seen that it clearly tells us For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes here. It is clear to everyone what the conditions of salvation are--sincere belief in God, sincere acceptance of Jesus, and sincere repentance of sins. I call these "tests", which a soul can "pass" or "fail". The excerpt you cite from Romans 5 makes no statement about conditions one way or the other. Worse yet, you seem to agree with me that salvation is conditioned on the points that I mentioned. So it isn't clear to me why you think this passage from Romans 5 tells us anything about conditions or lack of conditions on the offer of salvation. It only tells us what the Christ sacrifice was supposed to do for humankind.

You have said repeatedly that there are many "versions of Christianity" and that Christians disagree on the interpretation of this chapter, which you haven't even read yet.

I think that I was referring to scripture in general, not Romans 5 specifically. It is a reasonably good bet that not every Christian accepts your interpretation of Romans 5, but I have no specific evidence of that to confront you with. This thread has already produced evidence that some Christians (including yourself, though you deny it) accept premises 1-5 as consistent with their Christian doctrine.

...You haven't demonstrated that Christians disagree or that there are many different "versions of Christianity".

That would take us off-topic, but it might make a good separate thread. You could entitle it: "Resolved: All Christians agree on matters of doctrine." It should make for some lively discussion.

You listed five religious movements, four of which are heretical and are not Christian denominations. You say that Christians disagree but you can't show that this is true. You tried in vain to seperate codeman and me, but when our beliefs and our posts here are examined, there is no disagreement.

I pointed to a superficial discrepancy between what you said and what Codeman appeared to be saying. He may wish to clarify his views such that they appear more in line with yours, which appear to me to be contradictory. As for the five "religious movements", I suspect that you don't consider yourself to be in one of the "heretical" ones. In any case, being an atheist, I do not make judgments about which Christians are heretics. I do wish that you wouldn't drag me into any of your internecine disputes with your Christian bretheren and sisteren. Those disputes often get quite nasty, even violent.

You keep commenting on Christianity and what Christians do or do not believe and then, when pressed, you say you can't be held accountable for your statements because you're not a Christian.

No, I can be held accountable for the statements I make. I can't be held accountable for the ones that you claim I make.

Sorry, but I had interpreted you to be claiming that Christ died to provide us with salvation by eliminating our "Original Sin" debt. You have stated that we had an "unconditional" offer of redemption from that debt.

How very convenient. You declare that I have said something that I clearly did not say, then, when pressed, you say that this was merely your interpretation but you still can't show what I said that would lead you to believe this.
Then, to top it off, in your last post, you say that I said that salvation is conditional. Now you say that I said it was unconditional.

Actually, I have been saying that your statements appeared contradictory to me, especially those regarding conditions on salvation. Do you or don't you believe that Christ died to provide us with salvation by eliminating our debt of original sin? Did he not absorb the sins of humanity? And did not his death purify us of those sins? Please feel free to clarify your position on this. I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth.

Gnosticism is, by definition, not an orthodox brand of Christianity.

So then, it was disingenuous of you to include it when you say that Christians disagree.

How so? I regard Gnostic Christians as Christians, just not orthodox Christians. Until Irenaeus popped up with his "fourfold gospel", it is arguably the case that there were no orthodox Christians, but there were plenty of Gnostics around. There just aren't that many around anymore. It seems that they weren't very popular with the religious branch of Christianity that assumed power in the Roman Empire, and much of their literature was put to the torch, along with many pagan works.

You just said that Gnosticism is not an orthodox brand of Christianity. If it is heterodox (and, remember, Paul condemned it as heretical), then it shouldn't be included.

I don't recall ever claiming that Gnosticism is orthodox, and I have never believed that it was. The Gnostics considered Paul a founder of their religious movement, and some (Gandy & Freke come to mind) claim that records of Paul's writings were doctored by the orthodox movement to co-opt his support for their viewpoint. I doubt that we'll ever know the historical truth, but it is an interesting claim.

We are not rewarded for passing your mythical test, nor are we punished for failing. There is only sinful man and the Holy and Righteous Christ reaching out a hand of reconciliation to us.

At the same time, you believe that acceptance of the "hand of reconciliation" leads to heaven, and failure of acceptance leads to hell. Whether you choose to acknowledge heaven as a "reward" or hell as a "punishment" matters little. Most people can connect the dots on that one.

Then you are either ignorant of the Nicene Creed or you are ignorant of Mormonism. Mormonism contradicts the Nicene Creed on many key points. They also deny many key points of orthodox Christian doctrine.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger. To the best of my knowledge, they claim that their creed is fully consistent with the Nicene Creed. On that basis, I consider them orthodox. You clearly disagree.

For starters, I am a Christian who has studied the scriptures for going on seventeen years now. I am also a teacher in my church, as well as a lay minister and served as a deacon for approximately five years.

I am the de facto worship leader at our church and have led the Bible study and teaching in our Wednesday night services.
In addition, I co-founded and co-lead a cooperative fellowship between our local SBC churches and some local Calvary Chapel churches, which is designed to be a church away from the home church for sailors, fishermen, watermen and others on the Upper Chesapeake Bay.

Thanks for clarifying your background. It is always good to understand a little more about the background of people that one debates with. I would say that you are as reasonably qualified to represent the views of your church as any member of it is, perhaps better qualified than most. I wouldn't say that you are any more qualified than other Christians to speak for all Christian viewpoints. But I respect your individual perspective. I just don't see how your Christian beliefs differ substantively from the premises in 1 thru 5. Sorry.

 

[12volt_man]

I won't continue to assert that I read Romans 5, since you seem determined to believe that either I must agree with your interpretation of it or I didn't read it.

Again, it has nothing to do with whether or not you disagree with the Christian interpretation. If you disagree, that's fine. Just tell me what part of it you disagree with.

Apparently, you are quite obsessed with that claim, and nothing I say will change your mind.

I'm not obsessed at all. You're the one who keeps making the claim, not me.

A test is an objective comparison with a standard. I do not think that a test has anything to do with "earning". I have no idea what you mean by that.

Of course you do. Your own premise is based on this.

Notice that in your own OP, you make it clear that the "test" you're speaking of is not "an objective comparison with a standard", but a challenge to man wherein he is rewarded or punished, depending on his performance.

Again, not only have you not read Romans 5, you appear not to even be reading your own posts.

I call these "tests", which a soul can "pass" or "fail".

And I have shown you scripture to the contrary.

The excerpt you cite from Romans 5 makes no statement about conditions one way or the other.

There are no conditions. Either you follow Christ or you don't.

Worse yet, you seem to agree with me that salvation is conditioned on the points that I mentioned. So it isn't clear to me why you think this passage from Romans 5 tells us anything about conditions or lack of conditions on the offer of salvation. It only tells us what the Christ sacrifice was supposed to do for humankind.

I've already addressed this. In case you missed it:

God's salvation is not conditioned on the fact that we worship Him or "do everything He says". In fact, had you bothered to read Romans 5, you would have seen that it clearly tells us For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us

It is a reasonably good bet that not every Christian accepts your interpretation of Romans 5, but I have no specific evidence of that to confront you with.

So then, you're just making a claim with no idea whether or not it's true.

This thread has already produced evidence that some Christians (including yourself, though you deny it) accept premises 1-5 as consistent with their Christian doctrine.

Actually, if you've read my posts, you would have seen that I disagree strongly, have explained why I disagree and have offered scripture to back up my disagreements.

You have gone from being disingenuous to outright lying. You know very well that I do not accept premises 3-5.

Second, despite having been asked several times, you still have not shown who disagrees with this. You tried to say that codeman and I disagreed but anyone can compare my posts to his and see that there is no disagreement.

That would take us off-topic, but it might make a good separate thread.

So then, why did you bring it up? Isn't that a cop out on your part? To bring it up and then, when confronted with a challenge you can't answer, to say that it's off topic?

I pointed to a superficial discrepancy between what you said and what Codeman appeared to be saying.

And there was no discrepancy.

He may wish to clarify his views such that they appear more in line with yours, which appear to me to be contradictory.

Not that you will, but how about showing us which of my views are contradictory?

As for the five "religious movements", I suspect that you don't consider yourself to be in one of the "heretical" ones.

Well, since I can compare the teachings of my denomination and see that they are well in line with scripture and with 2,000 years of orthodox Christian teaching, as codified in the major confessions and creeds of the faith, no, I don't.

In any case, being an atheist, I do not make judgments about which Christians are heretics. I do wish that you wouldn't drag me into any of your internecine disputes with your Christian bretheren and sisteren. Those disputes often get quite nasty, even violent.

But you do make judgements about Christian teachings and what religious movements are legitimate branches of Christianity.

I have no disputes with my "Christian brothers and sisters". My disagreement is with you who, on the one hand, tell me that you cannot speak to such things because you're not a Christian, but then declare for us who is and isn't a Christian.

No, I can be held accountable for the statements I make.

So then, why is it that everytime I call you on one, you run away?

Actually, I have been saying that your statements appeared contradictory to me, especially those regarding conditions on salvation.

And yet, you can't show an example.

Do you or don't you believe that Christ died to provide us with salvation by eliminating our debt of original sin? Did he not absorb the sins of humanity? And did not his death purify us of those sins? Please feel free to clarify your position on this. I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth.

But you've put words in my mouth several times now. That horse is long out of the barn.

How so? I regard Gnostic Christians as Christians, just not orthodox Christians.

If they don't hold to orthodoxy, then they are heterodox. Heretical. Therefore, not Christian.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger. To the best of my knowledge, they claim that their creed is fully consistent with the Nicene Creed. On that basis, I consider them orthodox.

Then, again, you are either ignorant of the Nicene Creed or you are ignorant of Mormonism.

Thanks for clarifying your background. It is always good to understand a little more about the background of people that one debates with. I would say that you are as reasonably qualified to represent the views of your church as any member of it is, perhaps better qualified than most. I wouldn't say that you are any more qualified than other Christians to speak for all Christian viewpoints.

I don't claim to represent all Christian viewpoints. I'm just telling you what Christianity teaches and what the Bible says.

But I respect your individual perspective.

No you don't. If you did, you wouldn't try to misrepresent it and put words in my mouth.

 

[copernicus]

Dear 12volt. Thank you for taking the time to give your perspective on this. As you know, we have some very strong disagreements, and I note that you have challenged my sincerity and veracity a few times. In light of that, it doesn't look to me as if we can continue to have a profitable exchange of views on this subject. Perhaps another time, another subject...

 

[cabbitgrrrl]

Is " The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil " the TRUTH ??


Absolutely NOT !! Christian theology claims that Adam and Eve were created perfect and they lived in a "perfect" Garden of Eden. It was only AFTER they ate from the "forbidden tree" that God threw them out of the Garden for disobeying him.
In what way were Adam and Eve " perfect " BEFORE they ate from the tree ?? Answer : They were ANIMALS because only animals don't know the difference between good and evil !!!
The " inspired " Bible writer made a cardinal mistake by claiming that God created the " perfect garden" where there was NO knowledge of good and evil . Impossible !!! Such a place could never exist. While God might CREATE something akin to evil , good CAN NOT be CREATED , because good is God himself !!! Heaven is perfection because it is only good. A state of " no good and no evil" could NEVER exist and neither could such a tree exist !!!



Cheers

so everything that isnt god or heaven is evil?