My way or the highway?

[revrobor]

Well, thanks for sharing your mere opinion. I think I will stick to what Christ said through His chosen Apostles. I have already shown from the Greek text that your interpretation of John 3:16 is wrong. If you would like to offer a counter argument based on the words, grammar and context of the Greek text, I am willing to consider it; but to simply accept your say-so and "what seem right in your eyes" is not something I am inclined to do. It has no persuasive power, it is not convincing, especially since the Greek text is as clear as it is. I mean, you don't need a PhD. in NT Greek to figure out that "believe (pisteuoon)" refers to Jesus, who is the one and only (monogenee) son of God, and not to "ho Theos."

It's not my job to convince you of God's truth. You need to take it up with Him. Have you bothered to ask Him what He means?

 

[Brady111]

I agree with your grammatical analysis of these verses, but the question is: What is meant when it says "believe in the Son". Does it mean that we must believe that Jesus was born ~4-6 B.C., in Bethlehem, to Mary and Joseph, that he was a Jew, that he was a carpenter, etc, or does it mean that we must believe that God has sent a sacrifice on our behalf to be the atonement for our sins and that our salvation is only possible due to God's love and mercy, not because of anything that we have done? The latter, IMO.

Where is the necessity of the exclusive "or?" According to the text, it is both. This is why we find both interlaced in the Bible.

Remember, "Iesu Christos estin ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou."- paraphrase from John 20:28

 

[Brady111]

It's not my job to convince you of God's truth. You need to take it up with Him. Have you bothered to ask Him what He means?

I ask him every time I open my Bible, as James says we should; and He has told me. Which makes me wonder, who have you been talking to?

 

[hedrick]

Well, thanks for sharing your mere opinion. I think I will stick to what Christ said through His chosen Apostles. I have already shown from the Greek text that your interpretation of John 3:16 is wrong. If you would like to offer a counter argument based on the words, grammar and context of the Greek text, I am willing to consider it; but to simply accept your say-so and "what seem right in your eyes" is not something I am inclined to do. It has no persuasive power, it is not convincing, especially since the Greek text is as clear as it is. I mean, you don't need a PhD. in NT Greek to figure out that "believe (pisteuoon)" refers to Jesus, who is the one and only (monogenee) son of God, and not to "ho Theos."

I don't think there's any question that believe refers to Jesus. The question is what it means to believe in. It doesn't mean "believe about." The Reformers were known for emphasizing that faith in God means trusting God.

The only argument I can see for salvation of non-Christians that is consistent with this and other texts is that it's possible to trust in Christ without intellectual knowledge about him. The idea would be that there are people who understand that there's more to life than their own pleasure, and who do right because it's right, without understanding that what they're really looking for is Christ. (No, I'm not suggesting that they are justified by works. I'm suggesting that they have an intuitive understanding that they're "something" out there, but don't quite know who it is.)

This is a controversial position, for obvious reasons: how can you trust in someone you don't know exists? You can decide for yourself whether you think it's possible, or simply leave judging others to God (a position that fits in with Jesus' teachings).

Rom 2:12-16 could be read this way. Paul is talking about the Law, but he also is talking about what is going to be the basis for our judgement

 

[Verticordious]

Where is the necessity of the exclusive "or?" According to the text, it is both. This is why we find both interlaced in the Bible.

Remember, "Iesu Christos estin ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou."- paraphrase from John 20:28

If anything, John 20:28 proves my conclusion. Thomas, like the other disciples and pretty much the entire Jewish nation, thought Jesus was here to free them from the Romans. Even after the resurrection, in Acts 1:6, the disciples still asked Jesus if now was the time he was going to restore the reign of Israel. They still hadn't quite grasped that his resurrection was to show that his sacrifice for sins was sufficient, not that he was resurrected to come and re-establish the reign of the Jewish nation.

Thomas's doubt was because he still didn't understand that Jesus had come to defeat sin, not the Romans. Jesus told them numerous times about his death and its purpose, but they didn't understand because they were interpreting his words with a physical kingdom in mind. If Thomas had understood what Jesus was doing, then he would not have had any doubt about Jesus's resurrection considering how many times Jesus told them about it.

 

[Londongal]

LOL!is it like this on every threda on this forum?
a question gets asked and within a few answers it descends into a personal slanging match ,with a "i know more theology than u know"theme running thru it?
Is there a more "general" area where i can post my questions?that way i may get straight answers and not vast swathes of text from the god of copy and paste.
many thank

in the meantime...continue to enjoy your bun fight(thats an english term and has nothing to do with what u might think "buns" refers to"lol)

 

[OzSpen]

Londongal,

question has been asked a gazillion times im sure!
but.if jesus is the only way to god....what happened to the generations that never had the chance to hear about jesus...or indeed any ppl that havnt in this day and age?
i have heard the arguement that no one has an excuse to nt believe in god...as they can see his wonder in creation.and many ppls do believe ina creator god.
but still.....if a belief in JESUS ...as jesus hmself stated...iS the only way to god...then i assume those other ppl will be deemed damned?regardless of their acknowledgement of a creator?
and if that is NOT the case...then doesnt it makes jesus sacrifice superfluous to requirements ?

What do you think the meaning is of these verses? Romans 1:18-20?

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse (NIV)

What do you think that God means when He states here that God's existence and his attributes are "plain to them" and that everyone is "without excuse"?

Also remember that God is absolutely and perfectly just in all that he does. His justice means that there is not one person in the world who will ever be able to stand before God and say something like, "You didn't give me the opportunity; I lived in deepest darkest Congo or Sydney Australia and you treated me unfairly".

God's reply to them will be exactly as he stated in Romans 1:20, "You are without excuse" when you stand before me. You might like to read these links: “What about those who have never heard the Gospel?” also, there’s an article with an identical title HERE and HERE.

Sincerely, Spencer

 

[Londongal]

Thats the point im driving at...that ppl DO see god in creation/in the wonders of the world...BUT they may not know Jesus.
but the fact that acknowledge GOD....should surely mean they are saved...even if they havent heard of jesus?
and if thats the case...then the phrase of jesus...no one comes to the father but by me...is false.
see what im trying to say?

 

[smith john]

It means either do things in the manner required by a particular authority or leave (on the highway).

Micromanaging is watching every part of the organism (e.g. owner of McDs would watch live streams of all fry cooks in every franchise). Not sure about macro (the opposite?).

 

[Brady111]

I don't think there's any question that believe refers to Jesus. The question is what it means to believe in. It doesn't mean "believe about." The Reformers were known for emphasizing that faith in God means trusting God.

So, if one trusts God, even though what they believe about God is that it is an impersonal being that maintains a one to one correspondence with nature without volition, or moral authority, they are saved? Saved from what and saved by what?

The Israelites fully trusted in God, they bowed down and worshiped God; the only problem was that God was made out of gold and was in the form of a calf. We know how that turned out.

I am finding that many on this forum cannot discern between things necessary for salvation and things sufficient for salvation. Let me give an example: It is like making a glass of ice tea at home. We may have the ice and some water, some lemon and sugar; but, after looking through the entire house we find there is no tea. At this point we do not have all the elements to make ice tea. We have some of the necessary items, but we can never get to our goal. The items we have, even though they are necessary to make ice tea, are in themselves insufficient to make ice tea. So it is with salvation. Trusting in God is necessary, but not sufficient. It is the "about" that makes the difference. The 10 commandments makes it clear: "You shall have no other gods before me." It is the "about" that distinguishes one god from another. In the NT both the trust and the "about" are the necessary and the sufficient elements for salvation. If I may quote that sage theologian, Frank Sinatra, "You can't have one without the other." Thus, Paul says:

Rom 10:8-18
"The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11 As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile — the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.
NIV

So, trusting in some ambiguous God, with some ambiguous sacrifice is not sufficient for salvation. Here is what is :

1 Cor 15:1-8
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
NIV

 

[Brady111]

If anything, John 20:28 proves my conclusion. Thomas, like the other disciples and pretty much the entire Jewish nation, thought Jesus was here to free them from the Romans. Even after the resurrection, in Acts 1:6, the disciples still asked Jesus if now was the time he was going to restore the reign of Israel. They still hadn't quite grasped that his resurrection was to show that his sacrifice for sins was sufficient, not that he was resurrected to come and re-establish the reign of the Jewish nation.

Thomas's doubt was because he still didn't understand that Jesus had come to defeat sin, not the Romans. Jesus told them numerous times about his death and its purpose, but they didn't understand because they were interpreting his words with a physical kingdom in mind. If Thomas had understood what Jesus was doing, then he would not have had any doubt about Jesus's resurrection considering how many times Jesus told them about it.

I don't see where your point is made. Where is the exclusive "or" stated? Thomas is not calling some ambiguous God with some ambiguous sacrifice "Lord and God;" but a specific God and with a specific sacrifice. Even though the disciples did not fully comprehend the end game, Jesus finally 'splained it to them and they believed in him and his message. They were changed from disciples to apostles when they were sent out with that specific message. A message that says, "Rulers and elders of the people! 9 If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, 10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 He is

"'the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone.'

12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
Acts 4:8-12 NIV

There is the "both."

 

[ebia]

question has been asked a gazillion times im sure!
but.if jesus is the only way to god....what happened to the generations that never had the chance to hear about jesus...or indeed any ppl that havnt in this day and age?
i have heard the arguement that no one has an excuse to nt believe in god...as they can see his wonder in creation.and many ppls do believe ina creator god.
but still.....if a belief in JESUS ...as jesus hmself stated...iS the only way to god...then i assume those other ppl will be deemed damned?regardless of their acknowledgement of a creator?
and if that is NOT the case...then doesnt it makes jesus sacrifice superfluous to requirements ?

If God intends to put all creation to rights, and the problems in creation all stem from idolatry, then not refocussing correctly on God cannot, ultimately, be compatible with being part of that New Creation.

 

[OzSpen]

Londongal,

Thats the point im driving at...that ppl DO see god in creation/in the wonders of the world...BUT they may not know Jesus.
but the fact that acknowledge GOD....should surely mean they are saved...even if they havent heard of jesus?
and if thats the case...then the phrase of jesus...no one comes to the father but by me...is false.
see what im trying to say?

Your icon states that you are coming from a “pagan” perspective. Therefore, it seems to me that your presuppositions are clouding your view of what the Scriptures state. Since you live in London, you should have been exposed to the content of the Christian gospel. Coming onto this forum means that you also hear some of the Gospel message.

Consider Romans 2:11-16:

11 For God does not show favoritism.
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares (New International Version).
​

This passage indicates the justice of God. Those who do not know of the Law of God (contained in the Scriptures) as you and I do, will be judged by God, on the basis of the knowledge that they do have that is written on the hearts/consciences of every human being.

The conscience of every human being bears witness to this law on their hearts and they will be judged when? According to v. 16, it will be “on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ” at Christ’s second coming.

Even with your pagan presuppositions and wanting to make “no one comes to the father but through me” a false statement, you have failed to understand the Trinitarian God whose “laws”, whether in Scripture or in the human conscience (including those who have not heard the Gospel), mean that all human beings will answer to this Trinitarian Lord of whom the Father God is a member.

Your interpretation is no consolation for pagan presuppositions being correct and no affirmation that there is falsehood in the Scriptures.

Sincerely, Spencer

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

MOD HAT

This thread has been moved to Exploring Christianity.

Happy posting, and God bless!

Mark
Staff Supervisor.

 

[lismore]

Jesus went through a lot of pain and suffering on the cross. If there had been another way why go through all that?

But I believe Jesus came to save many people. In other words more than church members alone are saved by him.

 

[razeontherock]

LOL!is it like this on every threda on this forum?
a question gets asked and within a few answers it descends into a personal slanging match ,with a "i know more theology than u know"theme running thru it?
Is there a more "general" area where i can post my questions?that way i may get straight answers and not vast swathes of text from the god of copy and paste.

Actually in this area one believer isn't supposed to respond to anyone other than the OP - with this thread being a very clear-cut case of why. Stuff like we see in this thread can be handled via PM, a separate thread in general theology, etc etc.

Let me try my hand at answering your OP, accounting for both positions seen here:

1: if an individual is aware of the Gospel but goes shopping around for whatever they're most comfortable with, they'll generally find our Creator to be rather "it's my way or the highway." He is not a mascot to be dusted off when needed, then replaced on our bookshelf; although it is amazing how Gracious He is ...

2: someone with a sincere heart looking for Truth can find G-d and His favor even w/o hearing the Gospel. It's just more difficult.

 

[razeontherock]

Thats the point im driving at...that ppl DO see god in creation/in the wonders of the world...BUT they may not know Jesus.
but the fact that acknowledge GOD....should surely mean they are saved...even if they havent heard of jesus?
and if thats the case...then the phrase of jesus...no one comes to the father but by me...is false.
see what im trying to say?

No, it doesn't mean Jesus' phrase "no one comes to the Father but by me" is false. To think that you have to pretend that Jesus is limited to a character in a story.

He's not!

This won't make sense until you realize that Jesus is the Power of G-d, the Wisdom of G-d, and that everything that has been made was made by Him. Not easy concepts to grasp, which is why Trinity came into the picture ...

 

[WilliamPMiller]

We must tell the world about Jesus! He alone can save!

I agree with Good Brother although for us newbies, the "telling" is hard.

Will.

 

[revrobor]

I agree with Good Brother although for us newbies, the "telling" is hard.

Will.

As the opportunity arises just tell people what Jesus has done in your life. Don't try to get "preachy".

 

[razeontherock]

Yup, speaking from what you know by experience is the way. Unbelievers online don't seem to like that though