What does it take to have salvation?

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

This is what some Christians believe, but by no means all.

Well, that's a problem we encounter whenever we debate large religions with numerous different interpretations, Christianity in particular.

No matter what particular scenario we discuss at any given point, somebody will turn up and proclaim: "Well, that's clearly not TRUE Christianity at all! Of course it's preposterous, because TRUE Christianity teaches that [insert other version here]."

Some Christians believe that God deliberately creates and pre-destines people to suffer eternally, "to His Greater Glory", as if the stench of burnt flesh and the wailing of tormented beings (figurative or literal) could exalt anyone.

Some believe that God does not want anyone to perish, but is unable to save us unless we specifically consent.

Some hold that God will "only" murder untold billions by obliterating their otherwise immortal souls on judgment day, resurrecting only those who point to Jesus's blood sacrifice.

Some hold that Heaven and Hell are the same state of being, namely the presence of God, and that it is only the individual's mind that makes this a pleasant or an excruciating experience.

Some hold that Hell is the total absence of God.

And so on and so forth. You get the idea.

In light of this, it makes sense to debate one of these concepts at a time, and to ignore any cries of "but that's not TRUE Christianity!"

 

[expos4ever]

No matter what particular scenario we discuss at any given point, somebody will turn up and proclaim: "Well, that's clearly not TRUE Christianity at all! Of course it's preposterous, because TRUE Christianity teaches that [insert other version here]."

Indeed, and such claims are perfectly reasonable. Are you prepared to challenge the following argument:

1. The Scriptures present a "narrative" that can be interpreted many ways, some of which are mutually incompatible;
2. It is possible that at least of the interpretation (X) actually describes the way the world is; if so, any interpretations that are inconsistent with X cannot describe the way the world is.

I do not see how you can refute this, so I am not sure what your point is.[/QUOTE]

 

[expos4ever]

Some Christians believe that God deliberately creates and pre-destines people to suffer eternally, "to His Greater Glory", as if the stench of burnt flesh and the wailing of tormented beings (figurative or literal) could exalt anyone.

Indeed. And I think a reasonable person armed with appropriate background knowledge, would reject that view. However, that does not mean other interpretations of the Biblical narrative are not otherwise plausibly true.

And so on and so forth. You get the idea.

In light of this, it makes sense to debate one of these concepts at a time, and to ignore any cries of "but that's not TRUE Christianity!"

Of course, I never suggested otherwise. However, when someone suggests that the Bible presents the view that "God pre-destines people to eternal suffering" I can indeed legitimately claim "that's not true Christianity" as long as I can back it up with an argument. I suspect, but only suspect mind you, that you are of the mind that just because all "interpretations" of the Biblical material are, yes, interpretations, that we therefore cannot judge between them. I think such a line of thinking is incorrect. And perhaps this is not your view anyway.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Indeed, and such claims are perfectly reasonable.

It would be reasonable if we could settle on one particular interpretation, or at least delegate some of these readings to a minority position. As it is, it doesn't matter which one we debate: there will always be those who seek to move the goalposts by declaring their particular reading to be the One True Version.

1. The Scriptures present a "narrative" that can be interpreted many ways, some of which are mutually incompatible;

Correct. I'd even go one step further and say that the Scriptures (notice the plural) present a number of mutually incompatible theological perspectives, reflecting the point of view of their various authors.

2. It is possible that at least of the interpretation (X) actually describes the way the world is; if so, any interpretations that are inconsistent with X cannot describe the way the world is.

I think only Christians will agree on this point. Personally, I don't think any interpretation (or the Bible as such) accurately describes reality, given that its understanding of human behaviour and the cause of suffering leaves much to be desired.

We can agree that some interpretations come closer to accurately describing the content of the text(s) in question than others, however.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Indeed. And I think a reasonable person armed with appropriate background knowledge, would reject that view. However, that does not mean other interpretations of the Biblical narrative are not otherwise plausibly true.

It's one of the most influential and far-spread interpretations within the larger body of Protestantism, namely the Reformed/Calvinist angle that reigns supreme in anglophone nations.

 

[expos4ever]

It would be reasonable if we could settle on one particular interpretation, or at least delegate some of these readings to a minority position. As it is, it doesn't matter which one we debate: there will always be those who seek to move the goalposts by declaring their particular reading to be the One True Version.

True, in any discussion of any issue this behavior will be seen; it does not mean that there is not one particular interpretation that, in fact, describes reality correctly.

Correct. I'd even go one step further and say that the Scriptures (notice the plural) present a number of mutually incompatible theological perspectives, reflecting the point of view of their various authors.

I doubt you will be able to actually defend this claim. More specifically, I doubt you will be able to rule out the possibility that a single "interpretation" does not exist that coherently accounts for all the various books of the Bible, and is otherwise not ruled out by other things we know about the world.

I think only Christians will agree on this point. Personally, I don't think any interpretation (or the Bible as such) accurately describes reality, given that its understanding of human behaviour and the cause of suffering leaves much to be desired.

Well, now we talking about conclusions. I don't think my point can be disputed as an "a priori" That is, before we actually look at the texts and all the evidence we have from the world, we cannot rule out the possibility that the Scriptures present one interpretation that (1) makes sense of all the Biblical texts; and (2) is otherwise consistent with what we know about the world.

 

[expos4ever]

It's one of the most influential and far-spread interpretations within the larger body of Protestantism, namely the Reformed/Calvinist angle that reigns supreme in anglophone nations.

Of course. But the popularity of a particular view is an exceedingly unreliable indicator of its correctness.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Of course. But the popularity of a particular view is an exceedingly unreliable indicator of its correctness.

This, we can agree on.

 

[smaneck]

It would be reasonable if we could settle on one particular interpretation, or at least delegate some of these readings to a minority position.

In a way we can. The majority position would be the Catholic position, other positions like a Calvinist belief in Predestination is a minority position.

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[expos4ever]

In a way we can. The majority position would be the Catholic position, other positions like a Calvinist belief in Predestination is a minority position.

Fair enough, but I think this only creates a confusing diversion since we are, I think, talking about whether any particular position is "plausibly true" and, as I have already stated, the popularity of a position tells us very little about its "correctness".

 

[gord44]

Indeed. And I think a reasonable person armed with appropriate background knowledge, would reject that view. However, that does not mean other interpretations of the Biblical narrative are not otherwise plausibly true.

It's a pretty scripturally sound view. I used to be a Calvinist and chose that path because it made the most sense coming from the scriptures.

 

[expos4ever]

It's a pretty scripturally sound view.

Are you prepared to defend that view? Any of us - including me of course - can make a statement. But to support that statement with an actual argument is another matter altogether.

 

[gord44]

Are you prepared to defend that view? Any of us - including me of course - can make a statement. But to support that statement with an actual argument is another matter altogether.

Years ago, of course I would. Now I couldn't care less, so no. Just sharing.

 

[dlamberth]

True, in any discussion of any issue this behavior will be seen; it does not mean that there is not one particular interpretation that, in fact, describes reality correctly.

The only ones that I think come closest to reality correctly are the Mystics.

 

[dlamberth]

Are you prepared to defend that view?

The ever pressing question of what IS true interpretation of scripture, even among Christian Believers. Thus the OP continues to be un-answered, or at the very least, very "confusing" from the variety of answers given.

 

[expos4ever]

On the matter of an eternal hell:

We know of clear Biblical precedent for the use of poetic exaggeration in the Old Testament specifically in respect to the matter of "smoke ascending forever" - an image used to represent the nature of hell in the New Testament. Isaiah prophecies that smoke will rise forever from Edom when it is judged by God. Well, this particular prophecy was fulfilled and smoke is certainly not still rising from Edom.

We need to be careful to interpret Biblical language appropriately. If there is established precedent for "forever not meaning forever", we need to be aware of the possibility that hell is not really eternal.

 

[com7fy8]

I think the Bible even speaks of the Son being
pleasing to Him as the sacrifice.

"And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)

And, yes, here it says we also need to be sweetly pleasing to our Father, in the sacrifices we do.

 

[com7fy8]

"logic" behind blood sacrifices

It can fit with how if you truly forgive someone, you are giving your life to the person . . . your blood. With true forgiveness we give the lifeblood of our love

Jesus on the cross did more than only legally let us off the hook. He loved us and gave Himself.