What is some "Common Christian Wisdom" that you've learned isn't true?

[Dave-W]

That is an interesting break down, R 5.8.

I am going to have to cogitate on that a while.

As a point of interest, would you also consider theology that fails to take the Jewish context of the NT writers and audience to fall into the "bad theology" category? To me it can almost rise to dangerous theology.

There is a guy named Hagee that teaches Jews already have the Mosaic covenant so they do not need to hear the gospel. To me that is dangerous because if properly followed, it would consign a whole people group that have special mention in the scriptures to eternal judgement.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

That is an interesting break down, R 5.8.

I am going to have to cogitate on that a while.

As a point of interest, would you also consider theology that fails to take the Jewish context of the NT writers and audience to fall into the "bad theology" category? To me it can almost rise to dangerous theology.

There is a guy named Hagee that teaches Jews already have the Mosaic covenant so they do not need to hear the gospel. To me that is dangerous because if properly followed, it would consign a whole people group that have special mention in the scriptures to eternal judgement.

My definition of dangerous theology (which is just that, mine) is that which has significant potential to seriously harm one's faith in God, or give false senses of ones faith in God. I realize, to many people, this list can be quite large. But for me it isn't; though it includes theology that suggests "salvation" is merely a special prayer prayed once and then 'locked in' forever (usually practiced by people who Baptize more than once because it might wear off!).

So Context IS important, and failing to take context can create all three categories I think; wrong, bad, and dangerous. Failing, specifically, to understand the context of the people who wrote and first read the NT scriptures certainly creates all three. Especially in today's age of placing everything in the Bible against modern social lenses.

That concept that Jews don't "need" the Gospel really ignores a lot of what Jesus himself said. Though there are those who are pluralistic (all paths lead to the same God, what you call it and how you practice it doesn't matter) and/or inclusive (strict adherence isn't required and it's likely that people of other faiths will be afforded the same Grace in death that a Christian is. i.e., they'll still be able to choose eternity with God). I'm not pluralistic, personally. I am, however, inclusive. I don't think everyone goes to heaven, because I think we get to choose and God isn't a tyrant who chooses for us. I also believe Jesus when he tells me that he's the path to salvation. However, I also believe God's grace can, and probably is, extended to other people. The best way I have to explain my feeling is "I can't say for certain God's grace isn't extended in the same way to the Jew, the Buddhist, the Muslim or the Hindu. However I can say with conviction that God offers us a path to salvation through Jesus Christ and so that's the path I'll preach". Hopefully, that makes sense. Believe that only Christians are "allowed" into heaven ties God's hands, it puts limits on a God who is limitless. However I DO believe that Christianity is God's plan for humanity, and the path he wishes us to take. (If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't preach it!)

Hagee's theology is rooted in dispensationalism and calvinism, and the "elect". It once again says that God has pre-selected certain people, and the rest of us are simply doomed and there's nothing we can do about it. It's absolutely ludicrous, and based on no scripture (only mis-read prooftexting) that certain groups, be they Jew or otherwise, are "pre-selected."

 

[Dave-W]

The best way I have to explain my feeling is "I can't say for certain God's grace isn't extended in the same way to the Jew, the Buddhist, the Muslim or the Hindu. However I can say with conviction that God offers us a path to salvation through Jesus Christ and so that's the path I'll preach".

That is interesting; and what was discussed in the UMJC circles a few years back as the "wider wide hope" soteriological viewpoint.

My view is a bit narrower than that. But I in no way attempt to limit God's gracious sovereignty. There is a difference between what is being promised in the bible; and what God can and ultimately will do. I take the Bible promise of salvation thru Jesus' death and resurrection as the base line. What He does beyond that is His business, not mine.

So I think we sort of come to the same general idea; but perhaps from different directions.

 

[Dave-W]

Hagee's theology is rooted in dispensationalism and calvinism, and the "elect". It once again says that God has pre-selected certain people, and the rest of us are simply doomed and there's nothing we can do about it. It's absolutely ludicrous, and based on no scripture (only mis-read prooftexting) that certain groups, be they Jew or otherwise, are "pre-selected."

Hagee was classic pentecostal which was rooted in Wesleyan Holiness teachings.

It is my opinion that he adopted his current position that it is improper to share the gospel with Jews for political reasons. He has ties with Traditional Orthodox Jews that would not have anything to do with him if he advocated bringing the Gospel to Jewish people. So he conveniently altered his teachings to reflect that.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

That is interesting; and what was discussed in the UMJC circles a few years back as the "wider wide hope" soteriological viewpoint.

My view is a bit narrower than that. But I in no way attempt to limit God's gracious sovereignty. There is a difference between what is being promised in the bible; and what God can and ultimately will do. I take the Bible promise of salvation thru Jesus' death and resurrection as the base line. What He does beyond that is His business, not mine.

So I think we sort of come to the same general idea; but perhaps from different directions.

Yeah I think we're on the same page. I'm not going to limit God by saying "It's impossible for that person to go to heaven". For example, I had someone ask me, "Well, don't you believe Muslims go to hell?" The truth is, I DON'T know, because that's, as you say, God's business. What I DO know is what Christ has told us and has been recorded in the scriptures; which is the path to God that I believe is the path we're all called to; a path through Jesus Christ.

 

[Dave-W]

On the muslim question - I have heard several reports out of Israel that muslims and even radicalized jihadis have been having dreams of Jesus and coming to faith in HIM thru the dreams. Iran's ayatollahs reportedly are very worried about this trend as it has affected a noticeable percentage of their population.

So the truth is we DON'T know - and I am good with that.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ETA: The congregation I grew up in (holiness pentecostal) taught that everyone from the OT including Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, etc. were all burning in hell right now because they never confessed the name JESUS.

 

[JackRT]

As we approach the Christmas season we can reflect a bit upon how we have conflated the gospel accounts of Matthew and Luke and include much that either is not biblical or is not historical. Here are just a few that spring to mind:

Wise men? ---- not biblical

Kings? --- not biblical

Magi? --- biblical, priests of the Zoroastrian religion

Three of them? --- not biblical

Came on camels? --- not biblical

Worldwide census? --- biblical but not historical, census in Galilee only

In ancestral home? --- biblical but not historical

Bethlehem? --- biblical but not likely

Nazareth? --- not biblical but probably

In a stable? --- not biblical

In a cave? --- not biblical

Laid in a manger? --- biblical

Animals present? --- not biblical

Shepherds in fields by night? --- only in lambing time in early spring

Slaughter of the innocents? --- biblical but likely not historical

Flight into Egypt? --- biblical but likely not historical

4 to 6 BC? --- according to Matthew

AD 6? --- according to Luke

Virgin birth? --- Paul said it was natural, Mark and John ignore it

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Virgin birth is definitely a hotly contested issue. And you're right; among the chief challenges is indeed the little evidence we find that many people believed it prior to the early church.

As a pedantic point; "unbiblical" has the implication that something is contrary to the Bible or that the Bible doesn't support it. For example, saying that God thinks America is special and wants to vanquish the U.S.'s enemies is unbiblical, because it's antithetical to the scriptures.

Some of what you quoted above, are "not biblically supported" or "extra-biblical". That is to say, they aren't necessarily contradictory or in conflict with the Bible; they just aren't supported by the Bible. For example, animals present is not supported by the Bible but I don't think I'd call it "unbiblical", because the presence of animals doesn't violate the scripture.

As far as the stable/cave; the most likely was the storage portion of someone's home, likely a relative of Joseph. Some scholars even suggest that Mary being pregnant out of wedlock had more to do with the "lack of room" than anything. Hebrew culture, especially at this time, was basically the polar opposite of 21st century USA. Immigrants, strangers, and wayward folks were cared for and it was an honor, even a blessing, to open your door to a traveler. After all, the scriptures pretty clearly demand it (Leviticus and elsewhere commands caring for immigrants and travelers). Mary and Joseph were likely going home to home, not likely going from the Motel 6 to the Ramada, and not finding a room. Though there certainly were "Inns", it's just as likely, the homes of those who lived in the area were destinations as well. Some scholars have suggested that it could've been a relative of Joseph who took pity on Mary and though they wouldn't allow the unwed mother in the home, they would in the 'storeroom', which could've been a separate building, but likely, a carve-out underneath the home or perhaps something on the back of the home.

Ever still, other scholars suggest the complete opposite of that. That indeed it was a relation of Joseph most likely, but there was no 'shunning' going on. In fact, a 9 months pregnant woman probably was best suited for that part of the home! It would've been a part of the home that required no climbing, would be well insulated, with room to spread out and lay down. And the manger; more likely cut out of the stone than fashioned from wood (though both types existed) was really kind of the perfect place for a baby. I've even heard suggestions that there's nothing really unique about being born in the 'basement' and laid in a manger. That, in fact, that was even common.

I won't pretend to be an expert, only fascinated by the suggestions. We humans, whether about faith or otherwise, tend to cling to whichever theories make the most sense to us and confirm our pre-conceived ideas. However, the issue of where, when, and how Jesus was born is indeed a fascinating topic for discussion! There is so much deeply-held wisdom that is, at the very least, challengeable.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

On the muslim question - I have heard several reports out of Israel that muslims and even radicalized jihadis have been having dreams of Jesus and coming to faith in HIM thru the dreams. Iran's ayatollahs reportedly are very worried about this trend as it has affected a noticeable percentage of their population.

So the truth is we DON'T know - and I am good with that.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ETA: The congregation I grew up in (holiness pentecostal) taught that everyone from the OT including Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, etc. were all burning in hell right now because they never confessed the name JESUS.

While Franklin Graham and the like would never admit it, Islam is our closest cousin. In fact, Islam is closer to Christianity than many "Christian" subgroups. The obvious and most significant difference is the presence of a heretical prophet (which isn't unlike Mormonism, et al., which we don't seem to have the same issues with), and most glaringly (though obviously, not different from other 'Christian' groups!), the rejection of the triune God in favor of the Godhead as the only divine being, and the others being creations of God, subordinate to God and always less than God. Our view of Jesus and the Holy Spirit AS God is the key difference between Islam and Christianity.

The reality is, Islam isn't that much unlike Mormonism, Jehova's Witness, etc. Following the same pattern. Mohammad was a Christian after all, though claims that the angel Gabriel (yep, that one!) gave him an "updated" version of faith. "Muslim" means, simply, one who submits to God. Submitting to God thus, for them, means submitting in the version of what Mohammad taught. Both Christians and Muslims accept the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Again the key difference is whether they are co-equal or subordinate. Jesus is considered God's greatest prophet (I'm not 100% sure whether Islam views Mohammad, or Jesus, on a higher plane. But either way, they are very close). Many Muslims celebrate Christmas. And in fact, many Muslims, including in the middle east, see no qualms with worshipping in a Christian church. The famous Anglican Church in Baghdad had a sizeable Muslim population in it's pews. They liked learning about God from the Anglican Priest who served the church, and saw no issue with that.

Long-winded story short; Islam is a close cousin so it's just impossible for me to give the answer he wanted, which was "all Muslims go to hell if they don't convert", because, I just don't believe that. I'm not a pluralist, but I do believe that the Grace of God transcends the limits human beings place on it.

 

[Qyöt27]

Hagee was classic pentecostal which was rooted in Wesleyan Holiness teachings.

It is my opinion that he adopted his current position that it is improper to share the gospel with Jews for political reasons. He has ties with Traditional Orthodox Jews that would not have anything to do with him if he advocated bringing the Gospel to Jewish people. So he conveniently altered his teachings to reflect that.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I'd mostly see it as an attempt to not appear antisemitic (considering the minefield that discussing Jewish/Christian relations can become); although once the actual dispensationalist 'theology' shows up, the irony meter starts spinning around like a pinwheel in a hurricane. As far as I'm concerned, dispensationalism - or Christian Zionism in general, since the two often go hand in hand - is one of the most antisemitic 'theologies' there is, after actual violence and explicitly open antisemitism. Simple decency is all one actually needs to reject it. The problem is that it appears supportive on the surface, which draws in a lot of people who probably have no ill will at all toward Jews, but it takes very little thinking through of the position before it becomes clear that dispensationalism and its kin really view Jews and Israelis as pawns to be manipulated in a game to bring about the end of the world.

Whether Hagee was the one that started advocating for such stringent Dual Covenant theology in a dispensationalist context, I don't know. It sidesteps the overtly nasty 'the Jews will get one last chance to convert to Christianity, or be slaughtered with all the other non-Christians' premise that dispensationalism goes with, but everything else about that eschatological framework is a whirling black mass of paranoia, conspiracy mongering, and outright fear, anger, hatred, and bitterness toward all sorts of other opponents. I use the word 'heresy' very very selectively, but dispensationalism meets all of the criteria and then some. Like RomansFiveEight's description of dangerous theology, I only use 'heresy' to describe things I feel are spiritually toxic; there's only 4 things* on that list (apart from discussions about the Classical Heresies), and dispensationalism is #1.

*the other three are Prosperity 'Gospel', the pseudo-Gnosticism that underlies the bubble subculture in Evangelical churches, and Biblical Inerrancy. The last two are comparatively minor next to the first two, though.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Biblical Inerrancy might be "low on the list" but it's the fuel for the fire of above. Dispensationalism, prosperity Gospel, and the like all come together thanks to a combination of confirmation bias (Starting with a conclusion, then finding some scripture that supports it. Rather than trying to learn from the scripture) and inerracy, it becomes very easy to generate these theologies. Because indeed, Inerrancy is a farce anyway. It's not "real", it's merely a convenient excuse for why one person interpretation of scripture is the "right one", especially when the deeper context and good study can easily 'debunk' many of these mentioned theologies. You can't "debunk" inerrancy because it in itself is a claim that their interpretation of the Bible isn't an interpretation at all, but what the Bible, as they like to say, "Clearly" says. It's an uphill battle. Of course, through the centuries, what the Bible has "clearly" said has changed drastically, and it'll continue to change in the future.

 

[grandvizier1006]

While Franklin Graham and the like would never admit it, Islam is our closest cousin. In fact, Islam is closer to Christianity than many "Christian" subgroups. The obvious and most significant difference is the presence of a heretical prophet (which isn't unlike Mormonism, et al., which we don't seem to have the same issues with), and most glaringly (though obviously, not different from other 'Christian' groups!), the rejection of the triune God in favor of the Godhead as the only divine being, and the others being creations of God, subordinate to God and always less than God. Our view of Jesus and the Holy Spirit AS God is the key difference between Islam and Christianity.

The reality is, Islam isn't that much unlike Mormonism, Jehova's Witness, etc. Following the same pattern. Mohammad was a Christian after all, though claims that the angel Gabriel (yep, that one!) gave him an "updated" version of faith. "Muslim" means, simply, one who submits to God. Submitting to God thus, for them, means submitting in the version of what Mohammad taught. Both Christians and Muslims accept the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Again the key difference is whether they are co-equal or subordinate. Jesus is considered God's greatest prophet (I'm not 100% sure whether Islam views Mohammad, or Jesus, on a higher plane. But either way, they are very close). Many Muslims celebrate Christmas. And in fact, many Muslims, including in the middle east, see no qualms with worshipping in a Christian church. The famous Anglican Church in Baghdad had a sizeable Muslim population in it's pews. They liked learning about God from the Anglican Priest who served the church, and saw no issue with that.

Long-winded story short; Islam is a close cousin so it's just impossible for me to give the answer he wanted, which was "all Muslims go to hell if they don't convert", because, I just don't believe that. I'm not a pluralist, but I do believe that the Grace of God transcends the limits human beings place on it.

It's funny you mentioned that, I read some books regarding the Middle East's formerly large Christian community before (and during!) Islam. In light of all the terrorism, I often forget that Muslims probably have a very similar set of values to Christians--I think I was afraid of atheists a lot more than Muslims a few years ago. Now I'm just cautious.

But I have never heard of an Anglican Church in Baghdad. I know that some British attempted to set such things up when Iraq was a colony, but Islam had been entrenched for centuries.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

It's funny you mentioned that, I read some books regarding the Middle East's formerly large Christian community before (and during!) Islam. In light of all the terrorism, I often forget that Muslims probably have a very similar set of values to Christians--I think I was afraid of atheists a lot more than Muslims a few years ago. Now I'm just cautious.

But I have never heard of an Anglican Church in Baghdad. I know that some British attempted to set such things up when Iraq was a colony, but Islam had been entrenched for centuries.

There have been Christian churches in the middle east even in recent years. Areas held by radicalized militant groups, obviously, don't. But one of the Pastors who was at the church I serve before me was at a Methodist church in Afghanistan in the 1980's. Look closely at pictures of major middle eastern cities and you're likely to see crosses on top of domes right next to the mosques. As further evidence of the closeness, Christian churches that had been converted to Mosques, like one in Beirut converted in 1291 A.D., still have their crosses and Christian symbols. Unfortunately, many of THESE mosques are being destroyed by militant groups specifically because they didn't reject those symbols (or because they won't join the militants, or aren't the right 'kind' of Muslim).

The current state of affairs, with worldwide military involvement and the rise of ISIS, is driving Christians underground. But as recently as a few months ago, thousands of Christians in Iraq worshipped openly (WITH some Muslims!) right here:

 

[grandvizier1006]

There have been Christian churches in the middle east even in recent years. Areas held by radicalized militant groups, obviously, don't. But one of the Pastors who was at the church I serve before me was at a Methodist church in Afghanistan in the 1980's. Look closely at pictures of major middle eastern cities and you're likely to see crosses on top of domes right next to the mosques. As further evidence of the closeness, Christian churches that had been converted to Mosques, like one in Beirut converted in 1291 A.D., still have their crosses and Christian symbols. Unfortunately, many of THESE mosques are being destroyed by militant groups specifically because they didn't reject those symbols (or because they won't join the militants, or aren't the right 'kind' of Muslim).

The current state of affairs, with worldwide military involvement and the rise of ISIS, is driving Christians underground. But as recently as a few months ago, thousands of Christians in Iraq worshipped openly (WITH some Muslims!) right here:

Does anyone become a Christian or do they just show up out of kindness? I thought it was illegal in places like Egypt and Pakistan to convert from Islam to anything else.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Does anyone become a Christian or do they just show up out of kindness? I thought it was illegal in places like Egypt and Pakistan to convert from Islam to anything else.

They don't convert that I'm aware of. What I had read about the Muslims attending that church was primarily that they liked the preaching and felt connected to God. They didn't see any issue with worshipping God in a Christian church.

And yes, in many Islamic countries "apostasy", that is, converting from Islam, is illegal. While being a non-Muslim is not illegal, if you are a Muslim, you can't "convert". Where that causes problems though is that it's not uncommon for governments to charge Christians with apostasy, based on a familial link or incorrect evidence suggesting they were once Muslim.

 

[Dave-W]

Does anyone become a Christian or do they just show up out of kindness? I thought it was illegal in places like Egypt and Pakistan to convert from Islam to anything else.

In places like Mosul, Iraq, the christian population predated Islam by several centuries.
ISIS drove them all out in the last several months.

 

[Dave-W]

. It sidesteps the overtly nasty 'the Jews will get one last chance to convert to Christianity, or be slaughtered with all the other non-Christians' premise that dispensationalism goes with, but everything else about that eschatological framework is a whirling black mass of paranoia, conspiracy mongering, and outright fear, anger, hatred, and bitterness toward all sorts of other opponents. I use the word 'heresy' very very selectively, but dispensationalism meets all of the criteria and then some. Like RomansFiveEight's description of dangerous theology, I only use 'heresy' to describe things I feel are spiritually toxic; there's only 4 things* on that list (apart from discussions about the Classical Heresies), and dispensationalism is #1.

*the other three are Prosperity 'Gospel', the pseudo-Gnosticism that underlies the bubble subculture in Evangelical churches, and Biblical Inerrancy. The last two are comparatively minor next to the first two, though.

Where on that list would you put "replacement theology?"

 

[RomansFiveEight]

In places like Mosul, Iraq, the christian population predated Islam by several centuries.
ISIS drove them all out in the last several months.

Yep.

I learned a lot when my wife worked with two Muslim physicians from Syria. It was her first job out of college (she worked for them for a year and established their medical practice, they each had been hospitalists). They celebrated Christmas (trees and nativity scenes and everything), had a high view of Christians, even came to a couple of different events at the UM church I was serving, and sent donations to some of our mission work. Though they weren't deeply 'orthodox' like some Syrian Muslims are (neither of their wives wore any sort of headcoverings and both of their wives were also well-educated professionals. One was a pharmacist and the other was also a primary care physician). One of them wasn't particularly strict on the prayer disciplines, but the other was. The other had a prayer rug in a room in the back and my wife had to make sure their schedule was 'open' so that he could have his prayer times during the day. Something, by the way, I really wish Christians did. How amazing would it be if Christians had a rigid prayer life like that. If Christians said "During these times during the day, unless it's an emergency, I'm going to be in prayer no matter what".

I knew very little about Islam prior to meeting them; I know, of course, that the 9/11 hijackers were Muslim and that they were radicalized and systematically rejected by all of the major worldwide Muslim leaders, but that was about it. Later on I took a class on Islam as an undergrad just out of curiosity (and a need for a humanities elective), and learned a lot there as well. I also read about a Christian church (a UM church in fact) that, after 9/11, the Mosque down the street had been a target for violence. Several members started attending the Mosques daily prayer calls, including the Pastor; and the Imam of the Mosque attending similar prayer services at the UM church. Pretty fascinating stuff.

Radicals are radicals and no member of ISIS is going to set foot in a Christian church without ill will. But there are 1.6 billion Muslims (to ISIS's self-proclaimed, and likely inflated, number of 120,000, or 0.00001%), and if we really are Evangelical Christians who believe that the Gospel matters and should be shared; it's amazing how unwilling we are to share that Gospel and share Christ's love in action (like the church that prayed with the Mosque) with our cousins in Islam. When a Christian church holds Jewish traditions, like a passover meal, it's historic. When they share Muslim traditions, like prayer, they are often the target of controversy. Mind-boggling. Of the three abrahamic religion, two of them believe in Jesus Christ as a divine (of some sort), and neither of them is Judaism!

 

[grandvizier1006]

Yep.

I learned a lot when my wife worked with two Muslim physicians from Syria. It was her first job out of college (she worked for them for a year and established their medical practice, they each had been hospitalists). They celebrated Christmas (trees and nativity scenes and everything), had a high view of Christians, even came to a couple of different events at the UM church I was serving, and sent donations to some of our mission work. Though they weren't deeply 'orthodox' like some Syrian Muslims are (neither of their wives wore any sort of headcoverings and both of their wives were also well-educated professionals. One was a pharmacist and the other was also a primary care physician). One of them wasn't particularly strict on the prayer disciplines, but the other was. The other had a prayer rug in a room in the back and my wife had to make sure their schedule was 'open' so that he could have his prayer times during the day. Something, by the way, I really wish Christians did. How amazing would it be if Christians had a rigid prayer life like that. If Christians said "During these times during the day, unless it's an emergency, I'm going to be in prayer no matter what".

I knew very little about Islam prior to meeting them; I know, of course, that the 9/11 hijackers were Muslim and that they were radicalized and systematically rejected by all of the major worldwide Muslim leaders, but that was about it. Later on I took a class on Islam as an undergrad just out of curiosity (and a need for a humanities elective), and learned a lot there as well. I also read about a Christian church (a UM church in fact) that, after 9/11, the Mosque down the street had been a target for violence. Several members started attending the Mosques daily prayer calls, including the Pastor; and the Imam of the Mosque attending similar prayer services at the UM church. Pretty fascinating stuff.

Radicals are radicals and no member of ISIS is going to set foot in a Christian church without ill will. But there are 1.6 billion Muslims (to ISIS's self-proclaimed, and likely inflated, number of 120,000, or 0.00001%), and if we really are Evangelical Christians who believe that the Gospel matters and should be shared; it's amazing how unwilling we are to share that Gospel and share Christ's love in action (like the church that prayed with the Mosque) with our cousins in Islam. When a Christian church holds Jewish traditions, like a passover meal, it's historic. When they share Muslim traditions, like prayer, they are often the target of controversy. Mind-boggling. Of the three abrahamic religion, two of them believe in Jesus Christ as a divine (of some sort), and neither of them is Judaism!

That's all good to remember. Honestly, though, it's difficult sometimes when you don't know any Muslims (I don't). We had really ought to do more to win Muslims because they probably a lot more like us than atheists. I still don't really know if I can beleive that all followers of Abrahamic religions go to Heaven, though--or at least all of the "nice" ones. I always thought that it was if you beleived Jesus died for your sins and that you cannot save yourself, (a bit Calvinistic, I know, just let me say it! ) then you are saved for your belief. My understanding is that you sort of have to beleive that Jesus is divine. By not doing so then you are believing that He is just a human that cannot save you. My understanding is that Jesus is not divine in Islam. and Jesus and Mohammed were quite different.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

That's all good to remember. Honestly, though, it's difficult sometimes when you don't know any Muslims (I don't). We had really ought to do more to win Muslims because they probably a lot more like us than atheists. I still don't really know if I can beleive that all followers of Abrahamic religions go to Heaven, though--or at least all of the "nice" ones. I always thought that it was if you beleived Jesus died for your sins and that you cannot save yourself, (a bit Calvinistic, I know, just let me say it! ) then you are saved for your belief. My understanding is that you sort of have to beleive that Jesus is divine. By not doing so then you are believing that He is just a human that cannot save you. My understanding is that Jesus is not divine in Islam. and Jesus and Mohammed were quite different.

So there's a system of believes called pluralism or universalism; though each are a little different, they both suggest some variant that everything leads to God and all faith practices are a valid way of worshipping God.

What I was talking about was inclusivism, which stops short of that. I certainly do believe that Jesus Christ is the path God wants us to take. And I firmly believe that Jesus Christ offers our salvation; I wouldn't preach in a Christian church if I didn't believe those things. However, I believe Grace is God's gift to give. Therefore I cannot make blanket statements like "Anyone who isn't a Christian goes to hell", because I simply don't think that's true. Whether to one or one million, God's gift of salvation is just that, God's gift. That he might choose to give it to a Muslim or a Buddhist or an Atheist is God's own prerogative. Our responsibility as Christians is to share the Gospel and the love of Jesus Christ, and let the world know that Christ offers a path to salvation. I do believe that faiths other than Christianity, to include Islam, Judaism, etc., are misled and not living and practicing within the will of God. That doesn't make them bad people or evil

As I've sometimes told people, "I don't know that the person who follows a different faith will or won't be afforded the same salvation. However, I DO know that those who accept salvation through Christ and live their lives according to God will be." And that's what it comes down to for me. It's not my job to decide who gets in and who doesn't, it's my job to spread the Gospel.