Yes, but what if we are not wrong?

bhsmte said:

About 58 seconds, he states God calls Muslims and people of all religions even if they don't know Jesus.

Click to expand...

Yes, and the context of the whole message is the God calls people "out of the World", as Billy said seconds earlier at 55 sec. He even says that God calls out Athiests from the world, and you can imagine that the athiest cannot continue to deny Yahweh, and be saved.

The point Billy is making is that people from all corners of the World will come out of their current belief system and come to Yahweh; notice Billy said this also applies to Christianity.

I've told you this same thing before, it shouldn't be surprising nor need much interpretation to get it.

ETA. Oh sorry Bhsmte, I forgot to add that the definition of the Church is "the called out ones".

agua said:

Ok. But remember to do your homework now norty boy.

Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to show that assigning P=1 to Yahweh's existence is reasonable...

Archaeopteryx said:

Still waiting for you to show that assigning P=1 to Yahweh's existence is reasonable...

Click to expand...

Oh here we go round the mulberry bush the mulberry bush the mulberry bush ...

Knock knock.

Archaeopteryx said:

I'm not talking to the churches, I'm talking with believers. If I wanted to discuss the finer points of official doctrine I would consult the relevant documents and go from there.

Click to expand...

By being a member of that church, they submit to the doctrines of that church. Their private opinions are separate from what the churches officially believe. And since you seem to be criticizing doctrine, you need to focus on official teaching and not private opinion. Blame poor catechesis or simple individualism, but not what churches actually believe corporately.

Most Sundays when the Nicene Creed, the Symbol of our faith is read, we begin with "We believe..". It is a corporate expression of belief. That point is very important to understand. The vast majority of Christians out there in the world belong to churches that do not believe Christianity is a private belief. It is the faith of a community. Salvation is not individualistic.

In most cases the theology of the churches can be found in their prayer books, in the liturgies, and it is far different from your characterization. In most mainline denominations, there are explicit prayers for justice, peace, and the welfare of the world. In the case of the Episcopal and Roman Catholic church, there are even prayers for "all who have died.", not just those with explicit faith in Christ in this life. If we were part of such a mean-spirited, narrow-minded "tribal" faith, why would we bother with such things? Unless maybe we think it is our duty as Christians to do so whenever we gather together to give thanksgiving for our salvation?

agua said:

Oh here we go round the mulberry bush the mulberry bush the mulberry bush ...

Knock knock.

Click to expand...

Still waiting...

FireDragon76 said:

By being a member of that church, they submit to the doctrines of that church. Their private opinions are separate from what the churches officially believe.

Click to expand...

As I said, I'm not interested in what churches officially believe, but what their adherents actually believe. If I'm having a conversation with a Catholic who disagrees with the finer points of the church's official position on women's ordination, for example, I'm not going to correct him on what he believes. That would be an arrogant thing to do. Who am I to tell him what he believes? Instead, I will listen, and respond.

And since you seem to be criticizing doctrine, you need to focus on official teaching and not private opinion. Blame poor catechesis or simple individualism, but not what churches actually believe corporately.

Click to expand...

No, I don't. I can only respond to the claims I am presented with. If someone presents the official teaching as their belief, I will respond to that. If they present something else, I will respond to that. What you are asking me to do is to ignore what the person actually believes and to address something else. If I did that I would be attacking a strawman.

Most Sundays when the Nicene Creed, the Symbol of our faith is read, we begin with "We believe..". It is a corporate expression of belief. That point is very important to understand. The vast majority of Christians out there in the world belong to churches that do not believe Christianity is a private belief. It is the faith of a community. Salvation is not individualistic.

Click to expand...

The Nicene Creed is a good summary of the core beliefs of Christianity. However, those reciting the creed every Sunday are not in perfect agreement in all other aspects of the faith. You know this. You have emphasised the point repeatedly: Christianity is not a monolithic entity. And I have repeatedly agreed with this point, only to have you mention it again and again. It seems to me that any criticism I make will provoke the same response from you, regardless of whether the criticism targets an official doctrine or not. The target is always moving, such that every criticism I make will be objected to as a misrepresentation of Christianity.

In most cases the theology of the churches can be found in their prayer books, in the liturgies, and it is far different from your characterization. In most mainline denominations, there are explicit prayers for justice, peace, and the welfare of the world. In the case of the Episcopal and Roman Catholic church, there are even prayers for "all who have died.", not just those with explicit faith in Christ in this life. If we were part of such a mean-spirited, narrow-minded "tribal" faith, why would we bother with such things? Unless maybe we think it is our duty as Christians to do so whenever we gather together to give thanksgiving for our salvation?

Click to expand...

Once again, I'm not interested in the official party line, but in what believers actually believe. Instead of listening to believers discussing their own faith, you would have me reading prayer books, liturgies, and papal encyclicals? When a believer says something that isn't strictly in keeping with the official doctrines of their church, you would have me - a nonbeliever - tell them that they are wrong about their own theology? And when they accuse me of being arrogant for telling them what their theology is you will come to my defence? I doubt it.

Archaeopteryx said:

As I said, I'm not interested in what churches officially believe, but what their adherents actually believe.

Click to expand...

Well, then, if you are focusing on the private opinions of individuals in a church, then you are even more wrong- you are apt to find all sorts of beliefs, some of which wouldn't even be reconciled with each other. How can you lump all Christian beliefs together, in such a case?

There have been surveys of clergy in the major churches, asking them their thoughts on other religions. 3/4 to nearly all believe that non-Christians can be saved (Eastern Orthodox having the lowest, and Episcopalians having the highest number, with Roman Catholics in the middle). Among laity the percentage is lower but it is still the majority. This blows your caricature out of the water. The kind of tribalistic religion you describe does not describe mainstream Christianity in developed nations.

3/4 to nearly all believe that non-Christians can be saved (Eastern Orthodox having the lowest, and Episcopalians having the highest number, with Roman Catholics in the middle).

Click to expand...

Be saved how?

FireDragon76 said:

Well, then, if you are focusing on the private opinions of individuals in a church, then you are even more wrong- you are apt to find all sorts of beliefs, some of which wouldn't even be reconciled with each other.

Click to expand...

Let's be clear here: you are faulting me for actually listening to Christians talk about what they believe, and for responding to their claims directly. You would rather that I ignore what they say and focus instead on the official doctrines of whatever church they happen to belong to. What would be the point of having a conversation with them then? Instead of asking "What do you believe and why?", I should be asking "What church do you belong to?" And what am I to do when someone calls themselves non-denominational?

Your criticism of my conversational approach also presumes that official doctrine holds some privileged status merely by being official. What nonsense. How much of what is today official doctrine would have been deemed heresy in the past? How much of what is considered error by today's churches will one day find itself enshrined in their official doctrines? A seal of approval by some body purporting to speak for a community of believers does not magically make all members of the community adopt that belief. Given that my interest is in what people actually believe, rather than what churches state they must believe, I feel justified in addressing only those claims that I am presented with. In fact, to do otherwise would mean making a strawman of their position.

Just what does it take to have an official doctrine anyway? How about a webpage manifesto or statement of faith? By that standard, Answers in Genesis has an official doctrine.

How can you lump all Christian beliefs together, in such a case?

Click to expand...

I don't. Which is why, as I said earlier, I only respond to the particular claims I am presented with, regardless of whether those claims comport with official doctrine or not. I don't pretend that there is some Ideal True Christian to whom I must direct my responses to.

There have been surveys of clergy in the major churches, asking them their thoughts on other religions. 3/4 to nearly all believe that non-Christians can be saved (Eastern Orthodox having the lowest, and Episcopalians having the highest number, with Roman Catholics in the middle). Among laity the percentage is lower but it is still the majority. This blows your caricature out of the water. The kind of tribalistic religion you describe does not describe mainstream Christianity in developed nations.

Click to expand...

Of what relevance are survey results to my discussion with an individual believer? When someone tells me they believe I am going to Hell to burn forever, should I inform them that, well, "surveys show that..." What would be the point of this appeal to the majority in a conversation with someone who does not hold that view and who probably doesn't care what the majority think anyway? The majority may be heretics in their view. Should I pretend they hold a view that they do not? Should I condescend to them and tell them what their theology really is? Should I demand to see some sort of official seal of approval before engaging any further? And which seal should I be looking for? Perhaps I should seek an Ideal True Christian to converse with, but then I would never converse with any Christians at all.

agua said:

Yes, and the context of the whole message is the God calls people "out of the World", as Billy said seconds earlier at 55 sec. He even says that God calls out Athiests from the world, and you can imagine that the athiest cannot continue to deny Yahweh, and be saved.

The point Billy is making is that people from all corners of the World will come out of their current belief system and come to Yahweh; notice Billy said this also applies to Christianity.

I've told you this same thing before, it shouldn't be surprising nor need much interpretation to get it.

ETA. Oh sorry Bhsmte, I forgot to add that the definition of the Church is "the called out ones".

Click to expand...

What I see Graham saying, is that the body of Christ may come from outside Christian groups, they don't even have to be conscious of it, they don't even have to know the name of Jesus, but they know in their heart they need "something" and turn to the only light that they have and they will be saved. They love Christ, know Christ, but are not conscious of the one they know and love. They may recognize Christ in their heart as nothing more than a type of "light" for that matter.

What I don't see Graham saying, is that they may recognize Christ as someone else specifically (i.e. Muhammad is really Christ, Allah is really Christ, Shiva is really Christ, Tom Frum is really Christ, etc). At least not in that clip.

What I take away from what Graham said, is that he believes a person doesn't need to go through some form of recognized "Christianity" in order to know Christ. They can be a Muslim, see the light in their heart and that is their "calling out". They become part of the body of Christ, are not even conscious of it nor have words for it. What I also take away from that, is that he believes a person can BE a Muslim/atheist/etc, and still know Christ without realizing it. That would mean, they are a practicing Muslim, a claimed atheist, a practicing Hindu, whatever. So on the one hand, they are "doing" their religion (or lack of it) ... yet on the other hand, they may have a light in their heart which they also recognize as being real, but do not formally identify it. Perhaps they misidentify it, Graham doesn't specify his thoughts on that (in that clip at least). So one could believe in Vishnu, yet have the light there in their heart which Graham believes would be Christ, the person may not even know it ... yet be saved.

I see Graham mention "God" but not Yahweh. Out of curiosity, does he commonly refer to God as Yahweh in his preachings/sermons/public speaking/etc ?

Yes I realize that if you want to respond you will, if you don't you won't.

TillICollapse said:

What I see Graham saying, is that the body of Christ may come from outside Christian groups, they don't even have to be conscious of it, they don't even have to know the name of Jesus, but they know in their heart they need "something" and turn to the only light that they have and they will be saved. They love Christ, know Christ, but are not conscious of the one they know and love. They may recognize Christ in their heart as nothing more than a type of "light" for that matter.

What I don't see Graham saying, is that they may recognize Christ as someone else specifically (i.e. Muhammad is really Christ, Allah is really Christ, Shiva is really Christ, Tom Frum is really Christ, etc). At least not in that clip.

What I take away from what Graham said, is that he believes a person doesn't need to go through some form of recognized "Christianity" in order to know Christ. They can be a Muslim, see the light in their heart and that is their "calling out". They become part of the body of Christ, are not even conscious of it nor have words for it. What I also take away from that, is that he believes a person can BE a Muslim/atheist/etc, and still know Christ without realizing it. That would mean, they are a practicing Muslim, a claimed atheist, a practicing Hindu, whatever. So on the one hand, they are "doing" their religion (or lack of it) ... yet on the other hand, they may have a light in their heart which they also recognize as being real, but do not formally identify it. Perhaps they misidentify it, Graham doesn't specify his thoughts on that (in that clip at least). So one could believe in Vishnu, yet have the light there in their heart which Graham believes would be Christ, the person may not even know it ... yet be saved.

I see Graham mention "God" but not Yahweh. Out of curiosity, does he commonly refer to God as Yahweh in his preachings/sermons/public speaking/etc ?

Yes I realize that if you want to respond you will, if you don't you won't.

Click to expand...

I do think that's pretty much what Graham is saying. It's what C.S. Lewis was saying in "The Last Battle," and what I say.

Of the different verses that lead me in that direction, you glanced at one:

He is not a mere mortal like me that I might answer him, that we might confront each other in court.

If only there were someone to mediate between us, someone to bring us together, someone to remove God’s rod from me, so that his terror would frighten me no more.

Then I would speak up without fear of him, but as it now stands with me, I cannot. -- Job 9

Job knows of God--I suspect by observation of creation in that he and God both reference creation (star constellations and impressive beasts). Job does not know the name of Jesus...but he knows he needs the mediator between him and God that Jesus is.

I see this again in Acts 17:

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious.

For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you."
So the situation was this: The Greek pantheon offered a multitude of gods to worship--a buffet of gods. People chose their own gods based on a variety of criteria. Silversmiths had their patron god, people from Hispania had their patron god, et cetera.

Yet, there was a group of people who seemed to have said, "Something is missing, and we don't know what." Importantly, they didn't make one up of their own.

I have read that there actually was a doctrine of the "unknown god" who some Greeks determine existed because of the reliable predictability of celestial events. They realized that such perfect predictability--spanning centuries--could not result from a pantheon of fickle, bickering gods, but that all must have been created and is under the control of a single god whose power overrode all other gods and who was a god of perfect reliability.

Paul is being a bit coy as he says, "For as I walked around..." because he must have already known of this doctrine or was an extremely quick study...he was able to quote one of its proponents.

But Paul confirms that this "unknown god" is, in fact, God.

And then Paul says,

God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us

So can we conclude that God is playing "Stump the Dummy" with people? Are we to conclude that God displays himself in creation with cruel cynicism saying, "Here I am, but you can't have me?"

I don't think so, and apparently Graham doesn't think so either.

TillICollapse said:

...What I take away from what Graham said, is that he believes a person doesn't need to go through some form of recognized "Christianity" in order to know Christ. They can be a Muslim, see the light in their heart and that is their "calling out". They become part of the body of Christ, are not even conscious of it nor have words for it. What I also take away from that, is that he believes a person can BE a Muslim/atheist/etc, and still know Christ without realizing it. That would mean, they are a practicing Muslim, a claimed atheist, a practicing Hindu, whatever....

Click to expand...

I'll respond to this part, because it misses one important part of Billy's subject.

( I think you're spot on with rest, which was when you adhered specifically to what Billy said, without additions )

Do you recall when Billy said these people of all religions, and included Atheists and Christians, are "called out" into the Body of Christ ? This means that they don't stay withing their current belief system. As far as Christians go, it's self evident that many aren't currently in the Body of Christ ( even though they self identify as Christians ), and we know that no human knew Jesus by name pre first Advent. The process they went through to find Yahweh is the same as is available to all humans, now.

If this discussion delves into scripture support of your apologetic, I'm afraid we can't continue.

bhsmte said:

Be saved how?

Click to expand...

By searching for the One True God, and finding and submitting to Yahweh. This search can begin anywhere, even in Atheism.

agua said:

I'll respond to this part, because it misses one important part of Billy's subject.

( I think you're spot on with rest, which was when you adhered specifically to what Billy said, without additions )

Do you recall when Billy said these people of all religions, and included Atheists and Christians, are "called out" into the Body of Christ ? This means that they don't stay withing their current belief system. As far as Christians go, it's self evident that many aren't currently in the Body of Christ ( even though they self identify as Christians ), and we know that no human knew Jesus by name pre first Advent. The process they went through to find Yahweh is the same as is available to all humans, now.

If this discussion delves into scripture support of your apologetic, I'm afraid we can't continue.

Click to expand...

Back to the main point I brought up long ago.

In your view, what is Graham's view of what happens to the 2/3 of the world's population that does not believe Jesus was God?

agua said:

By searching for the One True God, and finding and submitting to Yahweh. This search can begin anywhere, even in Atheism.

Click to expand...

In other words, buying that Jesus was God, correct?

If one can not reconcile the above, is it your position they can not be saved?

bhsmte said:

Back to the main point I brought up long ago.

In your view, what is Graham's view of what happens to the 2/3 of the world's population that does not believe Jesus was God?

Click to expand...

"Jesus is God." I'm not sure how many believers in the first century understood that, or if their understanding is exactly what we think our understanding is today. I certainly don't think the Philippian jailer undertood it when he cried, "What must I do to be saved?"

That's not an "encapsulated" doctrine in scripture, but a doctrine derived later (although I'm fully convinced that it's an easily derived doctrine).

I have a friend who was a relatively successful Christian evangelist in Morocco for 12 years. Of course, he was not there as an evangelist (such is not legal in Morocco). He was there as a builder, but every so often a Muslim would ask him for more information about Jesus.

So rather than launching into a doctrinal discussion, he merely said, "Let's sit down and read the gospels." They merely read together, and he'd answer questions as they were asked.

After the gospels, they'd go into Acts and then into Romans. If a Muslim had stuck with him that far (which of course would take weeks or months), he would then ask, "What do you think of what we've read?"

He reports that invariably, if the Muslim had stuck that far, the man would say, "I believe this. I want to be baptized."

He didn't think it also took acceptance of doctrinal creeds developed hundreds of years later.

RDKirk
I have read that there actually was a doctrine of the "unknown god" who some Greeks determine existed because of the reliable predictability of celestial events. They realized that such perfect predictability--spanning centuries--could not result from a pantheon of fickle, bickering gods, but that all must have been created and is under the control of a single god whose power overrode all other gods and who was a god of perfect reliability.

Paul is being a bit coy as he says, "For as I walked around..." because he must have already known of this doctrine or was an extremely quick study...he was able to quote one of its proponents.

But Paul confirms that this "unknown god" is, in fact, God.

And then Paul says,

God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us

Click to expand...

This is an interesting description of Paul's keen mind in addressing the Greeks RDKirk, and their unknown god. Paul used this example of their polytheism ( they were so keen not to miss worshipping god that they tried to cover all bases by adding an unknown god. Sorta like Job sacrificing just in case his kids sinned. ). They remind me of Donald Rumsfeld's unknown knows, known unknowns and .....

Paul wasn't hinting that their unknown god was in fact the One True God, but was subtly pointing out that he knew who the One true God was, and then he declared Him to them.

Act 17:30-31 KJV And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (31) Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Notice here Paul speaks specifically about Jesus being their judge. Notice also that the resurrection is mentioned, as usual.

bhsmte said:

Back to the main point I brought up long ago.

In your view, what is Graham's view of what happens to the 2/3 of the world's population that does not believe Jesus was God?

Click to expand...

Billy doesn't address this issue specifically, and we've discussed this before. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go through the process again.

Are you talking specifically about people who acknowledge Jesus exists ?

bhsmte said:

In other words, buying that Jesus was God, correct?

If one can not reconcile the above, is it your position they can not be saved?

Click to expand...

Which people specifically are you talking about ? Give me an example because there're several possiblities that exist here; including people who acknowledge Jesus is the Messiah, but not diety.

RDKirk said:

I do think that's pretty much what Graham is saying. It's what C.S. Lewis was saying in "The Last Battle," and what I say.

Of the different verses that lead me in that direction, you glanced at one:

He is not a mere mortal like me that I might answer him, that we might confront each other in court.

If only there were someone to mediate between us, someone to bring us together, someone to remove God’s rod from me, so that his terror would frighten me no more.

Then I would speak up without fear of him, but as it now stands with me, I cannot. -- Job 9

Job knows of God--I suspect by observation of creation in that he and God both reference creation (star constellations and impressive beasts). Job does not know the name of Jesus...but he knows he needs the mediator between him and God that Jesus is.

I see this again in Acts 17:

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious.

For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you."
So the situation was this: The Greek pantheon offered a multitude of gods to worship--a buffet of gods. People chose their own gods based on a variety of criteria. Silversmiths had their patron god, people from Hispania had their patron god, et cetera.

Yet, there was a group of people who seemed to have said, "Something is missing, and we don't know what." Importantly, they didn't make one up of their own.

I have read that there actually was a doctrine of the "unknown god" who some Greeks determine existed because of the reliable predictability of celestial events. They realized that such perfect predictability--spanning centuries--could not result from a pantheon of fickle, bickering gods, but that all must have been created and is under the control of a single god whose power overrode all other gods and who was a god of perfect reliability.

Paul is being a bit coy as he says, "For as I walked around..." because he must have already known of this doctrine or was an extremely quick study...he was able to quote one of its proponents.

But Paul confirms that this "unknown god" is, in fact, God.

And then Paul says,

God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us

So can we conclude that God is playing "Stump the Dummy" with people? Are we to conclude that God displays himself in creation with cruel cynicism saying, "Here I am, but you can't have me?"

I don't think so, and apparently Graham doesn't think so either.

Click to expand...

Interesting connection to the Paul account in Acts 17. Hmm. Interesting

He reports that invariably, if the Muslim had stuck that far, the man would say, "I believe this. I want to be baptized."

He didn't think it also took acceptance of doctrinal creeds developed hundreds of years later.

Click to expand...

Getting face time for an extended period with an evangelist would likely sway some people, because they are going to hear that particular story. If another person sat with Muslim with the same level of expertise for an extended period of time, that same thing may happen.

The truth is, world wide, the Muslim religion is growing and Christianity is not.

I am not certain your response answers my question; how is the person viewed, who does not believe Jesus was the son of God?

It would appear to me, that Graham left the door open to those who do not believe Jesus was God, but Aqua appears to have shut that door, unless I am missing something.

Again, considering 2/3 of the world's population are in this boat, I consider it an important question.