One must, at minimum, have faith in a particular kind of way that translates to a change in one's outward behaviors. Some Bible versus to support this are:
Matthew 3:8 - "So produce fruit that is consistent with repentance [demonstrating new behavior that proves a change of heart, and a conscious decision to turn away from sin]"
James 2:17 - "In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."
Matthew 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’"
The definition of a gift is "something bestowed or acquired without any particular effort by the recipient or without its being earned"
So the argument goes:
Christianity claims that salvation is a gift from Jesus
A gift is something bestowed or acquired without any particular effort by the recipient or without its being earned
But according to Christianity a person must exert a particular kind of effort to earn salvation
C) Therefore, according to Christianity salvation is not a gift.
Where did the idea in Christianity that salvation comes simply through believing that Jesus Christ was the son of God, was crucified to save humanity from sin, and believing in this and his resurrection is the path to redemption?
I'm still learning Greek, so apologies if I'm just mistranslating or not understanding this passage in Greek. In John 11-13, he sets up the universalist aspects of Christs' message--that he was rejected by his own and that his message are for those taking up his name, not of blood, etc. But john 1:12 in the Greek is written in the aorist tense, as though Christs' offer of salvation is over and was only given to his disciples. I have the Greek here and what my translation would be
ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα Θεοῦ γενέσθαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ
As many as who took him, he gave to them the ability of becoming children of God, to those who believe in the name of him.
Please let me know if I'm messing anything up! But why is the first part of the sentence in the past? Is this just something with Greek or is there a deeper meaning regarding Christ's message of salvation as reserved for those who heard him directly? He gave those people the ability to become children of God, but what about those coming after? I know that early Christianity was directed towards a Jewish audience who believed in Christ as the Jewish messiah and splintered off later, but is there evidence that the bible and salvation are reserved for those who took him up during his lifetime?
As a prolog to my argument, I provide evidence that at least some Christians indeed adhere to this view and use it in order to address criticisms of Christianity which rely upon contradictions in the Bible: https://np.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/lq8deo/a_concise_refutation_of_buddhism_in_favour_of/goi2skd/. From that link, we get the following quotation: "the origenist view of scripture is what is accepted by my church Wich [sic] says that the bible is only infallible in promoting the message of salvation."
So, although my argument may be criticized for other reasons, that argument that I am arguing against a non-existent argument should be discarded.
That having been said, the assertion that the Bible is infallible only in its message about salvation is a grave concession which weakens Christianity's plausibility for three reasons.
It presumes that the Bible offers a single model for salvation. But this is not true. Within the Bible, evidence exists for contradictory models of salvation. YHWH wants all people to be saved: 1 Timothy 2:3-4, 2 Peter 3:9. YHWH wants some people to go to hell: John 12:40 Romans 9:18, 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12. Salvation though belief: Romans 3:28, Romans 5:1, Galatians 2:16, Ephesians 2:8. Salvation through belief and baptism: Mark 16:16. Salvation through belief and repentance: Mark 1:15. Salvation through baptism and repentance: Acts 2:38. Salvation through belief and saying certain words: Romans 10:9. Salvation through belief accompanied by works: James 2:17. Furthermore, since fully 1/3 of the ways to salvation involve baptism, it is striking that the Bible contradicts itself about how to be baptized. Baptism must be in the name of The Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matthew 28:19. Baptism must be in the name of Jesus: Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 19:5
It presumes that the Bible offers a single understanding of the salvific power. But this is not true. Within the Bible, evidence exists for contradictory models of salvific power. Jesus's salvation applies to all sins: Acts 13:39, Colossians 2:13, Titus 2:13-14, 1 John 1:9. Jesus's salvation does not apply to blaspheming the Holy Ghost: Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:29, Luke 12:10.
Even if it were conceded that the Bible has a single guide to salvation and a single presentation of salvific power, the concession that portions of the Bible not related to the message of salvation may be fallible is devastating to Christian claims because the Bible t
I am an IT guy, let's make an IT analogy:
You have a company with a computer network. An evil hacker (Satan) sends malware to one employee (Eve), she opens the file and the network is infected with virus. The computers don't work the way they should.
After some time, a computer repairman (Jesus) comes and removes the virus (Golgota mystery). Now the computers should work for all the employees, not just those who believe the repairman exists, trust him he does his job well, or are members of his group of friends.
I'm a Nevermo, a Catholic to be exact. Anyway after reading the OT I bookmarked that passage and I think about it from time to time. The God of Israel is pissed off and threatening to beat the shit out of them. And is telling Jeremiah that Israel has forgotten her covenants and whored themselves to the abominations of Canaan. Among the charges God is levying against Israel and Juda. Is that they burn their children in fires to the Ba'als. Which (and this is important) he never commanded or told them to and it never even crossed his head to command that evil.
God is denouncing that cruel act and intends to banish the Israelis from the holy land. And among the charges is that they are carrying out Human sacrifices and Sacrifice of children. (Let's leave the binding of Isaac aside for a moment, the Jewish believers have apologetics for that little event). And he tells the prophet gee, where did you all get this idea I never even considered ordering you to do this yet here you are. BEGONE THOTS!.
Anyway, I read that verse and think of the single most fundamental tenet of all Christianity. That a human sacrifice of the Child of God is what restores us to friendship with God. And the two don't seem to Match, as a matter of fact Jews tend to bring that up when refuting Christianity.
Honestly Idk what to make of that, I am practicing a form of pantheism at this moment. And nominally still pray to Jesus. But I can't help but wonder if faith in Jesus, Christianity and the Church is nothing but a make believe story without actual grounding in the Old Testament/Bible.
I had a conversation with a friend on Christianity. He spoke to me about salvation and how Jesus was the only way. This is a view shared by many other Christians I spoke to. However, what happens to those who did not have the chance to know about Jesus? For example, those in the pre-discovered Americas like the Aztecs/Incas/etc. There's no way that anybody living on this land could have known about him due to the geographical separation from the land of origin of Christianity. Also, the Bible fails to teach us of their existence? Why? Wouldn't an "All Knowing" God know their existence?
I grew up being taught Christian beliefs, mostly non-denominational and Pentecostal. At the end of every church service the preacher made a call for salvation and asked if anyone would like to ask Jesus into their heart. My question/dilemma is how did this come to be and what is the actual Christian way to salvation? The new testament mentions: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Mathew 18:3 "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life." Matthew 19:29 "If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Matthew 19:17-19 "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works." Matthew 16.27 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21
There's more examples as well, including the widely quoted John 3:16. Does anyone have any ideas/knowledge/theory about how asking Jesus into your heart became a thing and what do you believe is the way to salvation and why?
It boils down to yes or no, is christianity necessary for entering heaven. If the answer is yes, then god sending his son to teach/perform for three years in the middle east then trust people to spread it to the rest if the planet is really stupid. If not, then the ongoing conversion of people from one religion to christianity needs to be justified.
Christianity, as an ideology, is not easy one. I know, i was raised in it. I ended up feeling like i needed confession alot because one of the most important commands is to love your neighbor as you do yourself, and to always put god and others before your own needs.
I work in a city...every single day I watch a mile long line of traffic, christian bumper to bumper with other christians, drive by homeless people begging for money. That is a sin, simply put. Ignoring people asking for help is a sin.
If these people were (maybe some of them are) hindus then it would not matter so much. Christianity brings it's own unique set of difficulties with it and to justify saddling people with these extra responsibilities there needs to be some sort of justification why all these people are better off Christian than any other religion.
One Christian already took a crack at answering this dichotomy, he claimed that Christians live longer, are mentally healthier and are more charitable than atheists. He did not provide evidence for these claims. He insists there are other things as well.
The very basic concept of how "salvation" works doesn't even make a damn bit of sense.
Christians will tell you that salvation is a free gift for those who believe. They will say they are saved "by grace through faith."
However, they will also tell you that those who don't repent of their sins aren't truly "saved" because they haven't made an inward or outward "change."
How the fuck is salvation a free gift if you have to repent of your sins to earn it?
You can't have it both ways.
I would blame Tyrion for not knowing what he was talking about, but he's not supposed to know of this term anyway since it was NEVER used on the show before.
This was not thought through. This was just a chance for them to emphasize that **Dany Bad.** But it came out looking more like:
**Liberation bad. Trying to help free people bad. Using your religion to fight for human rights bad.**
By the Gods, you must be right! Better stick to the wheel with new spokes on it.
According to Wikipedia, it appears the term faith lacks a clear-cut definition, so I'm wondering how Christians would outline its entire meaning. From what I can tell, it doesn't merely seem to be an acknowledgment of Christ's life, death, and resurrection. In addition, how is faith in Christ necessary for salvation? According to the Penal Substitution Theory, if Jesus already paid the debt for our sins, then why can't God simply bring everyone to Heaven? Is it because some people will remain as unrepentant sinners? In that case, why can't God just bring every repentant, virtuous soul to Heaven? Whether we believe/know Jesus paid off our debt has no bearing on the fact that He has already done so; thus, what is stopping God from delivering the virtuous to Heaven, even if they've never heard the gospel? Or if we examine Christus Victor, Jesus had liberated mankind from the bondage of sin, death, and the devil, so why is faith in Christ necessary for salvation? Have we not already been saved by Christ's sacrifice? Whether we believe/know we've been liberated from the powers of evil doesn't change the fact that we're free. And if God doesn't wish to allow the wicked and unrepentant into His kingdom, then He can simply prohibit their entry.
I suppose you may be thinking, "If belief isn't necessary for salvation, then why believe?" However, I'd say the strongest incentive for human belief is the pursuit of truth. If the entire universe was truly designed by God, then the fact alone should be reason enough to believe in God. Likewise, the "historical fact" that Jesus died for humanity's sake should be reason enough to believe in Christianity, not whether such a belief would guarantee our salvation.
Pretty self explanatory but when you first began to reject religion(assuming you were introduced to it early on) how did you come to terms with the fact that if god doesn’t exist then this life is the only one we get?
The current doctrine of slavation in christianity is that Jesus' death is substitutary for our sins and that his death compensates for our sins. There are a couple of problems with this doctrine.
1- Anti- old testament in the sense that the old testament clearly teaches that evryone shall die for their own sins and everybody is responsible for their own actions and that the son will not inherit the sins of the father (goes against original sin) and the father will not inherit the sins of the son i.e. nobody is responsible for the sins of others and we are all accountable for ourselves.
2- which nature died? The death of the divine nature or the cease to exist for those 3 days grants a very real problem because according to 1 timothy 6:16 and 1 timothy 1:17 and Deuteronomy 33:27 and Psalm 102:12, God is immortal and does not die which is consistent with the old testament classical attributes of God being eternal and immortal. Malachi 3:6 and psalm 90: 2 declares rhat God is immutable in nature. To cease to exist would be a radical change. Not to mention of course that to declare God dead is blasphemy. If the human nature died then so what? Where is the grand sacrifice? Why not claim that the two thiefs crucified next to jesus were the atonement? We know that Christ was not sinless and that he has commited at least one sin (his human nature carried original sin) + (he became angry at the fig tree which is a sin) + (in the original Mark 1:41, Jesus is angry once again which is another sin) + human nature atonement is inconsistent with pauline christology that God died on the cross.
3- Jesus had a different view of salvation. Jesus always taught that salvation is based on the mercy of God and on keeping thr commandements. In Matthew 9 verse 13 is alone capable of destroying pauline theology because Jesus establsihes that salvation is based upon mercy of the lord and NOT sacrifice. Matthew 19:16-20 even establishes that Jesus said that salvation is attained by keeping the commandements and NOT by sacrifice.
Three verses might come up in objection to the third point which are mark 16:16, Luke 9:55–56 and John 3:16.
The first two verses are forgeries and later additions that prove the bible is corrupted and not divinely inspired aince mere men can clearly just add and take away from it. Codex sinaiticus and codex... keep reading on reddit ➡
I think it's very bad that some Churches set themselves up as the "One True Church". Who are they to say what's wrong?
Edit: Case in point: Spelling mistake in title. See?? We can all be wrong!
Or was Hell eternal and purgatory and limbo existed for transitional sinners?
Example, if I'm walking down the street, and my heart suddenly fails, or I get hit by lightning from a clear sky, this is pretty much great.
It's great for me, because God has chosen that it is my time to go to Heaven. The only thing not great is that I no longer have the privilege to serve God's plan here on Earth, but who am I to second-guess the plan, which seems to say I'm done serving and can now take my place in Heaven?
And it should be great for those around me that share my beliefs, because what could be greater than God having decided it is my time for everlasting joy? It's twinged with sadness, since I'm gone. However, this should be like the sadness of when someone that I love gets an amazing promotion that will cause them to have to leave my life - it's sad they'll be gone, but wonderful for them nonetheless, and I'm happy for them because their happiness is more important because I love them.
It's also great when God takes a baby up to Heaven right away. God has a plan for everyone, and some people are so blessed that their place in the plan is to be almost born into everlasting paradise.
Dangerous Professions for God
It also seems logical to pursue the most dangerous possible professions in the service of God. Most people shy away from these, due to their lack of devotion, but for a true believer, these are a golden opportunity to not only make the most of the life that God has granted, but to also serve God in a role most are afraid of, and to receive the reward of being able to get to Heaven ASAP.
These are pretty much completely unorthodox views that are not embraced at all in mainstream Christianity as far as I can tell, where people are genuinely sad at funerals, or when babies die, and there is no rush to join dangerous missions.
Is there something I am missing that makes these not the correct views?
Decided to throw in another example that I came up with that helps shed light on my belief I'm getting at:
If a doctor were to tell me that I have cancer, an appropriate response (internally, not necessarily expressed to the doctor) would be, "Wonderful!"
If I were to tell another devout believer that I have cancer, an appropriate response from them would be, "Wonderful!"