Jesus died: we're all saved?

[Faithfulservant]

Its not a "change" in the universe. Its a change of the heart. The bible says our hearts are wicked and theres no good in it. Thats why you hear Christians say "I let Jesus into my heart" because thats basically what you do.

 

[Dondi]

Its not a "change" in the universe. Its a change of the heart. The bible says our hearts are wicked and theres no good in it. Thats why you hear Christians say "I let Jesus into my heart" because thats basically what you do.

Where, pray tell, does the bible ever tell us to 'ask Jesus into our hearts' or 'let Jesus into our hearts'?

Are our hearts still wicked even if we do 'ask Jesus into our hearts'?

 

[wil]

Namaste Brian,

Someone will surely correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the original sin thing is decidedly Catholic. The we are all sinners thing is more Protestant. But we each have our variation as to how this works...

To me it is a law like gravity...we are not punished for our sins but by them.

 

[Raksha]

In which case, Jesus died, so we must all be saved, otherwise it would all be completely pointless?
He died so we might all be saved through his sacrifice.

Blayzn,

That is a ridiculous notion, and not only ridiculous but positively crazy-making and inhuman. Not only do I not believe it, not only will I NEVER believe it, I wish you and everyone else who believes this insanity would stop believing it, or more to the point stop pretending you believe it. The ONLY reason you say you believe it is because you're afraid not to, because you think your salvation depends on it. Don't you realize that's blackmail?

Why should it be necessary that we be saved through the sacrifice of Jesus or anyone else? That says something unspeakably horrible about God, and there are plenty of people who will have nothing to do with a God that sadistic. I don't blame them one bit either.

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

To me it is a law like gravity...we are not punished for our sins but by them.

That's for damn sure!

 

[Faithfulservant]

Where, pray tell, does the bible ever tell us to 'ask Jesus into our hearts' or 'let Jesus into our hearts'?

Are our hearts still wicked even if we do 'ask Jesus into our hearts'?

Well Dondi.. I didnt say the bible said aks him into our "hearts" I said the bible said our hearts are wicked. He changes our hearts and He DID say He and His father would dwell with usJohn 14:23

Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

that may be so but something is redeemable or why the rewards at the Judgement seat of Chrst?

2Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

So that I said anything that you found questionable.. I find questionable. lol

 

[lunamoth]

Why should it be necessary that we be saved through the sacrifice of Jesus or anyone else? That says something unspeakably horrible about God, and there are plenty of people who will have nothing to do with a God that sadistic. I don't blame them one bit either.

--Linda

What is so unspeakably horrid about the idea of God loving his people so much, even to the point of self-sacrifice? Of showing that God's power is not one that pounds into submission, but one that gives up everything?

I don't think the crucifixion was a necessary part of God's salvation plan, but it is what happened. And, as is so often the case, God takes an absolute mess that we make and transforms it into something glorious.

The story of the Fall does not explain where sin comes from, but it does address the reality of sin in the world and how it stems from the choices we make. The crux of original sin is pride, or hubris, of humans thinking we are gods. What is the remedy (redemption) for such pride and being self-centered? Through the life and death and life of Jesus God seems to be saying that the remedy is the giving up of self, and being filled instead with God (Who is Love). Repent (turn away from what you are doing), the Kingdom of God is near (turn toward God instead).

So, what is the ultimate in giving up oneself?

And, what speaks louder, actions or words?

To me there is something irresistibly compelling and attractive about a Love so powerful that it overcomes death.

 

[wil]

Blayzn,

That is a ridiculous notion, and not only ridiculous but positively crazy-making and inhuman. Not only do I not believe it, not only will I NEVER believe it, I wish you and everyone else who believes this insanity would stop believing it, or more to the point stop pretending you believe it. The ONLY reason you say you believe it is because you're afraid not to, because you think your salvation depends on it. Don't you realize that's blackmail?

Why should it be necessary that we be saved through the sacrifice of Jesus or anyone else? That says something unspeakably horrible about God, and there are plenty of people who will have nothing to do with a God that sadistic. I don't blame them one bit either.

--Linda

Namaste Linda,

Now you must realize this is the Christian board, and if you were Christian we'd give you a little more wiggle room. But if your not, this is not the place to say that anyone's beliefs are rediculous or tell them to stop believing anything. Now if you wish to discuss us silly Christians who believe in the mangod and why that is decidecly not the jewish messiah over on the Judaic board, while a bit rude and off putting it would seem to be within the realm of possibility.

As this is an interfaith site we are to have a modecum of respect for others. You aren't showing it here. This is twice and I know you are more than capable of discussion and decorum.

 

[Raksha]

Now you must realize this is the Christian board, and if you were Christian we'd give you a little more wiggle room. But if your not, this is not the place to say that anyone's beliefs are rediculous or tell them to stop believing anything. Now if you wish to discuss us silly Christians who believe in the mangod and why that is decidecly not the jewish messiah over on the Judaic board, while a bit rude and off putting it would seem to be within the realm of possibility.

As this is an interfaith site we are to have a modecum of respect for others. You aren't showing it here. This is twice and I know you are more than capable of discussion and decorum.

Wil,

I'm sorry...I should have remembered where I was posting but I got carried away. It would probably be best for everyone if I stopped posting on the Christian board. I have very strong feelings on this particular subject and it isn't easy to restrain myself.

--Linda

 

[Avi]

Wil,

I'm sorry...I should have remembered where I was posting but I got carried away. It would probably be best for everyone if I stopped posting on the Christian board. I have very strong feelings on this particular subject and it isn't easy to restrain myself.

--Linda

Linda, sometimes when I see an idea that I am interested in commenting on, but it does not seem like a good fit with that particular sub-forum, I move a branch of the thread to the B&S (Belief and Spirituality) sub-forum. This way I can continue the thought in a neutral setting.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Linda,

I, too, am not a Christian, I have feelings on the subject that are just as strong as yours, so I know exactly the frustration that you are feeling. The best thing is say is, "Let's agree to disagree on this one." If the other person refuses to do the same thing, then the best thing to do is start ignoring that person. It is possible for all of us to have meaningful discussions with each other, as long as a minimum amount of respect is maintained. Go ahead and give it a shot, and see how it turns out.

 

[iBrian]

Indeed, we're on the Christianity board, so let's try and keep things more positive, please. I think someone may get annoyed when they feel someone else is invalidating or challenging their own beliefs on another board, so probably better not to go to another board and challenge other people's beliefs as well.

As for the discussion - okay, I'm confused, I always used to think that the fall and sacrifice were absolutely central tenets of Christianity - but I seem to be told that they aren't.

So, if I understand this straight:

1. The fall in the Garden of Eden is completely irrelevant to Christian belief - it's not required under any circumstances (certainly not from a Protestant point of view?)
2. The sacrifice and Resurrection really weren't required and are just incidental - they are part of the story, not part of the meaning?
3. Christianity would be just as relevant if there was no fall or sacrifice, and instead all that was required was for Jesus to appear and tell people He could forgive people their sins?

 

[Quahom1]

Blayzn,

That is a ridiculous notion, and not only ridiculous but positively crazy-making and inhuman. Not only do I not believe it, not only will I NEVER believe it, I wish you and everyone else who believes this insanity would stop believing it, or more to the point stop pretending you believe it. The ONLY reason you say you believe it is because you're afraid not to, because you think your salvation depends on it. Don't you realize that's blackmail?

Why should it be necessary that we be saved through the sacrifice of Jesus or anyone else? That says something unspeakably horrible about God, and there are plenty of people who will have nothing to do with a God that sadistic. I don't blame them one bit either.

--Linda

Everyone is entitled to how and what they choose to think. No one has the right to ridicule another for their personal beliefs. One does not have to agree with another's thoughts, but the proper courtesy is to respect that others have thoughts, and are entitled to express them without personal judgement, or public ridicule.

My thoughts.

v/r

Q

 

[Raksha]

Everyone is entitled to how and what they choose to think. No one has the right to ridicule another for their personal beliefs. One does not have to agree with another's thoughts, but the proper courtesy is to respect that others have thoughts, and are entitled to express them without personal judgement, or public ridicule.

Quahom,

I agree that I shouldn't have posted what I did on the Christianity board. But I think you should understand that it's precisely the belief that "Jesus died: we're all saved" (but ONLY if you believe it) that fundamentalist proselytizers push most aggressively and insist is absolutely essential for salvation. Blayzn Fattyz was doing it with me right before I posted the offending note. They always insist that someday you WILL believe it, no matter how much you insist you won't and can't believe it.

And yet that's the very concept many serious Christians come to question, and that is being called into question on this thread. I haven't heard of anyone leaving the church over "Love thy neighbor as thyself," for example. But they do over this one.

--Linda

 

[lunamoth]

As for the discussion - okay, I'm confused, I always used to think that the fall and sacrifice were absolutely central tenets of Christianity - but I seem to be told that they aren't.

So, if I understand this straight:

1. The fall in the Garden of Eden is completely irrelevant to Christian belief - it's not required under any circumstances (certainly not from a Protestant point of view?)

Brian, you are asking the wrong questions.

The fall is very relevant because it is the story of humanity. To ask whether it is 'required' is like asking whether carbon based life that depends upon photosynthesis and respiration are 'required.' It is the state of being and we are left to find our way through it.

2. The sacrifice and Resurrection really weren't required and are just incidental - they are part of the story, not part of the meaning?

Again, you've got it backwards. They are part of the meaning because that is what happened. If it all had to happen as it did, then we are not really free at all. We're just puppets in some kind of play. I think it is a much more organic process, the story of an ongoing relationship that continues to grow and develop, God and humanity interacting.

3. Christianity would be just as relevant if there was no fall or sacrifice, and instead all that was required was for Jesus to appear and tell people He could forgive people their sins?

If there was no fall, there would be no sin.

 

[lunamoth]

Therefore the argument is - as I understand it - that to atone for original sin, Jesus had to die - literally, a sacrifice.

No. We understand Jesus' death as a self-sacrifice, but that does not mean that it was the only way to accomplish atonement. IMO, it both demonstrates the Way to atonement and, because that is the way things unfolded, also accomplished a supernatural event that created a bridge between humanity and God. I think that the bridge was created when God incarnated. Perhaps Jesus could have lived a long life and died naturally in his own bed, and yet we would still have the Resurrection and atonement accomplished.

Simply, how do you participate in the atonement extended through Christ? Well, you accept it, incorporate it into your worldview, and live your life with this belief as the lens. How do you participate in anything? You do it!


God did not come down here to overpower us, but to overpower sin and death. How was that accomplished? Through love. A lesson and an event.

 

[Dogbrain]

1. The fall in the Garden of Eden is completely irrelevant to Christian belief - it's not required under any circumstances (certainly not from a Protestant point of view?)

I will not presume to speak for the Protestants, but as I think I understand the Orthodox Church's teaching on the matter, the Fall is not irrelevant. Had there been no fall, there would be no need for salvation nor redemption.

2. The sacrifice and Resurrection really weren't required and are just incidental - they are part of the story, not part of the meaning?

Such a claim is entirely antithetical to what my Church teaches. The Sacrifice and Resurrection are both required and are not at all incidental. The Resurrection is the more important of the two. The Sacrifice is part of the meaning. God gives Himself to Himself, His own to His own, for all and on behalf of all. There is a flavor of Arianism that permeates far more of Western Christianity that many would like to admit. When one thinks of Christ's Sacrifice as God "killing someone" to avenge an insult, that is a fundamentally Arianist way of looking at things. The Sacrifice of the Son was of God to Himself, by His will and by His choice. The Resurrection that followed is no less important, and an argument could be made that it is, actually, more important than the Sacrifice. While the Sacrifice has its place, it is not the Sacrifice that results in the resurrection of humans and their admittance as "citizens of Paradise". It is the Resurrection that does this. It is by the Resurrection that Christ is the Mediator between death and Life Eternal. I hope this has given some slight explanation, however poor and fragmentary, of how the Sacrifice and Resurrection are important within the Orthodox Church.

3. Christianity would be just as relevant if there was no fall or sacrifice, and instead all that was required was for Jesus to appear and tell people He could forgive people their sins?

Without the Fall, there would be no Church, no Christianity, since there would be no need for Redemption. This is not to say that the Son would not necessarily have taken on a human nature, but to claim that He would or He would not is idle speculation, a matter of opinion and not doctrine, at least as much as I understand such things.

I will warn that I am not a Protestant. My Church is not a Western Church. Our doctrines are a little different from the run of the mill that one encounters in the USA or Western Europe. I do not claim to answer for "Christianity" as a whole.

 

[Dondi]

Well Dondi.. I didnt say the bible said aks him into our "hearts" I said the bible said our hearts are wicked. He changes our hearts and He DID say He and His father would dwell with usJohn 14:23

Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

that may be so but something is redeemable or why the rewards at the Judgement seat of Chrst?

2Corinthians 5:10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

So that I said anything that you found questionable.. I find questionable. lol

It's one thing to say that the Father and the Son comes and makes their abode in us. But the catylist for doing so is not 'asking Jesus in our hearts', rather it is in our obedience to Him. Look at your reference in context:

He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. - John 14:21-24


The whole point of repentence is to get to a place of obeying God. To use the above verses to suggest we are 'letting Jesus into our hearts' is misrepresenting what it actually says. This isn't a passage on salvation, it is about obedience on the part of the believer. God doesn't push anyone into obedience, we must do that on our own accord, yet when we are willing to do so, He gives us the strength through the Holy Spirit to accomplish it.

Furthermore, 2 Cor 5:10 speaks of things we have done in the body, whether good or bad. Ergo, in this passage at least, we are judged for the things we do, not for our salvation.

The closest thing I can come up with in regard to 'letting Jesus in our hearts' is John 1:12-13,

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

But here again, it isn't an action of our part in letting Jesus in our hearts, rather it is an action of God. The word 'received' is in the past tense, meaning that after the action of God, THEN one is given power to become sons of God. The word 'believe' here is in the present tense, suggesting an ongoing faith and trust in the Lord. "Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved". Belief based in the hope that God will save us by trusting Him to do so. There is none of that 'letting Jesus in your heart nonsense".

BTW, just to let you know, a visiting Fundamental Baptist evangelist at our church was the one who pointed out that 'asking Jesus in your heart' is not biblical.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

1. The fall in the Garden of Eden is completely irrelevant to Christian belief - it's not required under any circumstances (certainly not from a Protestant point of view?)
Its not irrelevent, it shows the nature of man, and gives a history of God's judgment in that we all have to die and have our sins forgiven to enter into God's kingdom. But with Christ, he conquered death with his resurrection, so that those who believe in him will find life, if they accept him as Lord and Saviour.

2. The sacrifice and Resurrection really weren't required and are just incidental - they are part of the story, not part of the meaning?
God requires a sacrifice. Man made sacrifice insincere and distorted the way. So the Saviour was born among us. Only the Son could please the Father with his living sacrifice and cleanse our sins. Only the resurrection could conquer death and reconcile us to God. This is God's rules, just like we cannot argue with him in making our lives end one day, we cannot argue with God and his need for a sacrifice. His creation, his ways, his rules.

3. Christianity would be just as relevant if there was no fall or sacrifice, and instead all that was required was for Jesus to appear and tell people He could forgive people their sins?

Depends on how you look at christianity. I see it as being fluid and changing and always relevant. Instead of saying Christianity, others may call it "The Way". So from adam walking with God, to moses and abraham talking to God, to prophets writing about the Saviour, to Christ walking among us and speaking to us directly, i see it all as Christianity in its various stages, where the relationship with God was always and is always in the hope of the Saviour which is the main focus point no matter how much man messed things up, God continued to reach out to us.

 

[Dondi]

As for the discussion - okay, I'm confused, I always used to think that the fall and sacrifice were absolutely central tenets of Christianity - but I seem to be told that they aren't.

I'm pretty much with what Dogbrain said in post #157.