religious conversions

[BVS]

I am not of the belief that people who haven't heard the truth necessarily go to hell (they don't necessarily go to Heaven, either). The Bible implies that if you do not know right from wrong, then you are not held accountable. That is why children who are not old enough and do not understand the big issue of sin go to Heaven, as do mentally retarded people who have the same understanding issues. As for the perrson in some dark corner of teh world who has never heard the name "Jesus"? Well, the Bible tells us that this type of people have the law written on their hearts, and also that the truth is revealedin nature, and it seems to be implied that they are judged according to their response to what they do know of Christ.

Yes I read the whole post. And maybe I need some clarifications. Are you saying that they don't necessarily go to hell and they don't necessarily go to heaven until they are judged on their own account taking in consideration they may have never heard of Jesus? And if I'm right in understanding what you are saying then how about the man who grew up believing in God living his life for God loved his neighbor and was a good person but belonged to a different religion, not out of rejection of Jesus but because of where he grew up and his culture?

 

[Angela Harlem]

Well, I believe that the onl;y way to the Father is through the Son, Jesus Christ. Why do I believe this? Because Christ said it himself. The whole point about Christianity that really sets it apart from other belief systems is that salvation is based on what God has done for man, not what man can do for God. In other words, one million prayers a day will not "get you to heaven". God is 100% holy and cannot abide in theh presence of sin, so it follows that his requirement for man's entrance into Heaven is nothing short of complete perfection. No sin can abide in Heaven, or it wouldn't be perfect. Man can never work his way into perfection. However, when a person becomes a Christian, the Bible tells us that all sins, past, present, and future are forgiven. Not only that, but Christians now have a new nature - the nature of Christ. The Holy Spirit lives within the Christian. The Christian now has a new life; the life of Christ. The Christian's spirit has been regenerated and is now clean. That's why it is acceptable to God, because it has had the righteousness of Christ bestowed upon it. The Christian is still able to sin with his flesh, but the Christian's spirit is absolutely perfect, and that is the part that goes to Heaven and receives a new glorified body. So, to answer your question - if a person knows the difference between right and wrong, he is held accountable for his sin. If he spends his whole life working hard at getting to Heaven, he will never make it, because man's "goodness" isn't good enough. It's not perfect. However, if that man accepts Christ, and is given a new nature and His spirit is regenerated, then his spirit is perfect and is acceptable for entrance into Heaven.

So...through one's own faith and belief system, if someone accepts there is God in their life, and asks for forgiveness, worships in their own way, accepts that all you say is indeed the 'right way', yet never sets foot inside a church, completely does away with the middle man so to speak, they in a roundabout way are still the 'Christian' that you have described? I'm not sure I've written this clearly enough, but basically, can someone become this but without the church? Is the church absolutely necessary to get you there in the end?
I think this is what Dreadsox was saying, please correct me if I'm wrong Dread. I've got many reservations about the church itself, and basically am curious as to whether you as the Christian that you are, or anyone else who cares to comment, think it is an absolute necessity in one's spiritual journey.

 

[Dreadsox]

So...through one's own faith and belief system, if someone accepts there is God in their life, and asks for forgiveness, worships in their own way, accepts that all you say is indeed the 'right way', yet never sets foot inside a church, completely does away with the middle man so to speak, they in a roundabout way are still the 'Christian' that you have described? I'm not sure I've written this clearly enough, but basically, can someone become this but without the church? Is the church absolutely necessary to get you there in the end?
I think this is what Dreadsox was saying, please correct me if I'm wrong Dread. I've got many reservations about the church itself, and basically am curious as to whether you as the Christian that you are, or anyone else who cares to comment, think it is an absolute necessity in one's spiritual journey.

I think that is part of what I am saying yes. I am taking a much more militant view of the gospel I think. I am saying that the Messiah came to free man from man-made laws that were put forward and held up as God's Law. I am also equating the modern Christian Church and its leaders as being modern day Pharisees. If the message of the church and its leaders is/has twisted the word of God it most definitely is not a necessary for mankind to reach heaven and be with our Father.

 

[melon]

The Pharisees, after all, were a master of the text and ignorant of the message behind it.

Melon

 

[Angela Harlem]

Dread thanks for posting that. Its a little bit reassuring actually.

 

[80sU2isBest]

And if I'm right in understanding what you are saying then how about the man who grew up believing in God living his life for God loved his neighbor and was a good person but belonged to a different religion, not out of rejection of Jesus but because of where he grew up and his culture?

The key to this whole scenario is that the man never rejected Jesus. Now, if you have heard the Gospel, there are only 2 ways to respond:

1)Reject
2)Follow

So, this man never heard the Gospel.

I'm not God, of course, so I can't say for sure, but in line with what I believe, if this man never rejected Jesus, and yet lived his life for God, not out of obligation but for love of God, then that man would be allowed into Heaven.

 

[80sU2isBest]

So...through one's own faith and belief system, if someone accepts there is God in their life, and asks for forgiveness, worships in their own way, accepts that all you say is indeed the 'right way', yet never sets foot inside a church, completely does away with the middle man so to speak, they in a roundabout way are still the 'Christian' that you have described? I'm not sure I've written this clearly enough, but basically, can someone become this but without the church? Is the church absolutely necessary to get you there in the end?
I've got many reservations about the church itself, and basically am curious as to whether you as the Christian that you are, or anyone else who cares to comment, think it is an absolute necessity in one's spiritual journey.

I think it is entirely possible to never set foot in a church and still be saved. Man's works and religious activities (or lack thereof) are not what saves him. It is completely by the grace of God. A man can go to church 85,000,000 times in his life and still not be saved. The point of Christianity is that it is only through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ that a man is saved. As Christ said, unless a man be reborn, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I think that is part of what I am saying yes. I am taking a much more militant view of the gospel I think. I am saying that the Messiah came to free man from man-made laws that were put forward and held up as God's Law. I am also equating the modern Christian Church and its leaders as being modern day Pharisees. If the message of the church and its leaders is/has twisted the word of God it most definitely is not a necessary for mankind to reach heaven and be with our Father.

Dreadsox, I think you are partially right. Many of the laws that existed before Christ were man-made. They were strict regulations placed on the people to burden them. The Pharisees wore boxes on ropes around their necks to signify their "righteousness". The more boxes, the "more righteous" that priest was. Christ saw this for the self-righteousness that it was, and yes, when he came, he did away with many of them.

However, many of the laws were directly from God, and Christ didn't come to do away with those. The Bible says Christ came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Why did he come to fulfill it? Because he's the only one who could. Because of God's standard of "nthing less than perfectly Holy", man could not work his way into God's acceptance. In fact, the Bible tells us that the law's purpose was as a roadsign pointing the way to Christ. What this means is that when God created the law, he never had any notion that man could actually live up to the law. It was a representation of God's own holy nature, and was given to man so that man could TRY to live up to it, and fail, and thus realize that man can never live up to God's holy standard. That would pave the way the way fro Christ, the perfect God-Man, who fulfilled every single God-made law by never ever sinning. His death on the cross, his perfect blood shed for us, enables us to enter into a relationship with God, in which every man can rest in the assurance of His love, rather than toil under the law. When we accept Christ, we are forgiven all sins, past, present and future, and the Holy Spirit moves in, the sin nature is crucified, and the new nature (the nature of Christ) is created in us. We are partakers of the devine nature. We are given Christ's righteousness. So that bumper sticker taht says "Christian's aren't perfect, just forgiven"? It's not actually correct. The part of the Christian that is eternal - the spirit - is perfect; it was made that way when a person is reborn in Christ. This corrupt flesh is not eternal.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Thats a good way to look at it I think, 80's. I think its pretty much my view on it all. To sidetrack into something more thinking out loud than anything else, I wonder if the knee jerk reaction by some toward Christians for aiming to share or spread what they know is misconstrued as 'recruiting' for the church. I guess it can be a little of both ways, some may have that misconception about those who are merely trying to show others what they have gained, while some may actually have an alternate agenda.
Anyways, I'm musing, I'll butt out of this thread now lol.

 

[Angela Harlem]

*my above post was to your first reply to me, just to clarify, not the second.

 

[BVS]

The key to this whole scenario is that the man never rejected Jesus. Now, if you have heard the Gospel, there are only 2 ways to respond:

1)Reject
2)Follow

So, this man never heard the Gospel.

I'm not God, of course, so I can't say for sure, but in line with what I believe, if this man never rejected Jesus, and yet lived his life for God, not out of obligation but for love of God, then that man would be allowed into Heaven.

Thanks for the clarification...

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

The key to this whole scenario is that the man never rejected Jesus. Now, if you have heard the Gospel, there are only 2 ways to respond:

1)Reject
2)Follow

So, this man never heard the Gospel.

I'm not God, of course, so I can't say for sure, but in line with what I believe, if this man never rejected Jesus, and yet lived his life for God, not out of obligation but for love of God, then that man would be allowed into Heaven.

What if that person had never heard of God though? Or if they had heard only of a God which is very different from the God who you believe in.

 

[megadrum2002]

you hit it on the nail dreadsox! There are those who have not heard of god therefore they cannot be acountable. same way with a little child dieing in a car wreck. I believe its when you come to realize the truth that brings you into acountablility. I am very sorry christianity has been spoiled by many. I think about how holy i thought i was until i read about jesus. This guy was soooo great in every word he said. Many exremists have taken the words of jesus and desecrated them.

 

[80sU2isBest]

What if that person had never heard of God though? Or if they had heard only of a God which is very different from the God who you believe in.

Sorry Fizzing, but I've already answered that a couple of times. If a person has never heard the Gospel, I believe that God does not hold them accountable. It's not that person's fault. However, I do not think this is an automtic pass straight into the city of God, either. For instance, if someone spends his life in defiance of all that is good and holy, killing and raping, will God let him just because of the excuse "I never heard about God"? I don't think so.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

What I was curious about is that you said if a person "lived his life for God" which seemed to imply they would have to have some conception of a God even if not necessarily the God you believe in.

Sorry if I've misinterpreted your comments.

 

[Dreadsox]

In fact, the Bible tells us that the law's purpose was as a roadsign pointing the way to Christ. What this means is that when God created the law, he never had any notion that man could actually live up to the law. It was a representation of God's own holy nature, and was given to man so that man could TRY to live up to it, and fail, and thus realize that man can never live up to God's holy standard.

Before I respond to this I would like you to clarify it for me. Please give me some Bible verses to look at so that I can read them for myself. Having been adopted by a man who went through a Catholic seminary, brought up Catholic, and then went to college at an evangelical school and studied a bit of religion there, what you have written does not agree with what I remember being taught. I am not challenging you I am curious about it. PM me if you like.

Matt

PS: I remember something similar, but not quite everything you have said.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Certainly, Dreadsox. Here ya go. These first 3 passages are the best...

Galatians 3: 21-24
Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Romans 3:19-20
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

1 Tim 1:8-11:
But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, ?realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted. The law is to convict those who do not know God.

Romans 2:17-18
Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law, and make your boast in God, and know His will, and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law

Acts 13:38-39:
Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.

Rom. 7:6:
But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

Rom. 4:13-16 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, neither is there violation. For this reason {it is} by faith, that {it might be} in accordance with grace, in order that the promise may be certain to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.

 

[Amna]

Alright, here is what I call extreminism.... The other day, my family and I were walking on the streets of Boston... A lot of people were out, and this guy was following my family, saying out loud that (Prophet)Muhammed (peace be upon him) is a terrorist, and Islam spreads terrorism.. He kept on follwoing my family... My brother was ready to beat the sh** out of him.. Thank God he didn't .... But the guy probably deserved it...
For some odd reason, we were the only ones feeling really threatned, trying to make this guy stop what he was doing...

NOw, this is what i consider being extreme...

While this guy was harassing us, he was holding a cross, but at the same time he started to put down Christianity...

What do you guys think of this?

 

[deep]

I think it is disgusting.

You and your family are victims of the so-called 'war on terror' hysteria.

We are living in a dark time in American history.

When we look back on this 10-15 20 years from now. It will be crystal clear how wrong the actions of many are today.

 

[Ramu]

80's-

can you please explain the obligation of christians to convert others to christianity? i have no objection in people helping the underprivileged . i'm pretty sure that philsophy is present in every religion.

however, it's unfortunate that those who go to developing countries call themselves 'missionaries', seeking to instill their own beliefs on those who need help. from the position of the downtroden, i will of course seek the material upliftment that missionaries bring. but what is it that requires the additional agenda of bringing people into the christian fold? why do missionaries not see their work complete when the underprivileged are bettered, but not christianized?

 

[U2Bama]

Speaking from the experiences of people I know who have gone on "mission trips" or served as "missionaries," many Christians take great joy in helping the downtrodden people regardless of whether the downtrodden convert to Christianity. In fact, the downtrodden folk who some of my friends and relatives have helped were Christians to begin with, so there is no need to "convert" them. Sometimes it really is a matter of showing love for the less fortunate.

~U2Alabama

 

[Dreadsox]

Speaking from the experiences of people I know who have gone on "mission trips" or served as "missionaries," many Christians take great joy in helping the downtrodden people regardless of whether the downtrodden convert to Christianity. In fact, the downtrodden folk who some of my friends and relatives have helped were Christians to begin with, so there is no need to "convert" them. Sometimes it really is a matter of showing love for the less fortunate.

~U2Alabama

Well said!

 

[Dreadsox]

What this means is that when God created the law, he never had any notion that man could actually live up to the law. It was a representation of God's own holy nature, and was given to man so that man could TRY to live up to it, and fail, and thus realize that man can never live up to God's holy standard.

See this is not my image of God. It sounds too much like a cat playing with a mouse that has no hope of escaping. God defined what sin is for thousands of years to make us fail? I pretty much understand where the rest is coming from.

Peace

 

[Dreadsox]

Galatians 3: 21-24
Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Paul was writing to the Galatians (NEW CONVERTS) at a time when his authority was being undermined by Jewish Christians that were claiming that Mosaic Law was still in effect along with faith in Christ. It is my understanding that there were some who disagreed with Paul on many issues involving the early church, including some of the original 12 disciples. However, if we look at the full text of Chapter 3 in Galatians, we can see that Paul is claiming a few things.

1) That the Holy Spirit comes to the Galations from reciving the Gospel of Jesus in Faith, not from following the law. Faith in God brings Righteousness as was demonstrated by Abraham.

2) The Gentiles (Galatian Converts) who have faith are also children of Abraham. By showing faith in Christ, the curse of living under the law(sin) is paid for by Christ.

3) The law does not supercede the promise of God's Covenant with Abraham. That is where salvation comes from, the Covenant with God, not the law.

4) The law defines sin as demonstrated in Romans (3 ,20 & 7, 7-8) but it does not make a man righteous. Righteousness comes from #1 above which is FAITH.

5) By faith, you have become Children of God, belong to Christ, and "heirs" to the promise made to Abraham. This brings us back to before the Law.

He is writing to new converts expressing his belief that they do not have to be practicing Mosaic law. Paul's authority was being undermined by another group of Christians, that believed as many of the Christians did in Jerusalem, that they were still obligated to obey the Jewish Law. I do not get from this that God created the law so that it was impossible to become righteous enough for God. Man by Paul's own words, as Abraham demonstrated, was capable of being righteous, by having Faith in God alone. This was clearly written to help converts to Christianity, from being confused by other Christian preachers who preaching among other things, that gentiles had to be circumsized to become Christian because they had to under Jewish Law.

Peace

PS: Forgive me if things are not gramatically correct or if I made some mistakes. My son was up at 2:30 AM last night, and I with him. Followed by a migrane attack today, and now insomnia. I am truly blessed

 

[therulz]

Might not be much, but...

Out of curiosity, what do you think happens to those who believe in God, but a generic God, one who exists but not necessarily through a church or an organised religion?

Eternal Life...I believe it would be granted to all that believe in God.

I did go through a long persiod of religious searching and made a point as an adult to get baptised (on easter of course) but decided that when my life started travelling that it was not so easy to attend...this is kind of how I believe...

I read a chapter in a paperback on religion that was supposed to be writings originating near the time of Christ. (Gospel of Thomas )One chapter in particular stated that acording to christ.."Behind every rock, every tree...I am with thee" I personally like that concept. and it states> This New Commentary and Annotation of the Gospel of Thomas shows that in the Gospel of Thomas Jesus reveals the presence of the Kingdom of God in this world now, and how the Kingdom has existed within and outside of people since the beginning of time.

 

[melon]

He is writing to new converts expressing his belief that they do not have to be practicing Mosaic law. Paul's authority was being undermined by another group of Christians, that believed as many of the Christians did in Jerusalem, that they were still obligated to obey the Jewish Law. I do not get from this that God created the law so that it was impossible to become righteous enough for God. Man by Paul's own words, as Abraham demonstrated, was capable of being righteous, by having Faith in God alone. This was clearly written to help converts to Christianity, from being confused by other Christian preachers who preaching among other things, that gentiles had to be circumsized to become Christian because they had to under Jewish Law.

"The other group of Christians," namely the Jewish Christian sect that originally wrote the Gospel of Matthew, which is why I get mad when people start cross-quoting Matthew with Pauline documents.

Although that is little consolation, because St. Paul also had a habit of playing semantical games with potential converts. "Love is the fulfillment of the Law." Reread Galatians 3 with "Law" defined as love. Doesn't it make sense still? That's because that is what St. Paul is referring to. St. Paul believed that, by Jesus' death and resurrection, the law was "fulfilled" and we are free from its prison. In the Mosaic Law's place was Jesus' commandments: "Love God and love one another."

To get Jewish Christians to read his texts, who believed all Christians should first be Jewish and still be subject to all Jewish laws and traditions, he appeals to their sensibilities in purposely ambiguous applications of "the Law" to get them to think it refers to the Mosaic Law, but, by the end of the epistles, St. Paul consistently rejects the legalism of the Mosaic Law and tells them the folly of believing in it. Unfortunately, this is the most misinterpreted aspect of St. Paul, but do realize that the epistles are, generally, writings for specific audiences being published for everyone to read.

Thank you for writing this, because I think I have made myself blue in the face writing this over and over and over and over and over the past three years. Maybe people will listen to you writing it.

Melon

 

[80sU2isBest]

See this is not my image of God. It sounds too much like a cat playing with a mouse that has no hope of escaping. God defined what sin is for thousands of years to make us fail? I pretty much understand where the rest is coming from.
Peace

Dreadsox, read my other posts and you will see that I ahve never painted the picture of God as a "cat playing with a mouse". God didn't just nilly willy decide what is sin and what is not. The following si what I have said all along, in this thread and in others:

God is perfectly Holy. God cannot abide in the presence of sin, or anything less than total perfection. He didn't just one day say "you know, I think I will never abide in the presence of sin". No, to abide in the presence of sin would be against his own spiritual nature, and then he would not be perfect. So, here's the problem. Once man sinned the first time, the sin nature was passed down from person to person all throughout history, and no matter how hard a man tried, he could never be perfect. Now, since perfection and holiness is God's standard, then man could never make it to Heaven based on his own works. The law is the beginning of the Christ plan. It was made, as Paul said, to point the way to Christ, and to say "hey, to live up to all these standards, you'd have to be absolutely perfect". Well, people failed and no one fulfilled the law until Christ came. He fulfilled the law (never sinned), and that bought freedom from the law for anyone who would accept him. The law was a pointer to Christ.

 

[80sU2isBest]

80's-

can you please explain the obligation of christians to convert others to christianity?

Hi Ramu,
"The Great commission", as it is known, was given by the Lord Jesus himself:

Matthew 28
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

 

[80sU2isBest]

He is writing to new converts expressing his belief that they do not have to be practicing Mosaic law. Paul's authority was being undermined by another group of Christians, that believed as many of the Christians did in Jerusalem, that they were still obligated to obey the Jewish Law. I do not get from this that God created the law so that it was impossible to become righteous enough for God. Man by Paul's own words, as Abraham demonstrated, was capable of being righteous, by having Faith in God alone. This was clearly written to help converts to Christianity, from being confused by other Christian preachers who preaching among other things, that gentiles had to be circumsized to become Christian because they had to under Jewish Law.

Great info, Dreadsox. I knew all of it (and I don't say this to be bragging, or proud; just stating a fact), but I don't see how any of this refutes my position that the law was created as a pointer to Christ, and that no one's actions under the law meet the perfect standard of God.

The Galatians passage I included earlier sums it all up:

Galatians 3: 21-24
Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

I'll ask you this: Do you believe that God knows man's heart and knows the future? If so, then he knew when he gave the law that no one would be able to fulfill it. Why would he tell people to obey teh law when he knew they couldn't, if the purpose wasn't to show them how unholy they are in their own flesh, and to point at the coming Messiah as their only hope for salvation?

 

[Dreadsox]

Dreadsox, read my other posts and you will see that I ahve never painted the picture of God as a "cat playing with a mouse". God didn't just nilly willy decide what is sin and what is not.

80's, please note, that I am NOT putting words into your mouth. I just have a problem accepting as a principle that God would intentionally put into place a Law that no man could possibly live up to. If I somehow offended you, please accept my apology. I was not trying to put words into your mouth.

Did Mary carry original sin with her?