Is Jesus the only way to Heaven? How do you interpret these scriptures?

[Dreadsox]

killer line.

Thank you.....

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

My point is, that it is revealed to me. I have faith that this is one of the important examples provided by Christ.

You may need it explicitly. My faith and belief leads me to a different place than you.

I also think one of the messages of Christ is the dangers of man taking things to such a literal extreme that we are no longer doing God's will. There are plenty of examples of Christ standing up to the powers that be and their interpretations of the LAW.

The literalness does not equal righteousness.

this may be a personal question, but how was it revealed to you?

no doubt it is an important example, but Christ did not leave these people as they were when he reached out to them! he did not tell them that their lives were good enough as they had been living without him. he forgave them their sins, but added the important caveat "go and sin no more." obviously it was Christ intent to bring these people to Him, not to leave them happily as they were.

i believe that the Bible is the most consistent and reliable place for God to be revealed to humanity. thoughts and feelings are fickle, and change from moment to moment depending on what's happening in one's life. yet God's word remains unchanging. it is how God has chosen to speak to His children after Christ came.

sorry, about some of the literalness stuff, if you'll look, i posted on that subject again.

 

[Dreadsox]

this may be a personal question, but how was it revealed to you?

If I was unclear, I find it revealed to me through scripture.

Example, there are many times as a teacher, where a question cannot be answered by looking for it to be written in black and white. Inferrential questions very often require the reader to take information from a global point of view to answer them.

My revelation is from the WORD. I have faith that there is more to the scriptures than it being carved in stone with no deeper meaning.

I think there is a reason Jesus used parables. He could have just sat at home and written his own book, making everything easy for us now couldn't he? Unless he did not know how to write? If he did not know how to write, what was wrong with him. He is God. All of the other great prophets and people who communicated with God were able to get it all down for us. What was wrong with Jesus?

 

[nbcrusader]

I'm not sure anyone is denying that there is more to understanding God than what is revealed to us in Scripture. But we have been given a Rules Book.

What is safer? To explain Salvation as described in black & white, or to describe the possible deeper meanings leading to Salvation?

 

[Irvine511]

I think there is a reason Jesus used parables. He could have just sat at home and written his own book, making everything easy for us now couldn't he? Unless he did not know how to write? If he did not know how to write, what was wrong with him. He is God. All of the other great prophets and people who communicated with God were able to get it all down for us. What was wrong with Jesus?

wow, you're on fire this afternoon. the parables -- what a brilliant example to combat the literalness of some people of faith.

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

i think a good literature or creative writing class would be very beneficial. not that i think Scripture is either, but i do think it would benefit everyone greatly to understand the bias inherent to any and all language and just how we go about creating our own meanings in our own image. essentially, there are no "correct" readings of anything -- all we can hope for are valid, defensible readings that are necessarily in dialogue with one another.

i feel as if much of the justification of your faith, and that "faith alone" clause, flows from this, and for someone like me this becomes a bit of an impossible situation.

#2: science is, like reading, a cultural product, and any scientist worth his/her salt would never assert the infallability of a scientific finding in the same manner with which you are asserting the scripture. also, since the basis of religion is *faith* -- you choose to believe, rather than wait to be shown -- i'd think that humility would come much more easily to you. faith is predicated upon doubt, for if you had no doubt it wouldn't be faith, then, would it?

#3: you missed the point again. people treating the bible as if it were a dictionary. however, on the subjects of dictionaries, ever noticed how meanings of words shift and change over time? how new words are added as society changes and things are invented? it's malleable, and subject to reinterpretation and revision, and any good post-modernist knows that words only reference other words, so therefore it's a self-referential, closed system that serves as an authority, but we know it's subjective and not Truth. it's what we use as truth -- for spelling, for word meaning -- but it is not Truth.

#4: sounds more appealing to me than the "i'm saved and you're not" attitude. though, according to your rules, the vast majority of people on earth are not saved because most people do not accept Jesus as their personal savior. maybe if you loosened up your reading and focused on the message rather than the words you could find a way to save that child in Calcutta?

your last paragraph is how many people see the bible. and you seem to repeat, over and over, "salvation" and "eternal life" as if they were gifts to be won. just an observation.

#1: i hope you read my reply about the conversation i had with my pastor. a note on the different Hermenuetics, some are obviously more correct than others, though none are perfect.

#2: we all rely on faith for everything. i believe that someday, i will cease to live. is it an incorrect statement for me to make at this point in my life, simply because i did not wait for it to happen to make this statement? i don't believe so. and there will come a day where i will be shown that death is inevitable. just as there will come a day in which the existence of God will be revealed to everyone.

#3: okay, dictionary bad example. for the record, i am disgusted with most post-modernist philosophy. but, maybe an argument can be made that when a translation of the bible is proven to not be trustworthy, it is disregarded, and scholars return to the original in order to get a more accurate translation. oh crap, #3, that reminds me, i haven't eaten yet, and man am i hungry.

#4: the fact is that the majority have people will probably not be saved. that is what i believe Christ meant with the "wide road/narrow road" analogy. and how would "loosening my definiton" help the kid in calcutta? if i believe that salvation is an objective fact, and that God exists apart from myself, how would my beliefs change the outcome of that child's life? now, if i were to go and give the gospel to that child, that would be a way to save the child in calcutta.

and no, i've said it before, and i will continue to say it: salvation and eternal life are not gifts to be "won" by us. they are gifts that are freely given by the grace of God, that i cannot gain by ANY merit of my own.

 

[yimou]

#4: the fact is that the majority have people will probably not be saved. that is what i believe Christ meant with the "wide road/narrow road" analogy. and how would "loosening my definiton" help the kid in calcutta? if i believe that salvation is an objective fact, and that God exists apart from myself, how would my beliefs change the outcome of that child's life? now, if i were to go and give the gospel to that child, that would be a way to save the child in calcutta.

and no, i've said it before, and i will continue to say it: salvation and eternal life are not gifts to be "won" by us. they are gifts that are freely given by the grace of God, that i cannot gain by ANY merit of my own.

The grace of god ???,, IF salvation and eternal life are gifts freely given by the grace of god. Then why on earth does this Calcutta child even need the gospel to know about god ??.
Its a weak god you are worshipping, if it takes the scriptures to enter his kingdom and its not a believable god then.
If god was rightious, then he/she would disregard whatever knowledge of the bible that people have. And instead look at the way people have lived their life.
I am not trying to offend anybody, but throwing the gospel at the feet of people and claim their connection to god starts there, is insane and indeed narrow minded.
God should start within,, with no help,, Otherwise then its not god who tries to tell you something, but some eager worshipper who takes away the beauty of believing. By not making it a free choice or a real need. And then how can anybody say that their connection to god is real ?.

 

[Irvine511]

The grace of god ???,, IF salvation and eternal life are gifts freely given by the grace of god. Then why on earth does this Calcutta child even need the gospel to know about god ??.
Its a weak god you are worshipping, if it takes the scriptures to enter his kingdom and its not a believable god then.
If god was rightious, then he/she would disregard whatever knowledge of the bible that people have. And instead look at the way people have lived their life.
I am not trying to offend anybody, but throwing the gospel at the feet of people and claim their connection to god starts there, is insane and indeed narrow minded.
God should start within,, with no help,, Otherwise then its not god who tries to tell you something, but some eager worshipper who takes away the beauty of believing. By not making it a free choice or a real need. And then how can anybody say that their connection to god is real ?.

rock and roll.

 

[Se7en]

The grace of god ???,, IF salvation and eternal life are gifts freely given by the grace of god. Then why on earth does this Calcutta child even need the gospel to know about god ??.
Its a weak god you are worshipping, if it takes the scriptures to enter his kingdom and its not a believable god then.
If god was rightious, then he/she would disregard whatever knowledge of the bible that people have. And instead look at the way people have lived their life.
I am not trying to offend anybody, but throwing the gospel at the feet of people and claim their connection to god starts there, is insane and indeed narrow minded.
God should start within,, with no help,, Otherwise then its not god who tries to tell you something, but some eager worshipper who takes away the beauty of believing. By not making it a free choice or a real need. And then how can anybody say that their connection to god is real ?.

 

[nbcrusader]

If god was rightious, then he/she would disregard whatever knowledge of the bible that people have. And instead look at the way people have lived their life.

It appears that you define God in your own way, as it is not Jesus Christ as described in the Bible.

We should not create our own version of God. "You shall have no other gods before me." Exodus 20:3

 

[Macfistowannabe]

A great post as usual, nbc.

 

[yimou]

It appears that you define God in your own way, as it is not Jesus Christ as described in the Bible.

We should not create our own version of God. "You shall have no other gods before me." Exodus 20:3

Ok, if its not Jesus Christ as described in the bible. Then lets call it the Jesus Christ in the heart of someone who actually cares.

 

[pax]

Okay, I think that was a bit uncalled for. NBC is a very caring and conscientious post-er, and maybe you should take some time to know him before you make comments like that.

 

[yimou]

I have posted twice before in this thread and mentioned both times that i am not trying to offend anybody. I am still not trying to offend anybody at all. And i didn´t even say that his views are wrong.
The line is about ME,, As he stated then my views didn´t represent the Jesus Christ in the bible.. Isn´t it a bit uncalled for to not let me express my views and hopes of Jesus.. They are certainly not offensive to others. The getting to know each other hopefully apply to me too, before my right to view my own thoughts are being taken away

 

[nbcrusader]

I guess the question is, "How do you define God"?

 

[yimou]

I guess my question is,, What are you own thoughts of what i wrote ??

 

[Dreadsox]

I guess my question is,, What are you own thoughts of what i wrote ??

As someone who believes that the bible is the WORD of GOD I would disagree with the extremeness of your statement.

As someone who believes that there is a non-literal message that can be inferred from the message of the Word, I would say you are dead on that it is important to have Jesus in your heart and live your life as if you did.

However, how are you supposed to do that if you have no exposure to Christ through the word?

 

[nbcrusader]

God Himself must define the nature of our relationship with Him. If someone asks the question "How do you get to Heaven?" I can only respond by describing what is said in Scripture.

The self-defined God is in essence another form of god. We cannot say that God is so great that He will let me approach Him any way I want.

 

[Dreadsox]

God Himself must define the nature of our relationship with Him. If someone asks the question "How do you get to Heaven?" I can only respond by describing what is said in Scripture.

The self-defined God is in essence another form of god. We cannot say that God is so great that He will let me approach Him any way I want.

I would ask you this, do you feel that there is literal as well as non-literal content in the Bible? Are there truths given to believers that can be inferred about the nature of God, without it being spelled out literally?

I think the danger of self-defining is a real one. I have been in churches where scripture is not read and prayers like the Our Father are unheard. I felt like I could walk into the Hallmark Store and read a few cards and have had the same efffect as the church service.

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

The grace of god ???,, IF salvation and eternal life are gifts freely given by the grace of god. Then why on earth does this Calcutta child even need the gospel to know about god ??.

From The Book of Concord, The Smalcald Articles, Part VIII. Confession
In these matters which concern the external, spoken Word, we must hold firmly to the conviction that God gives no one his Spirit or grace except through or with the external Word which comes before. Thus we shall be protected from the enthusiast-that is, from the spiritualists who boast they possess the Spirit without and before the Word, and who therefore judge, interpret, and twist the Scriptures or spoken Word according to their pleasure. [Thomas] Munzer did this, and many still do do it in our day who wish to distinguish sharply between the letter and the spirit without knowing what they teach. All this is the old devil and the old serpent who made enthusiasts of Adam and Eve. He led them from the external word of God to spiritualizing and to their own imaginations, and he did this through other external words. Even so, the enthusiasts of our day condemn the external word, yet they do not remain silent but fill the world with their chattering and scribbling, as if the spirit could not come through the Scriptures or the spoken word of the Apostles but must come through their own writings and words.

 

[yimou]

God Himself must define the nature of our relationship with Him. If someone asks the question "How do you get to Heaven?" I can only respond by describing what is said in Scripture.

The self-defined God is in essence another form of god. We cannot say that God is so great that He will let me approach Him any way I want.

This is a far more satisfying answer, than a scripture quote.

I can not give you my definition of god, because i do not believe.
If i tried, it would just ended up with a mindless word against word war. This we can both do without. Though i am not interested in ever taking the faith from anybody, or even question it.
I am more interested in what people do with their life, than how much faith they have.
And quotes from the scriptures does nothing to help prove a point when it comes to a discussion.

 

[AvsGirl41]

I had forsworn this thread, but I'm going to jump in with one criticism...

Quoting the Book of Concord (or a Catholic, Orthodox, or Mormon confession) does nothing to sway my convictions, such as they may be.

I give very little authority to post-Gospel texts, frankly. And few realize how much of what Christians believe to be Truth is mere conjecture by early church fathers.

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

I had forsworn this thread, but I'm going to jump in with one criticism...

Quoting the Book of Concord (or a Catholic, Orthodox, or Mormon confession) does nothing to sway my convictions, such as they may be.

I give very little authority to post-Gospel texts, frankly. And few realize how much of what Christians believe to be Truth is mere conjecture by early church fathers.

so, if i take this right, i can't quote scripture and i can't quote documents that interprete scripture...basically, if it disagrees with your viewpoint, it holds no value to you, and you can feel free to dismiss it off hand without even discussing it...fair enough.

i take most posts here to be merely the conjecture of sceptical post-modernists, who instead of interpreting Scripture, simply say whatever pops into their heads. i see not why i should assign more significance to their thoughts than the church fathers.

 

[AvsGirl41]

so, if i take this right, i can't quote scripture and i can't quote documents that interprete scripture...basically, if it disagrees with your viewpoint, it holds no value to you, and you can feel free to dismiss it off hand without even discussing it...fair enough.

i take most posts here to be merely the conjecture of sceptical post-modernists, who instead of interpreting Scripture, simply say whatever pops into their heads. i see not why i should assign more significance to their thoughts than the church fathers.

I never said (and i don't think *anyone* here has) that you can't quote scripture. I didn't even say that it disagrees with my viewpoint. What a way to infer, eh?

But, if we're discussing whether or not to take Scripture literally, it seems you ought to be looking to Scripture for the answer, as you argue everyone (even in Calcutta) should be doing, and not Martin Luther.

The skeptical post-modernists you dismiss and the church fathers have done *exactly* the same thing. There's no Scriptural basis for much of what we hold as dogma. It was created in the minds of men. God never came down to St. Augustine or Martin Luther and give them a one-on-one chat. So if you're going to dismiss one school of thought based on "it popped into their head" theory, you'll have to dismiss the other. If you're judging Luther to be more weighty because he wrote in the 16th century, well, I'm not sure what to say.

I just turned in a research paper around this very topic and had the eye-aching pleasure of reading Methodius on down to Aquinas. I'm not dismissing that what they wrote isn't brilliant or poetic, or saying there aren't things I agree with. But no, in a case of "Who does God save and what did Jesus say?" I don't give them the top seat of authority.

 

[nbcrusader]

I would ask you this, do you feel that there is literal as well as non-literal content in the Bible? Are there truths given to believers that can be inferred about the nature of God, without it being spelled out literally?

There is clear use of symbolism in Scripture, where a literal interpretation is misleading and potentially dangerous (I'm thinking of the people who worship with snakes, for example).

Also, many of God's attributes are not clearly defined. They are inferred from God's actions, statements, etc.

A specific example is the Trinity. Not specifically spelled out in Scripture, but definitely inferable and supportable by Scripture.

However, if I am to make a statement about God, I want it to be supported by Scripture, preferably multiple passages. If I rely on only one passage, I would do so if it did not contradict other statements in Scripture.

 

[nbcrusader]

I had forsworn this thread, but I'm going to jump in with one criticism...

Quoting the Book of Concord (or a Catholic, Orthodox, or Mormon confession) does nothing to sway my convictions, such as they may be.

I give very little authority to post-Gospel texts, frankly. And few realize how much of what Christians believe to be Truth is mere conjecture by early church fathers.

Confessions and creeds only demonstrate the struggle of the early church in trying to understand the nature of God. They should not be relied upon as authoratative, but can be used to show how others tackled some of these difficult issues.

Many of the questions raised here in FYM are not unique and have been around since the early church.

It is like we have our own "Council" here to struggle with our understanding.

 

[Irvine511]

i take most posts here to be merely the conjecture of sceptical post-modernists, who instead of interpreting Scripture, simply say whatever pops into their heads. i see not why i should assign more significance to their thoughts than the church fathers.

that's rather breathtaking in it's arrogance.

just what do you take post-modernism/modernity to mean?

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

I never said (and i don't think *anyone* here has) that you can't quote scripture. I didn't even say that it disagrees with my viewpoint. What a way to infer, eh?

But, if we're discussing whether or not to take Scripture literally, it seems you ought to be looking to Scripture for the answer, as you argue everyone (even in Calcutta) should be doing, and not Martin Luther.

The skeptical post-modernists you dismiss and the church fathers have done *exactly* the same thing. There's no Scriptural basis for much of what we hold as dogma. It was created in the minds of men. God never came down to St. Augustine or Martin Luther and give them a one-on-one chat. So if you're going to dismiss one school of thought based on "it popped into their head" theory, you'll have to dismiss the other. If you're judging Luther to be more weighty because he wrote in the 16th century, well, I'm not sure what to say.

I just turned in a research paper around this very topic and had the eye-aching pleasure of reading Methodius on down to Aquinas. I'm not dismissing that what they wrote isn't brilliant or poetic, or saying there aren't things I agree with. But no, in a case of "Who does God save and what did Jesus say?" I don't give them the top seat of authority.

i seem to remember posting that i was wrong when i said "literally" what i meant was inerrant. i agree with what nbc says above, symbolism is clearly used, and we have to interperate that. i also agree that those interpretations have to be made in regards to the context of the verses in context and with the bible as a whole.

also, i never once said that luther was given a special revelation. luther did however base what he wrote on scripture, not on his own feelings or the popular sentiments of the time. if you are going to argue the nature of God, debate how salvation works, and try and decide who gets into heaven, you have to go back and see what the scriptures say.

as said, martin luther did find his answers in scripture, therefore, i think it to be prudent to at least consider the answers that luther found there, instead of starting my readings from scratch.

by post-modern, i mean those who argue that there is no absolute truth everything is subjective. an example of this type of thinking would be the retired episcopalian bishop jack spong.

of course there are many dogmas that are not scripturally based. that was the whole idea behing luther's theses. that the church had gotten out of control, and was no longer basing it's belief on Biblical Truth. the church must fight against these inaccuracies, and strive to be as Biblically accurate as possible.

and just to ask, who would you place in the top seat of authority when it comes to interperating the scriptures?

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

and no, i'm not arguing that the Bible is not THE place to turn...i am simply saying that when questions arise, would not be a good idea to turn to someone who has had the same questions in order to help you in finding an answer?

 

[Dreadsox]

i take most posts here to be merely the conjecture of sceptical post-modernists, who instead of interpreting Scripture, simply say whatever pops into their heads. i see not why i should assign more significance to their thoughts than the church fathers.

So by early church fathers you would submit to the authority of the Catholic Church then, since there is a direct line to the early church fathers?

Or am I missing something?