Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What must I do to be Born Again?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    When in Mark 9 are the people cast into hell depicted as alive?
    Good question. They aren't.

    Some are operating under the misconception that Jesus somehow "expanded upon" or altered the meaning of Isaiah 66:24. This assumption is false. Furthermore, it should be evident that Jesus employs much hyperbole throughout Mark 9:42-47. E.g.:


    "But whoever causes the downfall of one of these little ones who believe in Me—it would be better for him if a heavy millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. And if your hand causes your downfall, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go to [Gehenna]—the unquenchable fire, . . ." (Mark 9:42,43 HCSB).
    Last edited by The Remonstrant; 04-09-2014, 03:23 AM.
    For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by RBerman View Post
      The focus in Mark 9 is not on whether the people are alive or dead. Presumably within the internal logic of Jesus' figure of speech, living people cast into the fire and being eaten by worms have become dead. This is where Remonstrant is going with his annihilationist posts, although as you say, the language in Revelation encourages us to interpret "death" and "destruction" in ways compatible with a continuing experience of torment, which is also probably what Jesus intends in Mark 9.

      I take it I answered your questions in post #21, since you moved on without responding?
      This may be a pattern. (NormATive quoted a snippet of mine from message #3 in #27 and proceeded to question me on Matthew 25:41 and 46 as if I hadn't gone into any detail on these texts previously.)

      As for Mark 9, in my estimation the passage is so thoroughly riddled with hyperbolic language that I find it difficult to understand why any should use it as a proof-text for unending torment. It would be much more promising for your view if Jesus had quoted Judith instead of Isaiah. This would pose a tremendous—dare I say insurmountable—problem to Protestant/evangelical advocates of annihilationism.

      Regarding my annihilationist position, I personally do not wield Mark 9:43-47 as a proof-text for the annihilation of the unrighteous in my discussions of final punishment, though I can indeed appreciate Jesus' reference of Isaiah 66:24 (and will duly note it whenever it comes up, of course). The main thrust of the text is for disciples of Jesus to press into the Kingdom of God by all means necessary. The occasion for the discussion is Jesus' warning to his disciples not to set any stumbling blocks in the way of the vulnerable and humblest of his followers (cf. Matthew 18:1-14). It is a stern warning for disciples of Jesus to be watchful of their conduct something after the manner of Romans 14.
      Last edited by The Remonstrant; 04-09-2014, 03:54 AM.
      For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Paprika View Post
        "For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility."
        Thank you Paprika.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
          As for Mark 9, in my estimation the passage is so thoroughly riddled with hyperbolic language that I find it difficult to understand why any should use it as a proof-text for unending torment. It would be much more promising for your view if Jesus had quoted Judith instead of Isaiah. This would pose a tremendous—dare I say insurmountable—problem to Protestant/evangelical advocates of annihilationism.

          Regarding my annihilationist position, I personally do not wield Mark 9:43-47 as a proof-text for the annihilation of the unrighteous in my discussions of final punishment, though I can indeed appreciate Jesus' reference of Isaiah 66:24 (and will duly note it whenever it comes up, of course). The main thrust of the text is for disciples of Jesus to press into the Kingdom of God by all means necessary. The occasion for the discussion is Jesus' warning to his disciples not to set any stumbling blocks in the way of the vulnerable and humblest of his followers (cf. Matthew 18:1-14). It is a stern warning for disciples of Jesus to be watchful of their conduct something after the manner of Romans 14.
          I would just as soon not have this thread about the core gospel issue of "what must I do to be saved?" become another casualty of digression into debating the merits of annihilationism compared to orthodox doctrines of Hell, so I'll simply say that by and large, Christians have not seen the hyperbolic language about cutting off of hands, etc., to be an obstacle to interpreting the end of Mark 9 as teaching ongoing torment.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by NormATive View Post
            I think that this question has been and continues to be misunderstood by many people, including myself for many years.

            Years ago, I would have told you that being Born Again meant asking Jesus into your heart: a spiritual acceptance of Jesus as Messiah and Savior through his sacrifice on the Cross. Accepting such would invite The Holy Spirit to dwell within us. This, of course, must be preceded by repentance for past and present sinfulness, which I understood was innate - born into us because of Adam's "fall" from grace. Sometimes this is referred to as Original Sin.

            Accepting the "free gift" would entitle you to a crown of jewels, and a room in Heaven, where the streets were paved in gold, and you would join a chorus of angels singing praises to the Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) forever and ever, Amen.

            Not accepting this "free gift" would guarantee that you would spend eternity in Hell. At the time (I was raised Baptist), I believed that Hell was a physical place somewhere beneath the Earth's surface where lakes of fire (As a teenager, I imagined it as Magma) would burn the unrepentant for ever and ever.

            Is this what you, dear Christian, think?

            On the other hand, there are many people - Christians included - who understand the "Born Again" question of Nicodemus as more of an intellectual query rather than a magical formula. In other words, what Jesus was really saying was that you need to accept a turn about in your heart of hearts, and act in a way that embodies the intent of The Law. The Sermon on the Mount has Jesus turning familiar commandments made by Moses into a more modern interpretation.

            For example:



            And so on.

            In other words, what is the purpose of the more apocalyptic version of Christianity? Why is that preferable to the more "down to earth" version of simply following Jesus' lead in how we live, think and relate to others? Do not both ways lead to a closer walk with G-d?

            Also, why is there the need to be threatened with eternal punishment? If Jesus was intended to be a sacrifice for sins: , why didn't it take for everyone?

            NORM
            The problem with the notion that I bolded is that the "more down to earth version" of what a Christian should follow is a pure fantasy. Sure, there are teachings by Jesus that even a staunch atheist could get behind, but there are teachings that you and atheists would find deplorable and completely impractical in our modern world. Heck, even Christians like me have a hard time wrapping our heads around a lot of Jesus' teachings in regards to actually applying it to our modern world, as opposed to just lip service, just because of how warped our materialistic worldviews are. So, I would imagine you would want us to follow a cookie cutter version of what Jesus taught, and only then would it be acceptable to rest of the world. One of the many necessities of being born again is the supernatural assistance in helping us remove ourselves from that materialistic worldview. We cannot do this on our own even if we wanted to.
            Last edited by seanD; 04-09-2014, 12:36 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by seanD View Post
              The problem with the notion that I bolded is that the "more down to earth version" of what a Christian should follow is a pure fantasy. Sure, there are teachings by Jesus that even a staunch atheist could get behind, but there are teachings that you and atheists would find deplorable and completely impractical in our modern world. Heck, even Christians like me have a hard time wrapping our heads around a lot of Jesus' teachings in regards to actually applying it to our modern world, as opposed to just lip service, just because of how warped our materialistic worldviews are.
              Many atheists would be able to comprehend the challenging teachings and their modern application.

              Originally posted by seanD
              So, I would imagine you would want us to follow a cookie cutter version of what Jesus taught, and only then would it be acceptable to rest of the world. One of the many necessities of being born again is the supernatural assistance in helping us remove ourselves from that materialistic worldview. We cannot do this on our own even if we wanted to.
              Which challenging teachings are you being assisted with, and how do you apply them in a modern world?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by NormATive View Post
                I think that this question has been and continues to be misunderstood by many people, including myself for many years.

                Years ago, I would have told you that being Born Again meant asking Jesus into your heart: a spiritual acceptance of Jesus as Messiah and Savior through his sacrifice on the Cross. Accepting such would invite The Holy Spirit to dwell within us. This, of course, must be preceded by repentance for past and present sinfulness, which I understood was innate - born into us because of Adam's "fall" from grace. Sometimes this is referred to as Original Sin.

                Accepting the "free gift" would entitle you to a crown of jewels, and a room in Heaven, where the streets were paved in gold, and you would join a chorus of angels singing praises to the Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) forever and ever, Amen.

                Not accepting this "free gift" would guarantee that you would spend eternity in Hell. At the time (I was raised Baptist), I believed that Hell was a physical place somewhere beneath the Earth's surface where lakes of fire (As a teenager, I imagined it as Magma) would burn the unrepentant for ever and ever.

                Is this what you, dear Christian, think?

                On the other hand, there are many people - Christians included - who understand the "Born Again" question of Nicodemus as more of an intellectual query rather than a magical formula. In other words, what Jesus was really saying was that you need to accept a turn about in your heart of hearts, and act in a way that embodies the intent of The Law. The Sermon on the Mount has Jesus turning familiar commandments made by Moses into a more modern interpretation.

                For example:



                And so on.

                In other words, what is the purpose of the more apocalyptic version of Christianity? Why is that preferable to the more "down to earth" version of simply following Jesus' lead in how we live, think and relate to others? Do not both ways lead to a closer walk with G-d?

                Also, why is there the need to be threatened with eternal punishment? If Jesus was intended to be a sacrifice for sins: , why didn't it take for everyone?

                NORM
                I agree with you that the way Christianity is presented in some very conservative churches, there's too much burden in belief. Knowing the cultural context of the gospels puts a lot of the harder teachings, such as turning the other cheek, to rest simply because they are difficult to apply in the modern age. A more down to earth approach to being a christian, where the applicability of Jesus teachings is relatively easy to understand and practice, is warranted. Burdensome approaches with unrealistic expectations are best discarded, mainly because they provoke apostasy.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                  1) I was speaking of Christians not seeing adherence to the Law as a means of earning God's approval. Christians would indeed miss the boat if they thought that the forgiveness of their sins makes it irrelevant how they live their lives.
                  Yet, the reliance on a "plan" of salvation seems like just that - earning God's approval. Just as strict adherence to the dietary and ritual laws were to the Jew up until after the Shoah.

                  I agree with you that Christians miss the boat when they reduce Christianity to "the plan of salvation" to the neglect of everything Jesus stood for. We Jews learned what was most important, but it took a horrible experience to evolve to that point.


                  Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                  This ambivalence toward the ceremonial laws such as diet and holidays carries over into Paul's epistles as well, which is why Christians hold that those aspects of the law, which separated Jews from Gentiles, have ended now that Jews and Gentiles are one in Christ. However the overriding moral principles of, say, the Decalogue, remain in force, for they reflect God's eternal character and the way He has created man to function best.
                  If modern Christianity were less obsessed with the supernatural aspect of the "blood sacrifice" and aligning oneself with right wing causes, I think there would be less turmoil in the world.

                  Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                  So yes, Christians must keep the Laws which did not serve to separate out Jews from the rest of the world. But the keeping of those Laws is not something that earns us God's good favor, which is why I did not include it in the list of things by which we obtain the "free gift."
                  I get the notion, at times, that Christians believe that Jews and others who follow a religion that emphasizes doing the right thing, are doing so to please G-d, or "earn their salvation." In the case of Judaism, this is most definitely not the case. The Yom Kippur festival tells us that G-d WILL forgive, regardless our behavior.

                  NORM
                  When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Bishop Desmond Tutu

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by NormATive View Post
                    Yet, the reliance on a "plan" of salvation seems like just that - earning God's approval. Just as strict adherence to the dietary and ritual laws were to the Jew up until after the Shoah.
                    We do need God's approval, one way or the other. Even if you think God forgives everyone, that's still true. The question is whether God has told us the terms of his own approval. According to the New Testament, the terms are the faith in Christ I described earlier.

                    I agree with you that Christians miss the boat when they reduce Christianity to "the plan of salvation" to the neglect of everything Jesus stood for. We Jews learned what was most important, but it took a horrible experience to evolve to that point.
                    I wish that were true. What is most important is accepting what God has said about Christ, not only as an example for men but also as a substitute before God.

                    If modern Christianity were less obsessed with the supernatural aspect of the "blood sacrifice" and aligning oneself with right wing causes, I think there would be less turmoil in the world.
                    Certainly if everyone agreed, there would be less turmoil. There would be less turmoil if everyone was less obsessed with left wing causes too, yes? God has promised a perfect future world, ruled by Jesus Christ, in which not only the man-caused turmoil, but all natural suffering, has ended.

                    I get the notion, at times, that Christians believe that Jews and others who follow a religion that emphasizes doing the right thing, are doing so to please G-d, or "earn their salvation." In the case of Judaism, this is most definitely not the case. The Yom Kippur festival tells us that G-d WILL forgive, regardless our behavior.
                    We went around this before in the other thread and found that your version of Judaism gets its ideas on this matter not from what God himself has said in the Bible, but from what various men subsequently said in the Talmud. It is not clear that universalism is an improvement on legalism. As with the mis-shapen version of Christianity I disowned upthread, the man who believes he's already been forgiven everything might be a terrible monster who has lost all incentive for moral behavior. Better to believe that your actions have eternal consequences.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by RBerman
                      It is not clear that universalism is an improvement on legalism.
                      As with the mis-shapen version of Christianity I disowned upthread, the man who believes he's already been forgiven everything might be a terrible monster who has lost all incentive for moral behavior.
                      That's a grotesque version of universalism. Universalism surely takes into account mental illness of that sort.

                      Universalism should be contextually understood. It's more the belief that specific belief isn't required to be saved. It doesn't say that pederasts will dine with Jesus.

                      You can be a Mormon or Muslim or atheist and not go to a place of everlasting punishment. That would more properly describe the belief.





                      Originally posted by RBerman
                      Better to believe that your actions have eternal consequences.
                      Not necessarily. David knew that his actions had eternal consequences. Billions know this (as in, they profess to believe it).

                      Believing your actions don't have eternal consequences and concurrently loving your neighbor--that's impressive. There's bleakness behind the belief that eternal consequences are appropriate behavior motivators, religiously speaking. It just opens a can of worms about motivation. For instance, I'd rather think you don't cheat because it's not your style, not because someone will punish you for it later.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by whag View Post
                        Universalism should be contextually understood. It's more the belief that specific belief isn't required to be saved.
                        That is one way to explain universalism. I prefer to think of universalism as the belief that God wanted to save the entire world, had a plan for doing it, and the plan actually worked.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                          As for Mark 9, in my estimation the passage is so thoroughly riddled with hyperbolic language that I find it difficult to understand why any should use it as a proof-text for unending torment. It would be much more promising for your view if Jesus had quoted Judith instead of Isaiah. This would pose a tremendous—dare I say insurmountable—problem to Protestant/evangelical advocates of annihilationism.

                          Regarding my annihilationist position, I personally do not wield Mark 9:43-47 as a proof-text for the annihilation of the unrighteous in my discussions of final punishment, though I can indeed appreciate Jesus' reference of Isaiah 66:24 (and will duly note it whenever it comes up, of course). The main thrust of the text is for disciples of Jesus to press into the Kingdom of God by all means necessary. The occasion for the discussion is Jesus' warning to his disciples not to set any stumbling blocks in the way of the vulnerable and humblest of his followers (cf. Matthew 18:1-14). It is a stern warning for disciples of Jesus to be watchful of their conduct something after the manner of Romans 14.
                          Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                          I would just as soon not have this thread about the core gospel issue of "what must I do to be saved?" become another casualty of digression into debating the merits of annihilationism compared to orthodox doctrines of Hell, so I'll simply say that by and large, Christians have not seen the hyperbolic language about cutting off of hands, etc., to be an obstacle to interpreting the end of Mark 9 as teaching ongoing torment.
                          Of course they wouldn't. The majority operated under the presupposition of the immortality of the soul (e.g., Athenagoras, Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin). If all persons are immortal, the only two options remaining for the Christian to consider are endless conscious torment (ECT) and eventual universal reconciliation (universalism). Final annihilation is thereby ruled out at the outset.

                          I will grant that Mark 9:43-47 and a small batch of texts in the New Testament may appear to teach unending torment when viewed through the lens of the soul's immortality, but I would question the very assumption driving the exegesis. No exegetical obstacle is insurmountable once we grant the notion that immortality is granted to all persons alike. However, it will do traditionalists no good to cite texts like Matthew 25:46 in order to substantiate the doctrine. The verse may be interpreted in accord with annihilationism or ECT. Naturally, when universal human immortality is assumed as an indubitable fact, one will be glad to find a convenient proof-text for everlasting torment via backward reasoning.

                          In any event, the point remains: If Jesus had quoted Judith instead of Isaiah (66:24) in Mark 9, traditionalists would have a tremendous proof-text for ECT. It just so happens he didn't reference Judith (and neither did any of the NT writers).

                          Woe to the nations that rise up against my people! The Lord Almighty will take vengeance on them in the day of judgment; fire and worms he will give to their flesh; they shall weep in pain for ever. (Judith 16:17 RSV)

                          I will simply leave it there (especially seeing as NormATive is doing a good job ignoring my responses addressing his concerns).
                          Last edited by The Remonstrant; 04-10-2014, 07:06 AM.
                          For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by whag View Post
                            That's a grotesque version of universalism. Universalism surely takes into account mental illness of that sort. Universalism should be contextually understood. It's more the belief that specific belief isn't required to be saved. It doesn't say that pederasts will dine with Jesus. You can be a Mormon or Muslim or atheist and not go to a place of everlasting punishment. That would more properly describe the belief.
                            Where does the pederast end up, if not dining with Jesus, in your version of universalism? It sounds more like you are an inclusivist (some enjoy God's favor without faith) than a universalist (everyone, without exception, ultimately enjoys God's favor). And indeed, the Reformed Christian tradition has always had room for a limited inclusivism with regard to the mentally defective. See this example from the Westminster Confession (1646):
                            Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. (WCF 10:3)

                            Not necessarily. David knew that his actions had eternal consequences. Billions know this (as in, they profess to believe it). Believing your actions don't have eternal consequences and concurrently loving your neighbor--that's impressive. There's bleakness behind the belief that eternal consequences are appropriate behavior motivators, religiously speaking. It just opens a can of worms about motivation. For instance, I'd rather think you don't cheat because it's not your style, not because someone will punish you for it later.
                            It doesn't have to be either/or. It can be both/and. History shows that people can be highly motivated by the thought of eternal rewards-- so much so that sometimes their motivations have been manipulated by unscrupulous authorities. The New Testament regularly encourages believers to think in terms of eternal consequences.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                              Where does the pederast end up, if not dining with Jesus, in your version of universalism? It sounds more like you are an inclusivist (some enjoy God's favor without faith) than a universalist (everyone, without exception, ultimately enjoys God's favor). And indeed, the Reformed Christian tradition has always had room for a limited inclusivism with regard to the mentally defective. See this example from the Westminster Confession (1646):
                              Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. (WCF 10:3)
                              I'm not a theist, so I don't believe in universalism. I suspect the universalist believes pederasts get taught some lesson then become citizens of heaven. There's probably some supernatural effort made in that regard.

                              On saved elect infants, how nice. What about the unelect ones?


                              Originally posted by RBerman
                              It doesn't have to be either/or. It can be both/and. History shows that people can be highly motivated by the thought of eternal rewards-- so much so that sometimes their motivations have been manipulated by unscrupulous authorities. The New Testament regularly encourages believers to think in terms of eternal consequences.
                              You should do works solely from your love to do them. You should avoid short changing a customer solely because that's part of your character, not because you think that act will have eternal consequences.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Norm,

                                ". . . 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." -- John 1:12, 13. It is what God does for those who trust in Him believing in His Son who died on our behalf and rose from the dead. " . . . and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." -- Romans 10:9.

                                Jesus stated, this, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, . . . ." That by trusting in Him according to God's will, you will know.

                                John states it as being as simple as believing in God's Christ, "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . ." -- 1 John 5:1. Remember it is God who does the new birth. Not our act of believing.

                                "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, . . . " -- James 1:18.

                                ". . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . " -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                                Question?




                                "
                                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X