Born-Again Non-Christians

How is it that one can be "born again" and hold such beliefs?

It is apparent that most of those claiming to be born again are not and only imagine themselves to be. Most of these so called beliefs are contrary to the scripture and in fact would prevent entry to heaven. Especially the rejection of the Holy Ghost.

Yes, exactly right. Should I have put "born-again" in quotes?

Well, I don't know if you should have. I did because it just seems that they are claiming to be born again when they really are not. What is it that makes them think they are? It would seem to me that if they really are, these beliefs would be excluded because they would know them to be false. The fact that they hold these beliefs belies their claim of being born again.

Well yes, I agree with you. I just figured that my intent was obvious, and didn't need quotes.

Man, you sound like a fundy.

I'm in good company!

I used to think I was a fundamentalist, but I don't anymore, now that I have a clearer understanding of what fundamentalists believe. I may post more on this once I can find a nice source to link to.

JOKE!

Funny!

(or at least trying to be)

I'm certainly not a fundamentalist, as Michael well knows, but I know what the scriptures say (for the most part, I'm not an expert), and there isn't any room for New Age notions like karma, reincarnation, etc.

I assumed you were joking, Dirk. I know some fundamentalist Christians and I've never heard them refer to themselves as "fundies" (plural of fundy?). ;-)

If one must be correct about every Biblical interpretation to be a Christian, Christianity would have very few members. For instance, the doctrine of predestination must be either true or false. Allowing women to be pastors must be right or wrong. However, is someone's salvation at risk in those cases?

I don't really think that has anything to do with it. The basic premise is that you accept Jesus as the Messiah and that he died for the original sin committed by Adam (which transfers to all of us as his descendants), and was resurected as the Holy Ghost. That, according to what Jesus said (recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), is what makes you a Christian. Failing this, you are not born again and will not see heaven.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way,
the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

This is my take on it. Others may disagree.

If God wants to let atheists, Jews, Mormons, Moslems, Buddhists, pagans, Neo-Pagans, and/or furries into his kingdom, I will not tell him He can't. I know better.

And "Jesus said" me no "Jesus said". I say God has the right to change His mind, and your protests aint changin' a thing.

Joel: yeah, but these are not minor theological issues. If someone believes there are many ways to get to heaven, then they aren't saved, period.

Alan:
Numbers 23:19
"God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?"

God is active and dynamic and can change what he's doing and where he's working, but his basic nature does not change. We certainly do have an imperfect knowledge of God, but he hasn't given any indication that he will forgive anyone apart from Jesus. Quite the opposite. So, while God can do anything he wants, he's revealed quite a lot to us about what he will do.

where was that "I am The Lord Thy God, and I change not?"Oh yeah...the Bible!
hmmmmm.....
and fer the record...i guess im a fundy if that means i believe the fundamentals...
virgin birth, death, resurection, the whole blood/cross/sin thing..
But i say you can dance.

Jesus and the Centurion is instructive.

Centurions kept boy slaves for sexual purposes. Jesus thougth the Centurion's relationsip to his boy slave was exceptional.

Discuss.

I believe Christ died for my sins. However, I have enough humility to say that I am not the judge of other people's souls and that I might not fully fathom the reconciling work of Christ, even as I proclaim that God's redeeming work is most fully revealed in Christ.

I believe there is a mystery to Christ's love that is not fully understood. For instance, assume that a Jewish Holocaust survivor is sustained by his or her faith through years of torture and starvation. Now on the one hand, I know that we are not saved by our works or by the type of person we are. But on the other hand, if we say that such a non-Christian person survives the horrors of concentration camps but then upon their later demise are condemned to live a life eternally apart from God, and perhaps a tormented existence in hell forever after, then I have to pause to wonder if we have collapsed the immenseness of God into an arbitrary and capricious being. It is very easy for a pampered people (that's what Americans are, bascially) to proclaim that God's truth excludes a greatly tortured and oppressed people sustained by their faith, but includes a people much less tested in their faith.

M. Simon: Don't be ridiculous.

Joel: faith in what? Any faith other than in Jesus' death and resurrection is a pointless, worthless faith. People put faith in lots of things -- big deal.

if we say that such a non-Christian person survives the horrors of concentration camps but then upon their later demise are condemned to live a life eternally apart from God, and perhaps a tormented existence in hell forever after, then I have to pause to wonder if we have collapsed the immenseness of God into an arbitrary and capricious being.

Well, that is part of the conundrum isn't it? There are many examples in the Bible that point to God being a capricious being which become the source of doubt for many people. I can't figure it out but I don't ascribe my inability to any immenseness of God, nor to the idea that God can do anything he wants--he just chooses not to.

Michael,

That's exactly the response I would have predicted you would make. The problem is, though, we are saved not through our faith but through God's grace. The adequacy of our faith response to God's grace will be determined by God, not by you or me. I believe that Christ may mediate in ways we don't fully appreciate. Maybe it is possible for someone to accept the essence of Christ without knowing they have done so.

As I have said, I don't believe that works are adequate for salvation. And yet, a narrow rendering of John 14:6 could mean that God ends up saving many of the most evil and condemning many of those the least evil.

a narrow rendering of John 14:6 could mean that God ends up saving many of the most evil and condemning many of those the least evil.

The most evil being the ones with the most to repent, Joel?

As I quoted: "Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last."

No one of us is any more evil in God's sight than any other, and no one of us is any more righteous. Without grace, we're all equally condemned, and with grace we are all equally made perfect.

And sure, God can do anything he wants, but he's given no indication throughout scripture that there's any way to salvation other than through Jesus Christ. In fact, he says pretty explicitely that that's the only way. If it wasn't the only way, Jesus wouldn't have said it was. &c.

I think that John 14:6 must be seen in the context of Revelation 1:7; 4:3; 5:13; 15:4; 21:5; and 21:22-22:3, which passages themselves must be seen in the context of Revelation 14:9-10 and 20:11-15. Thus, I believe that Revelation offers a view of both universal salvation and limited salvation that may be an intended tension.

Joel:
This passage would seem to conflict with your postition.

Luke 23:38-43

38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

If I read the passages correctly, you are suggesting that some will be rejected at the final judgement and some accepted. I believe that this refers to those that do not have the benefit of the law, i.e.:

Romans 4:8-10
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

Whereas, in Luke, Jesus accepts one evil man, because of his faith, into paradise that very day. Will he then be evicted at the final judgement?

I've looked up the verses you pointed to in Revelation, but I'm not sure how they give any evidence of universal salvation. There's reference to the impure who can never enter God's presence, &c. Plus, if you consider these events occuring after the final judgement, all that will be left are the redeemed.

Plus, some say these refer to events during the "Millennial" reign of Christ over a still-sinful earth.

Mike, how do you know we got it right?

It would seem to me that fundamentalist Christianity is the primary basis or world philosophy on which we assessed the need to invade Iraq. President Bush believes that he was annointed by God to be president. Now, any God that would annoint George Bush as president would be an evil God, in my view.

Joel: Huh? Christianity was not the fundamental basis for invading Iraq, don't be ridiculous. Christianity may have indirectly influenced some of the reasons we went in, but it certainly wasn't a direct cause. If any single ideology can be pointed to, it would be either democracy, or capitalism (both of which, yes, are influenced by Christianity).

I'd be careful of hating a president so much that you would ascribe evil actions to God.

Michael,

Note that I didn't say Bush is evil, for that I don't believe. Nor do I hate the president, for I find him to be rather charming. Now, some of his actions frighten me, but that is much different than feeling hate.

If not for fundamentalist Christianity, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Now, there is certain strain of hedonistic capitalism that blends with fundamentalism, but I don't believe either capitalism or democracy are the primary catalysts for the invasion.

I consider fundamentalist Christianity myopic, not evil.

If Christianity was the motivation for invading Iraq, why aren't we forcibly converting them or something? You're going to have to give some explanation for what you're talking about, other than just making the same assertion again.

And you did say "evil".

Michael,

I said that any God that would annoint George Bush as president would be evil. That is a far cry from saying that Bush is evil. But I don't believe that God annoints someone to be president, be it Bill Clinton or George Washington. To speak of an annointing is to say that God frees us of our responsibility for the election choices we make. If it is God's choice, then we are off the hook for any mistakes a president makes.

I believe for fundamentalist Christians as a whole, it is General Boykin's reasoning that they agree with, not Bush's. I don't see Bush as having cast the conflict as Christian versus Islam. But I think a good majority of Christian fundamentalists think exactly that, and the religious right was instrumental in giving Bush sufficient backing to go to war. No Christian right, no war.

I believe for fundamentalist Christians as a whole, it is General Boykin's reasoning that they agree with, not Bush's. I don't see Bush as having cast the conflict as Christian versus Islam. But I think a good majority of Christian fundamentalists think exactly that,

Well I was with you right up to here, Joel. I agree with it.

and the religious right was instrumental in giving Bush sufficient backing to go to war. No Christian right, no war.

I can't agree with this. The Iraq war is a no brainer. It is merely a segment of a larger stratey that requires this battle in order to win the war to save our civilization. It is a war to save civilization. In can be put in the context of "good vs. evil". Some people may recoil from that charaterization but it is just as much a fight against evil as were the fights angainst Nazism, Facism, or Stalinism. All were evil.

Joel: How is it evil for God to "annoint" a non-evil President? (Assuming he did such a thing.) I don't follow.

I think you're making way too strong a connection between Christianity and the war. I know a lot of Christians and non-Christians who were both for and against the war, and none of their arguments are "we've gotta go save the heathen!".

Although it is a nice fringe benefit that Iraq now has freedom of religion, and missionaries are free to spread the gospel there. Everyone there is now free to worship whomever they choose (or not), and I think that's great.

"Joel: yeah, but these are not minor theological issues. If someone believes there are many ways to get to heaven, then they aren't saved, period."

Says who? Not the Bible, that's for sure.

First, contrary to the implication of your post, John 14:6 merely says Jesus is "the only way" to God; it doesn't say that belief in Jesus is a necessary condition of salvation, nor even a sufficient one. Jesus as gatekeeper can let in or not let in anyone he wants, according to whatever criteria he wants, which may or may not include one's theological beliefs.

Second, even if one assumes that your believe-in-Jesus-or-else interpretation of John 14:6 is right, it still doesn't follow that a person is required to get any other aspect of Christian dogma right as a condition of salvation. If a Christian believes in Jesus's divinity, but falsely believes he could have gotten into heaven by following some other religion he did not pursue himself, where's the harm in that? It's like needing to get from L.A. to Seattle on the Interstates in a reasonable time frame, and falsely believing I-40 would work as well as I-5. That false belief only matters if one acts on it, i.e., the driver who knows I-5 is the only viable route won't get there a minute sooner than the driver who mistakenly believes I-5 and I-40 are both viable options, but just happens to pick I-5.

Acts 4:12
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name [than Jesus] under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.

1 John 2:23
No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

While I certainly admit that we humans do not and cannot know the full mind of God, the Bible is pretty clear on this issue.

The Father and Son are one. Therefore, the Jews who worship the Father are "as saved" as the Gentiles who believe in Jesus, who was sent to save those outside the Jewish religion.

I, personally, believe we get too wrapped up in Who Jesus Was, as opposed to What Jesus Represents -- and I say this meaning, What Jesus Represents is Who Jesus Was. Only, we, in our human fraility and hubris, have taken to dividing Jesus into sects, which I think is as far from his teachings as can be.

Think about his lessons. What he teaches us will show us the way. What we deign to "define" as his message, will obscure it.

Most Jews explicitly reject Christ as savior, and as such, reject his God's saving grace.

I hope that people believe that I don't revel in my position or think myself or my "religion" superior in any way to anyone elses' -- I'm just sharing what I believe to be the truth. My point is to inform, not to offend.

God's basic nature does not change?

I'd give you rainbows, a covenant with Abraham and crosses as evidence he changes his mind or at least his strategies with us little bipeds.

Certainly God's methods and actions change -- he's a living, dynamic being, not an inanimate object. But those changes are always in line with his unchanging, basic nature.

I suppose he could change (since he can do anything), but he's told us in the Bible that he won't change.

Acts 4:12 was no clearer on that point than John 14:6 was - saying X is the way does not imply that belief is the key. 1 John 2:23 comes closer, but even then it's a bit of a stretch since there's a huge difference between affirmatively denying someone and simply having had the misfortune of being born in a culture that believes in something else. I don't believe that the average non-believer today can be compared to someone who actually met Jesus face to face 2,000 years ago and told him off.

As to theory that "God" won't change because the people who pretended to speak for him said he wouldn't, I think Christianity effectively gave up that luxury as soon as it adopted the New Testament without simultaneously rejecting the Old. First, the two call for radically different standards of morality that any one God is unlikely to have supported: one reads like the Koran in calling for countless jihads, complete with Nazi-style extermination of entire villages, while the other calls on its followers to love their enemies even to the point of martyrdom. Second, the basic concepts of the Messiah in the Old vs. New Testament are radically different. According to the OT, the Messiah is coming ONCE. At first blush, the very notion of a "second" coming appears to be an afterthought designed to explain away all the unfulfilled prophecies that today's Christians generally ignore - yet which Jews are supposedly going to hell for not ignoring.

Xrlq: As for your second paragraph, Jesus was pretty clear that man's method for relating to God was changing, but the transition process and philosophy is pretty clearly laid out -- in Jesus' teachings, and in the book of Hebrews, for instance.

Further, there are indications in the OT that the messiah was not going to be anything like what the religious leaders of Jesus' time were expecting, but they failed to see them.

It could be argued similarly that we don't really understand what the end times and eternity are going to be like, even if you want to grant that the Bible is God's word. You could argue that the ancient Jews messed up, and so have we. I find that plausible, and remarkably likely. Nevertheless, we do the best with what we have.

There is a lot of religious synchretism around. I believe it comes from the idea that we must "attract" "consumers of religion" rather than making disciples.

On the issue of who goes to heaven and/or hell, I will quote a good friend of mine: "We don't know what doesn't work. We do know what does."

I don't know the fate of hindi, Jews, muslims, agnostics, etc. that are truly searching for the Truth and are so blind (or blinded) that they cannot see it. I do know that only by the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus do any of us have the chance for communion with God. Whether or not you have to say "the magic words" is subject to debate.

YBIC,
Phil

xrlq

"Acts 4:12 was no clearer on that point than John 14:6 was - saying X is the way does not imply that belief is the key."

Then try John 3:16-21. Belief is clearly set out as THE criteria.

Gonna be some big suprises out there come dyin' time.

No doubt!

Like in that South Park episode where the MC in Hell is welcoming the recent arrivals, and everyone is grumbling. "I'm a born-again Christian!" "I'm a Islamic martyr!" "I'm a Buddhist, I don't even believe in Hell!"

And the MC says: "Yes, actually, the correct answer was Morman, Morman." And everyone groans.

Michael Williams,

Don't be rediculous is not a refutation of facts.

Jesus in fact did not condemn the adultress. Why might not he find a reason to praise the pederast? Both sins were not uncommon in his day or ours.

My guess is that the Centurion showed love for his slave and didn't just treat him as an object for his gratification, but who knows?

I assume no further explanation of the relationship of the slave to the Centurion was mentioned in the Bible because in that day everyone would have known what the relationship was. Self evident.

Now I know this whole idea bursts a whole set of bubbles but no Christian that I'm aware of has ever refuted that: Centurion's kept boy slaves for sex. Jesus said the Centurion was an exceptional person. Remarkable in fact. Even Jesus seemed surprised at his own admission.

What sins was Jesus most concerned with, not abortion (which was condemned 500 years earlier by the doctors of the age), not adultry, not slavery, not gay sex. He was most concerned with hipocracy and lack of love.

Maybe there is a lesson here. Maybe we are too avid for punishment. The people of that day were. And human nature doesn't change in a flash.

"We don't know what doesn't work. We do know what does."

What works is Islam. What doesn't work is every thing else.

Actually I think it is passed time we returned to the old time religin. If it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me. Hint: Jesus was not a Christian. That whole bit was invented later by others.

The problem is that every believer is sure of what works. And what may not.

I'd like to see all of this rancor discord and misbelief resolved. The most charitable belief is that all men are going to heaven (baring a few into massive misbehavior). Now the question then is how charitable are Christians. Really?

From the evidence here - not very.

If a non-Jewish pederast is marked for heaven because of his kindness is there not hope for us all?

M. Simon: you can speculate all you want about silly and pointless things, but you can't then build broad assertions on them. Obviously some people were homosexuals, and some were murderers, adulterers, liars, &c. The Roman Centurion was possibly all of these things, and Jesus didn't condemn him for any of it. What's your point?

You don't have a point, which is why I didn't bother to answer you before. We don't know the totality of Jesus' interaction with the Centurion, it could have been a lot longer than the few lines we have recorded for us. Maybe they talked about a lot of spiritual things, who knows.

So are you arguing that Jesus loved the Centurion in spite of his sins, whatever those may have been? That's not a surprise to anyone.

My point is simple.

Jesus was way more forgiving than quite a few of his current followers.

i.e. I'd like to see way more Christianity among Christians.

Or as Ghandi was reputed to say when asked what he thought of Christian Civilization: "It's a good idea."

There are way too many Old Testament Christians (those avid to punish) around for my taste. It is my understanding that Jesus didn't have much taste for that sort of thing either. The anti-homosexual bit is just the most glaring. Not that Jesus would necesaily favor homosexual relations. He just wouldn't favor state sanctioned punishment. Unlike some current so called Christians who want the state to punish all their favorite (un-favorite?) sins. You know. The guys who brought us alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition, gambling prohibition, prostitution prohibition, and all the other wonderful black market creating prohibitions. They are currently working to create a black market in abortion rather than taking the harder road of convincing women not to have them.

You see once you have enacted prohibition the problem is "solved". And the do gooders can start feeling real good. Billy Sunday's remarks at the beginning of alcohol prohibition is ample evidence of the mind set.

Reality is not so easy.

Jesus was a realist - not a utopian.

Government is coercion. Coercion does not bring people closer to God.

The idea that the only way to God is through Jesus is proof positive that the Christian God is uncharitable. It is no wonder that it is not a universal Christian belief. Such people are more charitable than the Bible would have them be.

It is my personal belief as a non-Christian that the charitable Christians are more Christian than the Biblical Christians.

Spirit of the law or letter of the law? Which would Jesus follow?

Which is the bigger sin - lack of faith or lack of charity?

I think the Jews have a better system. You can be a good Jew without faith. You cannot be a good Jew without charity. Evidently quite a few Christians In Name Only believe this way as well.

Perhaps it is long past time that Christians took another look at the old time religion. The current version of "orthodox" Christianity seems to have many of the defects Jesus complained about in the Jews of his day. Too caught up in the letter of the law to realize it's spirit.

Which is why I brought up the Centurion. Jesus' attitude is such a contrast to the Christian "moralists" of our day.

Not currently so dangerous as the Islamic moralists but the impulse is the same.

I'm confused are Jews christians?