Why the Bible is true... (Revised June 2015)

[Danieltwotwenty]

Why not teach kids how to think?

My Dad was a scientist at the DSTO in Port Melbourne, he definitely taught me how to think critically but he also showed me that there is something much deeper than the mere physical.

Dont you suppose that most all conscientiously good religious parents have taught
their trusting children about their faith, planted it deep, early and strong, never to be lost?

Yep and that is a good thing, without faith we are all lost.

What percent, in the history of the world, do you suppose got lucky and were indoctrinated into the one true religion?
Assuming the number is greater than zero.

Depends on what you believe by one "true religion", I personally believe there will be people of all faiths in the new creation, even the Bible says there will be people there who we didn't think would be there and people not there who we thought there would be. To me religion in it's purest sense is the "true religion", everything else is a man made construction to control the people, Jesus freed us all from that, but yet again man built his churches and institutions.

[Kurieuo]

I prefer to look at all religion as man's attempt to get to God.
You must do this or that to wash yourself from evil, must do this or that or God will be angry.

In Christ God is reaching down to us.
This is not something you see in Hinduism, Islam, semi-Judaism (but still very legal based, and where is Messiah promised in their Tanakh?)
And this is not something you find in "a church", the RCC or something else organised by men and women.

In Christ God is reaching down to us and we can even experience such.
And historically, Christ looks legit. The Gospels more real -- make of them what you will but they name real places, times, locations and names. Rather than just "spiritual teachings" they have an aura of authenticity. So if you get to God, at least I think it is pretty easy to get to Christianity if you decide to not remain Deistic or the like.

[Philip]

Daniel: I personally believe there will be people of all faiths in the new creation, even the Bible says there will be people there who we didn't think would be there and people not there who we thought there would be.

Dan, this is not a Scriptural belief! Period! While we may be surprised at some who might be saved, we won't see anyone saved who doesn't have a faith in Jesus and the One true God. Meaning, you won't see people there confessing Alah, Krishna, or any amongst the pantheon of false gods, or any that believe in a Jesus not found in Scripture (that He's not God, wasn't resurrected, etc). Unless I am somehow misunderstanding you, yours is a belief in universalism. And if that is the case, we might as well stop sending out missionaries, as the Great Commission is a huge, dangerous and immensely expensive waste of time.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Dan, this is not a Scriptural belief! Period!

You really mean that it doesn't fit your interpretation.

While we may be surprised at some who might be saved, we won't see anyone saved who doesn't have a faith in Jesus and the One true God.

Agreed, I never said you couldn't have faith in Christ, to have faith in Christ is to trust in him and his saving power and to trust Christ you must know him and to know Christ you will do the will of the Father. People of other faiths have trust in Christ, they may not know his name or whatever but I don't think that is a requirement for salvation, it is a heart attitude rather than an intellectual understanding.

Meaning, you won't see people there confessing Alah, Krishna, or any amongst the pantheon of false gods, or any that believe in a Jesus not found in Scripture (that He's not God, wasn't resurrected, etc).

Allah just means God in another language, even Arab Christians use Allah.

Unless I am somehow misunderstanding you, yours is a belief in universalism. And if that is the case, we might as well stop sending out missionaries, as the Great Commission is a huge, dangerous and immensely expensive waste of time.

You have no idea what univelsalists believe do you, talk about a strawman.

[Kurieuo]

Daniel: I personally believe there will be people of all faiths in the new creation, even the Bible says there will be people there who we didn't think would be there and people not there who we thought there would be.

Dan, this is not a Scriptural belief! Period! While we may be surprised at some who might be saved, we won't see anyone saved who doesn't have a faith in Jesus and the One true God. Meaning, you won't see people there confessing Alah, Krishna, or any amongst the pantheon of false gods, or any that believe in a Jesus not found in Scripture (that He's not God, wasn't resurrected, etc). Unless I am somehow misunderstanding you, yours is a belief in universalism. And if that is the case, we might as well stop sending out missionaries, as the Great Commission is a huge, dangerous and immensely expensive waste of time.

Unless I'm mistaken Dan has nuances to it in that there are "exceptions" with those who may not have heard Christ, how they respond to God's general revelation.

Still, this is not something I'd go freely sharing with a non-Christian and causing all sorts of confusion.
Do you really want Audie to go away thinking she can be Hindu or Muslim and be saved?
That there are many ways to God?

As I said when we discussed it Dan,
this is something for Christians to discuss on a theological level (i.e., kids, those pre-Christ, what responding to Natural Revelation means, etc)
-- but when we did got to talking with a non-Christian who is well aware of Christ, all these exceptions are moot for them.

For Audie and others who have heard about Christ, it clearly becomes a matter of how they will respond to Christ.
Unless like Phil says you are advocating a form of universal salvation.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Daniel: I personally believe there will be people of all faiths in the new creation, even the Bible says there will be people there who we didn't think would be there and people not there who we thought there would be.

Dan, this is not a Scriptural belief! Period! While we may be surprised at some who might be saved, we won't see anyone saved who doesn't have a faith in Jesus and the One true God. Meaning, you won't see people there confessing Alah, Krishna, or any amongst the pantheon of false gods, or any that believe in a Jesus not found in Scripture (that He's not God, wasn't resurrected, etc). Unless I am somehow misunderstanding you, yours is a belief in universalism. And if that is the case, we might as well stop sending out missionaries, as the Great Commission is a huge, dangerous and immensely expensive waste of time.

Unless I'm mistaken Dan has nuances to it in that there are "exceptions" with those who may not have heard Christ, how they respond to God's general revelation.

Still, this is not something I'd go freely sharing with a non-Christian and causing all sorts of confusion.
Do you really want Audie to go away thinking she can be Hindu or Muslim and be saved?
That there are many ways to God?

As I said when we discussed it Dan,
this is something for Christians to discuss on a theological level (i.e., kids, those pre-Christ, what responding to Natural Revelation means, etc)
-- but when we did got to talking with a non-Christian who is well aware of Christ, all these exceptions are moot for them.

For Audie and others who have heard about Christ, it clearly becomes a matter of how they will respond to Christ.
Unless like Phil says you are advocating a form of universal salvation.

I believe in honestly, I never said saving faith was not through Christ and I was waiting for a response from Audie before explaining further how I think the Bible explains it.

Why should I lie about what I believe.

Leading someone to Christ based on a lie, will always be wrong.

I thought about what we talked about and changed my mind, I have to go with honesty, sorry.

[Philip]

People of other faiths have trust in Christ, they may not know his name or whatever but I don't think that is a requirement for salvation, it is a heart attitude rather than an intellectual understanding.

Daniel wrote: Allah just means God in another language, even Arab Christians use Allah.

If you are saying that those believing that the Allah of the Qur'an is the very same God as Yahweh/Jesus, then you are asserting some unScriptural and very dangerous opinions!

You have no idea what univelsalists believe do you, talk about a strawman.

Universalism is the belief that all will somehow be saved, no matter their beliefs. If you believe that those having faith in gods other than the God of the Bible (in Jesus) or that anyone rejecting the God of the Bible/Jesus will nonetheless be saved, then you have wandered into the waters that include universalism - while you may have nuances in what you believe, you are trending in the direction of universalism. If that is what you believe, you are denying Scripture. Period!!! And it matters not a whit what you "honestly" believe, not if you are in direct contradiction of Scripture.

[Jac3510]

Meaning, you won't see people there confessing Alah, Krishna, or any amongst the pantheon of false gods, or any that believe in a Jesus not found in Scripture (that He's not God, wasn't resurrected, etc).

Allah just means God in another language, even Arab Christians use Allah.

As I've said before:

• I do want to share my own concerns as to the equation of the Allah with the God of classical theism (in any sense of the word). . . . One of the problems with descriptivist theories is called the modal problem or the problem of rigidity. On such a view, names point by description to a particular, and thus any individual that matches that unique description is so named. So I name Aristotle as "the greatest Greek philosopher," and I also name him, "one who liked dogs." But now let's imagine a world the same in ours in every way except for this: Aristotle died in infancy. Suppose also that Plato did, in fact, like dogs. This would mean that the name "Aristotle" referred, in fact, to Plato, because Plato is now "the greatest Greek philosopher" and was also "one who liked dogs." But it seems obvious that "Aristotle" can't really refer to Plato, or anyone else for that matter! The conclusion is that names are not flexible; that is, they do not change their referents based on which one satisfies the description. Names refer to concrete particulars, and they do so rigidly.
  
  I hope you can see where I'm going with this. Let's take these two sentences:
  
  Allah is God
  Yahweh is God
  
  I don't think any Christian would deny that the former is false, but that's largely because we aren't intuitively inclined to use a descriptivist theory of names here. But the problem I'm seeing is that you also have sentences like this:
  
  Muslims worship the Creator
  Christians worship the Creator
  
  Here, people seem to be using a descriptivist theory of names, and the problem of rigidity becomes rather serious. So the logic of some would look something like this:
  
  1. God is the Creator
  2. Muslims worship the Creator
  3. Therefore (in some sense) Muslims worship God
  
  And then you take the logic from above and you get
  
  4. Yahweh is God
  5. Therefore (in some sense) Muslims worship Yahweh
  
  And this is where some Christians get worried! The problem is back at (2). I would say that Muslims do not worship the Creator. They certainly think they do. But they do not. They worship Allah, and they wrongly think that Allah is the Creator. The phrase "the Creator" does not refer descriptively to God. It is actually saying something about God. That is, it actually means (on my view), "(Yahweh, who is) Creator."
  
  In short, I would say that Muslims (and Jews) know that there is a Creator. I might even stipulate that a good many of them want to worship Him. But in fact they do not. Again, Muslims do not worship "(Yahweh, who is) the Creator"; they worship "(Allah, who is) the Creator." But the second entity does not exist. As such, they are both rejecting the worship of the One True God as well as setting up the worship of an idol, a false god of their own invention.

[Audie]

See why I dont want to have any involvement in your church?

[Audie]

Why not teach kids how to think?

My Dad was a scientist at the DSTO in Port Melbourne, he definitely taught me how to think critically but he also showed me that there is something much deeper than the mere physical.

Dont you suppose that most all conscientiously good religious parents have taught
their trusting children about their faith, planted it deep, early and strong, never to be lost?

Yep and that is a good thing, without faith we are all lost.

What percent, in the history of the world, do you suppose got lucky and were indoctrinated into the one true religion?
Assuming the number is greater than zero.

Depends on what you believe by one "true religion", I personally believe there will be people of all faiths in the new creation, even the Bible says there will be people there who we didn't think would be there and people not there who we thought there would be. To me religion in it's purest sense is the "true religion", everything else is a man made construction to control the people, Jesus freed us all from that, but yet again man built his churches and institutions.

Thanks, I dont know what else to say besides that. The scientist father doesnt surprise me you seem more analytical
and disinclined to the rigid "either / or" way of thinking of so many unschooled in rigorous thinking.

Oh..I wonder what you mean by the word faith.

[Philip]

Audie: ... and disinclined to the rigid "either / or" way of thinking of so many unschooled in rigorous thinking

Audie, if there is but one God - and that's what the Bible redundantly states - and if that is true, then it truly doesn't matter what one believes to the contrary, as it will not change the truth of the matter, as there is either One God, OR there is more than one god, OR there are none. But amongst those choices, somewhere, therein, is the truth of the matter. So, for arguments sake, let's say there is only one God who has communicated to mankind that He is the ONLY God and made clear that there are no others, and that His collective Word is the Bible. So is it "rigid" thinking to believe what He says? Or is it ACCURATE thinking, if that is true? And is it not rigid thinking to believe no one can know the truth of this and that the existence of any or a pantheon of gods may well exist (or not), if indeed there is but only One God? What you accuse Christians of, in their "rigid" thinking, you yourself have in categorically (yes, rigidly) rejecting any beliefs that you may well be wrong about this issue (and I say you are). In your supposed open-mindedness, you have rigidly closed off another possibility, that the God of the Bible is the only God. And this is far different from being truly open-minded. As such an open mind would realize that the existence of but One God is one of the possibilities to consider. In fact, you have previously stated that this is an unknowable thing. So you appear to contradict yourself - is this unknowable, or a rigid certainty that you can "prove" - which you've already asserted cannot be done.

[Kurieuo]

Why not teach kids how to think?

My Dad was a scientist at the DSTO in Port Melbourne, he definitely taught me how to think critically but he also showed me that there is something much deeper than the mere physical.

Dont you suppose that most all conscientiously good religious parents have taught
their trusting children about their faith, planted it deep, early and strong, never to be lost?

Yep and that is a good thing, without faith we are all lost.

What percent, in the history of the world, do you suppose got lucky and were indoctrinated into the one true religion?
Assuming the number is greater than zero.

Depends on what you believe by one "true religion", I personally believe there will be people of all faiths in the new creation, even the Bible says there will be people there who we didn't think would be there and people not there who we thought there would be. To me religion in it's purest sense is the "true religion", everything else is a man made construction to control the people, Jesus freed us all from that, but yet again man built his churches and institutions.

Thanks, I dont know what else to say besides that. The scientist father doesnt surprise me you seem more analytical
and disinclined to the rigid "either / or" way of thinking of so many unschooled in rigorous thinking.

Oh..I wonder what you mean by the word faith.

Sorry that we aren't all inconsistently post-modern with our beliefs.

I'd much rather be follow what Christ Himself said, and be wrong, then preach a more universal salvation in kindness based upon ... and be wrong.

Rigorous thinking has nothing to do with it.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Thanks, I dont know what else to say besides that. The scientist father doesnt surprise me you seem more analytical
and disinclined to the rigid "either / or" way of thinking of so many unschooled in rigorous thinking.

We are all fallible, I am no better than anyone else, but thanks for the compliment anyway.

Oh..I wonder what you mean by the word faith.

The way I describe faith is, I know the air exists, I cannot see the air but I can see it's effect when it blows the leaves in the trees, so I know it is real, so I have faith in it. My instincts tell me God exists, it is an innate knowledge inside me, placed by God himself, I cannot see God but I can see his effect in the world, the greatest effect by far was Jesus of Nazareth and you cannot deny the effect that this person has on people, he changes lives, hearts and minds and I find it undeniable to have faith in him and trust in his words and his way. When I look at Jesus of Nazareth, I see God and I would find it very hard to believe that a person who is honestly seeking God does not see that. When it comes to people of other faiths, if they reject Jesus and his way, then they were never saved, they had a wrong heart attitude and not a heart for God (Jesus), if they are shown the good news and accept it, they were always saved as they had a heart for God. So when I say that God will draw all people to him that desire him, he will most certainly do that, I just don't create any rules or regulations around that, it is totally in God's hands and is open to everyone who so desires.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Why not teach kids how to think?

My Dad was a scientist at the DSTO in Port Melbourne, he definitely taught me how to think critically but he also showed me that there is something much deeper than the mere physical.

Dont you suppose that most all conscientiously good religious parents have taught
their trusting children about their faith, planted it deep, early and strong, never to be lost?

Yep and that is a good thing, without faith we are all lost.

What percent, in the history of the world, do you suppose got lucky and were indoctrinated into the one true religion?
Assuming the number is greater than zero.

Depends on what you believe by one "true religion", I personally believe there will be people of all faiths in the new creation, even the Bible says there will be people there who we didn't think would be there and people not there who we thought there would be. To me religion in it's purest sense is the "true religion", everything else is a man made construction to control the people, Jesus freed us all from that, but yet again man built his churches and institutions.

Thanks, I dont know what else to say besides that. The scientist father doesnt surprise me you seem more analytical
and disinclined to the rigid "either / or" way of thinking of so many unschooled in rigorous thinking.

Oh..I wonder what you mean by the word faith.

Sorry that we aren't all inconsistently post-modern with our beliefs.

I'd much rather be follow what Christ Himself said, and be wrong, then preach a more universal salvation in kindness based upon ... and be wrong.

Rigorous thinking has nothing to do with it.

No one here is preaching universal salvation.

[Kurieuo]

Daniel: I personally believe there will be people of all faiths in the new creation, even the Bible says there will be people there who we didn't think would be there and people not there who we thought there would be.

Dan, this is not a Scriptural belief! Period! While we may be surprised at some who might be saved, we won't see anyone saved who doesn't have a faith in Jesus and the One true God. Meaning, you won't see people there confessing Alah, Krishna, or any amongst the pantheon of false gods, or any that believe in a Jesus not found in Scripture (that He's not God, wasn't resurrected, etc). Unless I am somehow misunderstanding you, yours is a belief in universalism. And if that is the case, we might as well stop sending out missionaries, as the Great Commission is a huge, dangerous and immensely expensive waste of time.

Unless I'm mistaken Dan has nuances to it in that there are "exceptions" with those who may not have heard Christ, how they respond to God's general revelation.

Still, this is not something I'd go freely sharing with a non-Christian and causing all sorts of confusion.
Do you really want Audie to go away thinking she can be Hindu or Muslim and be saved?
That there are many ways to God?

As I said when we discussed it Dan,
this is something for Christians to discuss on a theological level (i.e., kids, those pre-Christ, what responding to Natural Revelation means, etc)
-- but when we did got to talking with a non-Christian who is well aware of Christ, all these exceptions are moot for them.

For Audie and others who have heard about Christ, it clearly becomes a matter of how they will respond to Christ.
Unless like Phil says you are advocating a form of universal salvation.

I believe in honestly, I never said saving faith was not through Christ and I was waiting for a response from Audie before explaining further how I think the Bible explains it.

Why should I lie about what I believe.

Leading someone to Christ based on a lie, will always be wrong.

I thought about what we talked about and changed my mind, I have to go with honesty, sorry.

There's a few "red herrings" there:

Don't lie about what you believe.
You're not leading someone to Christ in claiming other religions lead you to Christ.
Be honest with yourself by all means, but such is dishonest with Christ's teachings.
This issue is not a matter of honesty. I'm not really sure what you're preaching here.

Unless you believe everyone will be saved, even the most vile (Universalism), then it seems to me your theology is built upon works of some sort.
This is nowhere to be found in Scripture. Please point me to where being largely good in life or one's religion, or sincere in beliefs, counts for "faith in Christ"?
I don't know how you can logically says a Muslim who doesn't accept Christ, in fact actually accepts Christ.
And we're not just talking here a lack of knowledge, or a response to natural revelation. BUT, something far greater.

These are illogical contortions at best that try to smoothen to a post-modern inclination to reject exclusivity because such is "mean spirited".
But then, it was "mean" that all the people who died of ebola never got a vaccine.

If you're crossing the road and a car is speeding and approaching you rapidly,
no amount of closing your eyes and wishful thinking that the car isn't going to hit you because such would be "not nice" is going to change the fact that...
unless you act and move quickly to get out of the way then you're going to be hit.

Sadly, that's just life.