Ask a Protestant Christian
- Thread starter GhostWriter16
- Start date
- Status
Well, it helps that Jesus was correct in some of his moral teachings, and incorrect in other of his moral teachings. He was pretty good, so if he was unclear about some spiritual truths, he can be forgiven.
Ronojoy1917
Warlord
I apologize if this has been asked before, but the thread is kind of huge. Do Catholics go to hell?
GhostWriter16
Deity
IIRC this type of thing has been asked before, but I'm not sure if it was in this thread.
The answer is not a simple Yes/No. Salvation is about personal faith in Jesus Christ, not anything else. Its not about joining a particular sect. So in that respect, since Catholics claim the name of Jesus Christ as the source of Salvation, yes, Catholics can go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
ON THE OTHER HAND:
Not everyone who says to me "Lord Lord!" will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. There will be a lot of people in for a shock on judgment day when they think they were saved because of something they did when they never had a relationship with Jesus Christ. Many Catholics, and many others, will say "Lord, Lord!" Yet they will not see Heaven because they did not truly have a relationship with Jesus Christ.
In Catholicism, which is altogether a legalistic sect of Christianity, this is all the more likely to happen...
So in short, there are Catholics who will go to Heaven, and there are Catholics who will go to Hell...
Oh, good that this angle is brought up again, because it reminds me of something I wanted to ask.
I often hear that salvation is only achieved by "choosing Jesus" or "having faith in Jesus". Two questions:
1. Does this "only" mean that faith in Jesus is a necessary condition, i.e. I can't get salvation without it, or is it already a sufficient condition, i.e. faith in Jesus is sufficient for salvation regardless of other factors (the way I've lived my life, for example)?
2. What does "choosing Jesus" actually entail? Is genuinely believing that he is my saviour enough?
I often hear that salvation is only achieved by "choosing Jesus" or "having faith in Jesus". Two questions:
1. Does this "only" mean that faith in Jesus is a necessary condition, i.e. I can't get salvation without it, or is it already a sufficient condition, i.e. faith in Jesus is sufficient for salvation regardless of other factors (the way I've lived my life, for example)?
2. What does "choosing Jesus" actually entail? Is genuinely believing that he is my saviour enough?
GhostWriter16
Deity
You can't get Salvation without it. I have to go soon, so I'll explain WHY this is later.
You have to truly accept his Sacrifice for your sins, as the only payment that can pay for your sins, repent of them, and give your life over to Christ.
Okay, thanks so far.
So I can't get salvation without it. But you didn't answer the other part of the question: does it guarantee salvation, or are there other criteria that need to be fulfilled as well?
What does giving my life over to Christ mean?
Do you let your conscience guide you in understanding the Bible and the message of Jesus Christ?
What do you think "legalistic" means and why do you think it is wrong?
The answer to this is of course different for different Protestant conceptions, particularly of hell. A lot of Protestants would doubt the existence of hell in the traditional sense (i.e. the fiery pits of hell), or the existence of it at all, so they're not going to think that Catholics go there. And I'd say that the vast majority of Protestants that do believe in hell in that traditional sense would still not see Catholics as qualifying for it.
One question here: What exactly do you consider historical facts in the Bible? If you include all of Genesis into that category there is plenty of scientific evidence against it.
Anyway, you make some good (and some not so good, but let's not get into too much detail here) arguments, why one should treat the Bible (actually your arguments apply much more to the New Testament than to the Old Testament) as an historic document describing historic events. But that does not explain in any way, why we should treat the Bible as infallible or inerrant.
Let's take Cesar's "De Bello Gallico" as an example: When we treat it as an historic document describing historic events, we certainly do not assume that it is inerrant or that everything happened exactly as it is described in there. Given that it is was written with the political purpose to justify the Gallic wars, one would reasonably assume that events not fitting into Cesar's intended image have been altered or omitted by him. But it is equally unlikely that everything there is just invented, because to be convincing it had to be based on facts. So one would assume that it is largely right, but one would not put too much trust into the details.
If we follow your argument and use the same criteria for the Bible we would end up in a similar situation: The overall picture is pretty much correct, but the details might be altered to fit the agenda of the authors. And if you read the Gospels closely you notice, that they do have an agenda.
So your argument does not explain why we should apply the much higher standard of inerrant and infallible to the Bible. The insistence on such a high standard actually weakens the faith, because if you notice on mistake or one contradiction (and as discussed earlier in this thread there are some, as minor as they may be) it all falls apart. To keep this from happening people insisting on inerrancy have to invent a bunch of stories to explain every minor detail that range from plausible too ludicrous. And that is how we ended up with the abomination that is pseudo-scientific Creationism.
So there should be a very good reason to insist on absolute inerrancy of the Bible, and so far I haven't heard one.
The two genealogies, presented by Matthew and Luke, certainly are not the same even though there are lots of similarities. The differences would easily lead one to assume that they are for different people, or at least use a different system for tracing lineage. In fact, if one assumes that the text is infallible, one has to assume they are for different people.
EliudMatthew said:
Eleazar
Matthan
Jacob
Joseph husband of Mary
MelchiLuke said:
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph son of Heli
Matthew is strikingly clear about his genealogy being that of Joseph.Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary. Lukes version is in reverse order and begins with Jesus the son of Joseph which was the son of Heli . This too would clearly be the genealogy of Joseph. That is what the words actually say. And if someone wants to go back to the Greek and explain otherwise, please do. Now the notion of bible inerrancy does not allow both to be true. So, the phrase as was supposed has been interpreted to mean that Luke is talking about Marys family. There is no actual evidence for this, just intellectual arguments for it to be so. The fact that such an interpretation contradicts Lukes actual words seems to make no difference. Marys name is not mentioned. To make the case for Lukes list being the genealogy of Mary, the bible must be interpreted to say:
and for that to be true, Mary must be the daughter of Heli. I do not believe that there is any support for that either. So to get to the conclusion that Luke published Marys family, you have to
1. Assume Lukes text is wrong or incomplete
2. The missing text would point to Mary
3. Marys father was Heli.
None of the above are supported by the bible.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_was_the_father_of_Mary_the_mother_of_Jesus
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
The faith comes in believing God's Word. The reason I say that is Salvation is not just having faith in Jesus. One cannot have faith in a man. If Jesus was just a good moral prophet, one cannot say I have faith and then call it done. Why was Jesus here on earth? What was his purpose? Was He God? Was he without reproach? Salvation is not really faith in one thing. Salvation is accepting that Jesus is the way to God and that man cannot get there on his own merit. Salvation is neither conditional on sin nor good deeds. It is accepting that Jesus satisfied the penalty that God required to reconcile man back to God.
One's conscience is what determines right and wrong; our moral compass. Faith that God's Word is truth is not really based on morals. It would seem that if man trusted in his own interpretations error could come into play. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would guide one in understanding the Bible. Legalistic IMO is adding rules, laws, conditions, morals, ideology, or anything else to get to God outside of Jesus. Independents have been accused of legalism, because works are ground into living out salvation. Some people confuse this legalism with salvation. Some people are turned off, because they think this legalism is the benchmark for salvation.
@Birdjaguar If you can prove in the Greek that either of these passages claim Joseph as the subject of the geneology instead of Jesus, I will concede your point.
I see, and where does this conscience come from? How can the conscience of Pashtuns tell them that women are impure and you should not have sex with, but men are good to have sex with?
Actually legalism is dependence on moral law (God's Law) rather than on personal religious faith, so instead of doing what we think is correct we do what God says is correct and morally good
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,514
Actualy, Judaism has a hell. I believe it is called Ghenna and was adopted by Judaism after their exile to Babylon where they learned of the realm of Ahriman in Zoroastrianism. I'm not sure of its official status in Judaism, but it is there.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,514
As I said, I'm not sure of its official status but it was quite popular with apocalyptic writings in the first century.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Jesus was God, and He knew of Abraham's Bosom. IMO Abraham was the first recorded man after the Flood to have faith in God and God recognized him as a righteous man. It was at his death that a place was prepared for the souls who would follow after as righteous ones.
Now the Jews did believe in sheol, and as far back as Moses who prophecied that the ground would open up and those who opposed God would immediatly go to sheol (the pit) instead of dying naturally. Now even the myths talk about hades or sheol as being in the "depths" of the earth where humans dare try to reach and pass through. If you can look at a soul as being the everlasting "image" of the fleshly body, and being inside a sphere that is constantly turning and is a lot warmer than the surface, it is not too much of a stretch to see a botomless place that would be of a hotter material even "brimstone". Even science agrees that that is what lays under the mantle of earth's crust.
Since a soul is not bound by atoms, it is possible that whatever it is, there can be millions of these being tossed and turned as the earth rotates. People who choose to think that Moses never lived and sheol never opened up, but that the Jews just took it from Greek mythology will have to try and convince those pre-babylonian Jews they did not have the ten commanments and their temple never existed.
Sorry Adjica, you may want to go back farther. BTW look at your Zorastar again, and compare him to the Bible Noah. The direct decendants would have been of his ilk. Some even moved to Shinar and built Babel, and even Babylon itself. Now this "close nit" family did have some things in common. They evidently started to image their own gods and forgot Noah ever lived.
God had to "call out" Abram to show them the falseness of their ways, since He promised not to flood them out again like ants. Besides scientifically it was impossible, since all the water that allowed man and reptiles to live 900 years had been used up in the flood and now the mountains were a little too high to rearange the techtonic plates properly and since the continents were already drifting apart. That would have meant to much chaos and the void would have to start all over again... God could have done anything at that point, but then there would have not been enough evidence for modern humanist to choose not to believe there is a God. Remember we have free will that even Zorastor was elleged to ponder.
I would say the conscience is the last piece of the "image of God" that one is born with. The conscience can be "seared" if we go against it to the point one can believe a lie as the truth. Some have referred it to a gut instinct on one hand up to a hardened heart. Why do some people feel remorse and others do not? Some people "know" when they have hurt someone else, and other people seem to keep on hurting people without a single feeling that it is wrong.
Living by one's conscience is prone to error. Living by legalism is prone to good works. Neither have anything to do with Salvation, but how we manifest God in us. If a person lives by legalism without God in them, they are deceiving themself.
MikeL49NYVI
Warlord
Hi uppi, thanks for the good responses I have a few things to answer, so I'll start with yours:
I'm having trouble splitting up the portions of these letters and answering each one, so bear with me please.
As far as interpetation, and understanding of the Bible goes, I take it as literal and true, unless that makes no sense, and then I look at it figuratively. A complete understanding of each and every part is not necessary for salvation, or being spiritually reconciled with God.
For your 2nd paragraph: Actually I do think that the historical confirmations is a part of the reason why the Bible is infallible. Not all of the reasons, but part of it. It is a place to start. What i mean is that since we know it is good history, it follows that it contains truth. And my entire point on this is based upon the idea that what we now have is essentially what was written. The idea of additions, subtractions, and editing is out the window. That is where I am coming from here, and meant with all those references.
Now, the Bible makes the claims for itself that it is indeed the written Word of God, given to us as a guide. And also a record of how God has dealt with man over the years. Also most importantly how God has set up the plan of salvation that is embodied by Jesus, His Son. I maintain that since we have essentially what was written 2000 years ago, then the claims the Bible makes for itself, are to be taken seriously because that is how they were intended for us to take them. For the historical part: The Bible says it is infallible, so if the historical parts can be disproven, then it cannot be infallible, and so is not the Word of God, and we do not have to take it as the truth. Then there is no basis for Christianity. It either is or it is not. This is what sets the Bible (and Jesus for that matter) apart from all the other books ever written. None of them claim to be God's Word. So you cannot really compare them. The Bible, by its assertions, demands that it be taken as it is.
There have been lots of arguments in this and other threads concerning what constitutes valid contradictions, and what does not. I guess each person has to decied what they will choose to acccept and what they will not accept. But then again, that is part of the real nature of Christianity. It is, at its heart, a personal relationship between each individual and God.
The Gospels did have an agenda, no one was ever hiding it. The entire purpose of the Bible is an agenda. It is there so man can be reconciled back with God, and how to get there. You can say that everything has an agenda. I do not see why that is so bad. And you are mostly correct. Each of the Gospels was written with a certain slant. They did not change facts, but emphasised what they wanted to get across.
Matthew wrote especially to the Jews, explaining why Jesus was the Messiah they had been waitinig for.
Mark didn't write so much of a history, he was compiling the teachings and messages of Peter. He was not trying to rewrite Matthew, he was preserving what the leader of the church was saying.
Luke was a doctor, and he was also a Greek. He wrote to the Gentiles, more than the Jews. So you have more of the stories, and less of the prophecies in his Gospel.
John wrote last of all, and what we was doing was showing Jesus as God. His Gospel is a bit different, and rounds out the others.
No contradictions, nothing to destroy the message of the Bible. In fact, if anything this shows that God had his Hand upon the writers, and inspired them to write in such a way as to give a complete picture that everyone could relate to, in some fashion.
Another thing that many critics like to ignore: Suppose for a moment that God did indeed send His Son, to earth, to die for us.
After going to all that trouble, setting this event up for thousands of years, isn't it reasonable and logical to assume that He would not leave the writings and message that was to be left for mankind up to chance, or the whim of some scribe? Is it not beliveable that a God who cares so much for us to take the necessary steps to make sure we got the absolute truth left for us?
I see no problem with any of this. Yes it is a simple solution. But then again, if God loves us so much why would He make it so confusing and uncertain as to what He wants us to do?
I maintain the the higher standard actually strengthens the faith. It becomes something that the believer can totally depend upon.
Think what you have in your own life that you can completly depend upon, without any failings. That trustworthiness gives you security, it provides peace of mind, it gives you a base to go forward. And are not these things exactly what you would like to provide for your family, friends, and especially your children? This is exactly what God has left us, like I said Christianity is a personal relationship between each person and God. This is why God calls us His children, and Himself our Father.
No, the Bible is indeed a very special book, given to us for some very special purposes, out of love and care for us. And so we are to take it as infallible, and as truth, because that is what is is meant to be. There is no other book like it anywhere. And with all this in mind there is no way in all of creation that God would have left such an important document open for any one to mess with.
In Revelation, are these verses: "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to them the plagues which are written ion this book;and if anyone takes away from the prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and from the holy city, which are written in this book" Rev 22:18-19
This is but one example of how seriously the Bible was treated, and illustrates how much care was taken with it.
Incidently, I do not hold that evolution is either proven, or an exact science. It is at best a theory, and speculation. It has never been conclusively proven. I find it somewhat amusing that some people expect a total accounting for evey little tiny part of the Bible and Christianity. They demand absolute proof. Yet they do not apply the same standards to evolution. There are many, many holes in the evolutionary theory, and yet it is still blindly accepted as the gospel (pun intended)
I think it is much more reasonable to believe there is a Creator who made all of this, than to say it just happened, or was caused to just happen. I said in another thread, that this is like taking all the parts of a pocket watch, throwing them into the air and having them come down as a functioning watch. How likely is that, no matter how many times you throw it up there?
- Status
