What kind or Christian is W?

[bigzak25]

well then my mistake...i'll read of and make my own conclusions... crucify me why don'tcha.

[Crookshanks]

so you beleive all gays and adulterers should be killed??

No I don't. Those laws were old testament laws governing the Jews. When Jesus came he said, "I have not come to condemn the law, but to fulfill the law." In other words, we now live under grace - there was no more need for animal sacrifices.

Over time, societies change and laws evolve. For instance, back in the old west, they hanged horse thieves - but that isn't the law anymore.

God gave those laws to the children of Israel for specific reasons. He wanted them to be a holy people and be set apart from the heathens around them. Over time, society has decided that adultery is not punishable by death and that sexuality is okay. It doesn't mean that God doesn't still see it as sin - it's just not punishable by death anymore.

[Extra Stout]

If this is true, how come there are so many Protestant denominations? Some believe in predestination, some don't. Some believe its wrong to drink, some don't. Some believe you are saved by Faith alone, some believe you need to through works into the equation.

Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians about such disputable matters of faith.

And the question of faith vs. works is Christological, not practical. There is no Protestant who could claim that somebody who claims faith with their lips, but never manifests it through works truly has faith.

Catholic theology say that works are a necessary contribution to salvation; Protestant theology says they are necessary evidence of salvation.

Comprende?

[Extra Stout]

so you beleive all gays and adulterers should be killed??

Old Testament Law can be broken down into civil, ceremonial, and moral sections.

The civil law was binding upon ancient Israel. The ceremonial law governed the old order of sacrificial temple worship.

The old kingdom and the old sacrificial order pointed to Christ. Upon his coming, they were fulfilled and the legal requirements were abrogated, as a new covenant had come as prophesied in the Old Testament.

The moral law remains. So while it would be against the moral tenets of Christianity to practice sexuality or adultery, the civil penalties as laid out in the Old Testament would not be executed, because the New Testament church is not meant to be a civil authority, but rather only a moral authority.

[Crookshanks]

Excellent explanations!!

[Phenomanul]

so you beleive all gays and adulterers should be killed??

r u serious????

for one, being responsible for the killing of tens of thousands of Iraqis + americans soldiers.

People die in the name of freedom... tis a sad fact of human complexity.

People die in the name of self-gratification (i.e. drunk driving, over dosage etc...) tis an even sadder fact of human complexity.

Even more people die in the name of power and greed... Consider this: many people have died in this war... but even larger numbers of people died while Saddam was in power.

Deaths attributed to Stalin alone - over 40 million

[Extra Stout]

How exactly could one be the President of the United States while maintaining a strictly pacifist interpretation of Christianity?

The President is going to face life-or-death decisions whether he wants to or not.

[Phenomanul]

How exactly could one be the President of the United States while maintaining a strictly pacifist interpretation of Christianity?

The President is going to face life-or-death decisions whether he wants to or not.

Well said... to that I would add the old adage concept, "no matter what GWB does he will never please everyone."

[Phenomanul]

Old Testament Law can be broken down into civil, ceremonial, and moral sections.

The civil law was binding upon ancient Israel. The ceremonial law governed the old order of sacrificial temple worship.

The old kingdom and the old sacrificial order pointed to Christ. Upon his coming, they were fulfilled and the legal requirements were abrogated, as a new covenant had come as prophesied in the Old Testament.

The moral law remains. So while it would be against the moral tenets of Christianity to practice sexuality or adultery, the civil penalties as laid out in the Old Testament would not be executed, because the New Testament church is not meant to be a civil authority, but rather only a moral authority.

And to add to this:

Under the Old Covenant people were redeemed of their sin by an annual sacrificial ritual.

Under the New Covenant we are redeemed by the ultimate sacrifice: Christ himself.

"The shedding of blood is necessary for the atonement of sin" Christ's blood was the payment.

God is now our 'personal' judge and 'counselor'. This is the case under the New Covenant because the Spirit of God no longer dwells in the Temple's "Holy of Holies" but within each true believer. We have personal access to God's guidance and wisdom. We just have to learn to seek it.

[exstatic]

...because the New Testament church is not meant to be a civil authority, but rather only a moral authority.

So, why don't these people stay the out of politics, and stop trying to implement the bible as civil law?

[Extra Stout]

So, why don't these people stay the out of politics, and stop trying to implement the bible as civil law?

That moral authority can extend into politics. Obviously, theocrats think it extends much further than I think it does.

I'm speaking of civil authority in terms of ecclesiocracy, where the church would be the actual government en y, as opposed to theocracy, where the code of law is based upon the tenets of a faith, but the state is not coincidental with the church.

I really, really, really don't think the latter is desirable, but neither do I think that Scripture proscribes it, whereas it does proscribe ecclesiocracy.

[smeagol]

And the question of faith vs. works is Christological, not practical. There is no Protestant who could claim that somebody who claims faith with their lips, but never manifests it through works truly has faith.

My understanding is that Fundamentalists believe they are saved from the moment they "accept Christ as their personal Lord and Savior". Works plays no role in Salvation for them. And their whole theology is based on this fact.

But I may be wrong.

[Uncle Donnie]

My understanding is that Fundamentalists believe they are saved from the moment they "accept Christ as their personal Lord and Savior". Works plays no role in Salvation for them. And their whole theology is based on this fact.

But I may be wrong.

True. I think the point though is that while works cannot contribute towards salvation, accepting Jesus as Lord will cause good works.

All Christians are sinners, even the ones that don't think they are. Salvation comes only through the grace of God through belief in Jesus Christ. This is a central part of the Gospel. The idea that works play any part in salvation obviously conflicts with that. I never thought that was only a fundamentalist or born-again philosophy but a general tenet of the Christian faith. From what I have read in this thread though, the Catholic faith does not exactly agree with this, so just like you I may be wrong.

[smeagol]

True. I think the point though is that while works cannot contribute towards salvation, accepting Jesus as Lord will cause good works.

All Christians are sinners, even the ones that don't think they are. Salvation comes only through the grace of God through belief in Jesus Christ. This is a central part of the Gospel. The idea that works play any part in salvation obviously conflicts with that. I never thought that was only a fundamentalist or born-again philosophy but a general tenet of the Christian faith. From what I have read in this thread though, the Catholic faith does not exactly agree with this, so just like you I may be wrong.

Thanks for confirming then that Protestants in general (I guess with few exceptions) believe that thy are saved the minute they start believing in Jesus Christ, no matter what kind of life they lead after that moment (works).

In other words, Protestants, when they become Christians (believers in Christ), they firmly believe they are assured Salvation. No matter what happens later. No matter what exemplary or evil lifes they live, just as Moslems believe they will go to heaven if they die participating in a jihad, Protestants believe they will go to Heaven by the simple act of believing in Christ as their savior.

The Catholic view is that you need to work for your Salvation. Faith is obviously a necessary condition but is it is not a sufficient one. IMO, the catholic view is supported by a number of verses in the Bible.

[jochhejaam]

Thanks for confirming then that Protestants in general (I guess with few exceptions) believe that thy are saved the minute they start believing in Jesus Christ, no matter what kind of life they lead after that moment (works).

In other words, Protestants, when they become Christians (believers in Christ), they firmly believe they are assured Salvation. No matter what happens later. No matter what exemplary or evil lifes they live, just as Moslems believe they will go to heaven if they die participating in a jihad, Protestants believe they will go to Heaven by the simple act of believing in Christ as their savior.

The Catholic view is that you need to work for your Salvation. Faith is obviously a necessary condition but is it is not a sufficient one. IMO, the catholic view is supported by a number of verses in the Bible.

Smeagol, I believe the Baptists believe "once saved, always saved" but the Pentecosts (me) don't believe the same.

I'll cite the scriptures (a parable) that I believe explain this.

Matt. 13:-3 Then he told them many things in parables, saying: "A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 He who has ears, let him hear."

And Christ's explanation of this parable as follows:

Matt: 3-18"Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19 When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20 The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21 But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. 22 The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. 23 But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown."

Not much different than the criminal who is rehabilitated and then perhaps drifts back off into a life of crime.

[smeagol]

Thanks for explaining to me the difference between Baptists (I guess Evangelicals and Funadamentalists are in this same boat) and Pentecosts.

[Phenomanul]

Thanks for confirming then that Protestants in general (I guess with few exceptions) believe that thy are saved the minute they start believing in Jesus Christ, no matter what kind of life they lead after that moment (works).

In other words, Protestants, when they become Christians (believers in Christ), they firmly believe they are assured Salvation. No matter what happens later. No matter what exemplary or evil lifes they live, just as Moslems believe they will go to heaven if they die participating in a jihad, Protestants believe they will go to Heaven by the simple act of believing in Christ as their savior.

The Catholic view is that you need to work for your Salvation. Faith is obviously a necessary condition but is it is not a sufficient one. IMO, the catholic view is supported by a number of verses in the Bible.

IMO You are saved when you believe... "For by faith are we saved through grace... and not of ourselves... it is the Gift of GOD -- Eph 2:8" Christ's sacrifice IS sufficient... to say it needs supplementation would mean to belittle the significance and 'worth' of his sacrifice.

Oviously no one can fool GOD... I believe that is where the "loop hole" is closed...

I can claim to be a be a believer all I want... but if my life does not show the "fruit of the Spirit" (i.e. characteristics of kindness, forgiveness, benevolence, patience, love, honesty, restraint of anger, etc...) then I'm not walking the path GOD intended for my life.

Again, no one is perfect. However, our goal is to strive to obey God's precepts.

As for the reaper example... I believe GOD punishes his children much like a parent would do... in order to steer them to more productive paths. I don't believe we can lose our salvation once we have genuinely accepted it (Again... I cannot fool GOD for he has the ability to examine my heart - i.e. the inner workings of my soul; my motives, my sincerity).

I, however, believe we can lose 'the joy of our salvation' by living lives that don't conform to GOD's will. Ultimately we end up 'robbing' ourselves of the blessings that God had in store for us.

Does this mean I have a 'free credit card' to sin all I want??? after all, I'm forever saved?? The answer is a resounding NO!!!

I am COMPELLED to obey simply because I know what it took for me to obtain direct access to GOD: Christ's blood.

I am COMPELLED to work harder in order to please GOD. As Extra Stout said in another post: Works are evidence of Salvation. I don't believe they are requirements. Consider the case of the thief that was crucified next to Jesus... He believed... but had no 'contributing' works... and yet GOD himself welcomed him to paradise.

Anyways I hope this gives you some more insight.

[Uncle Donnie]

Very good explanation hegamboa. This is what I believe as well.

I'm Lutheran BTW smeagol, although I think what hegamboa explained is generally believed by most Protestant denominations.

[smeagol]

Very good explanation hegamboa. This is what I believe as well.

I'm Lutheran BTW smeagol, although I think what hegamboa explained is generally believed by most Protestant denominations.

Yep, this is one big difference between Catholics and Protestants.

[Guru of Nothing]

Again... I cannot fool GOD for he has the ability to examine my heart - i.e. the inner workings of my soul; my motives, my sincerity.

Then why go to church? So we can fool everyone else? [/cynic]

But seriously, if God has the ability to examine my heart, the inner working of my soul, my motives and my sincerity, then surely he comprehends why I am not a Christian.

[Crookshanks]

But seriously, if God has the ability to examine my heart, the inner working of my soul, my motives and my sincerity, then surely he comprehends why I am not a Christian.

Of course He does, and it saddens him that you have chosen to reject his gift. The Bible says "it is not my will that any should perish, but that all should come to repentence." But, the choice is yours.

[Guru of Nothing]

Of course He does, and it saddens him that you have chosen to reject his gift. The Bible says "it is not my will that any should perish, but that all should come to repentence." But, the choice is yours.

I think you are missing my point, I am not rejecting anything. I am merely refusing to attempt fooling him, or myself.

[Crookshanks]

There's no middle ground - if you don't accept him, then you've rejected him. Period.

[Guru of Nothing]

There's no middle ground - if you don't accept him, then you've rejected him. Period.

Says you.

[Phenomanul]

Says you.

Says Jesus: "For you were neither cold nor hot but lukewarm, I shall vomit you from my mouth"