Quennel Gale at queball20@yahoo.com
Quennel Gale
Many people have serious problems with the Christian theology of salvation. I’ve had many people email me complaining that “since a person commits to following Jesus, he or she can just do whatever they want to do since they are saved by grace”. This type of ideological thinking contains tremendous error in reasoning and as you will see, it is really not supported by the Bible. Here we present commentation supplied by an anti-Christian Muslim, named Maze, who posted this article he found on the internet:
>Some things just don't make sense.
>First on the list is the idea that salvation is unconditional. Grace is freely bestowed on the believer. The believer is not saved by works, or by earning it in any way; it is a gift, offered freely and without cost to the believer. Or so we are led to believe. I contend that this concept does not make sense.
>Thursday, May 30, 2002
>I have a problem with several issues when it comes to Soteriology. For those reading this who are not familiar with Christian theological terms, Soteriology is the study of salvation and is generally used in reference to Christian salvation.
After reviewing the previous comments we immediately see the problems with the author's statements. It seems like he is very unfamiliar with Christian theology because no orthodox believer would claim that a person isn't saved on grace alone. The reason this makes no sense to the author is because it isn't based on Christian doctrine. We hope that the author is truly being open and honest about not understanding "soteriology" and not just intentionally propagating biased information against Christianity. I also hope that the Muslim critic isn't using his preconceived Islamic interpolation back into Christianity.
If salvation is a free gift and we as human beings can contribute nothing to our own salvation, but is all a work of the grace of GOD, then why isn't everyone on the planet destined for eternal life in heaven?
It must be stressed again that no orthodox Christian views this statement as being true. While salvation is free, the bible clearly gives us guidance as to how one must live to adhere to this newly found salvation. Salvation comes by believing the word of God and through faith in God, however:
The reason why everyone isn't destined for eternal life is because they don't have faith AND do good works for God. While works don't save a person alone, faith without works is dead. To show love and show faith one must act on it and not be idle. Jesus himself showed his love by performing works, and the father showed his love by sending his son to do these good works. Anyone who claims that salvation is all that is needed isn't reading the bible real well.
While Christians throughout history have debated from either the Arminian freewill approach versus the Calvinist predestination ideal, neither camp believes everyone is bound for the heavenly city paved with streets of gold. Most Christians would unanimously agree that most of humanity will find themselves in a very uncomfortable position at the judgment seat on the last day.
I believe that this scripture illustrates the christian stance better for your understanding:
Also one must be careful all of people who say things like "MOST CHRISTIANS", ETC. This is an appeal to popularity which is a major logical fallacy. The problem with this conclusion is: :
1. Did this person do a survey on all Christians in the world to see if most of them agreed with this?
2. What constitutes as most? 51, 66 or 70% of all Christians?
3. What rule do we base this majority or most of Christians on?
Christians do believe that the road to salvation is straight and narrow for the Bible says:
However, to say that most of the world isn't going to accept salvation can't be concluded because no single Christian knows how many people are going to be saved. The author has introduced a foreign concept to this argument, and it is really irrelevant.
So, if we are not saved by works but by grace, I ask again, why aren't we all saved?
Because grace and faith without works is dead. The author has committed the fallacy of hasty generalization, by trying to sum up the entire Christian doctrine of salvation into a general statement. It is much more complex then just saying okay, everyone is saved by grace. What the author has made no effort to do is go and study the bible for the answer. The bible tells us that there is more to salvation than just faith and grace: :
And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son AND BELIEVES IN HIM may have everlasting life; and I WILL RAISE HIM UP AT THE LAST DAY." John 6:40
Most assuredly, I SAY TO YOU, he who believes in Me has everlasting life John 6:47
"Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son JUST AS they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him." John 5:22-23
Jesus said to her, "I AM THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE. He WHO BELIEVES IN ME, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and BELIEVES IN ME shall never die. Do you believe this?" She said to Him, "Yes, Lord, [Kurios in Greek, Yahweh in Hebrew] I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world." John 11:25-27
Jesus said to him, "I AM the way, the truth, and THE LIFE. NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT THROUGH ME. "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and FROM NOW ON YOU KNOW HIM AND HAVE SEEN HIM." John 14:6-7
And,
The Bible clearly provides us with the reason as to why all people aren't saved. If you look at the world today you will see that everybody does not:
1. Believe in Jesus as the Son of God
2. Believe that he is the resurrection and the life
3. Honor him as one would Honor God the father equally
4. Keep his words
Because every man has grace doesn't mean that he or she utilizes it to their advantage. God can save everybody if he wanted to but the reason he can't is because God allows the person to choose if they want to be saved or not. If God forced everybody to be saved, then the author would begin complaining about how God doesn't give his creation a chance to explore truths on their own. Basically it is a no win situation provided by the author's belief. To be saved one must believe in Jesus and yes that is enough to go to heaven. However there is a catch to this for Jesus himself said:
If ye KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. John 15:10
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, AND KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water 1 John 5:1-6
Everybody on earth doesn't keep God's commandments nor believe in Jesus as the son of God. This is the catch that the author misses in his quest to understand "Soteriology". First you are saved by grace by believing on Jesus and then you must keep his commandments. If everyone does not adhere to the commandments of Jesus then it is obvious that everyone would go to heaven.
>Let me explain further what I am thinking in regard to this matter. If there is some requirement for us to receive salvation, it can logically be said that we have earned our salvation through the performance of the requirement.
Again the author has no clue about what Salvation is about. The bible is clear on that fact of a person earning their salvation with belief in Jesus. After believing in Jesus a person must keep his commandments and then perform good works to demonstrate your alliance with him, for Christ himself did many good works. The Apostles illustrate this message here:
And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, THROUGH FAITH--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- NOT BY WORKS, SO THAT NO ONE CAN BOAST. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus TO DO GOOD WORKS, which God prepared in advance for us to do. Eph 2:6-10
I thank my God every time I remember you. In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, being confident of this, that he who BEGIN A GOOD WORK in you will carry it on to completion UNTIL THE DAY OF CHRIST JESUS. Philp 1:3-6
And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in EVERY GOOD WORK, growing in the knowledge of God, Col 1:10
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, A WORKMAN who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his,"and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness." In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for NOBLE PURPOSES, made HOLY, USEFUL TO THE MASTER and prepared to do ANY GOOD WORK. 2 Tim 2:15-21
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped FOR EVERY GOOD WORK. 2 Tim 3:16-17
The Apostles illustrated the emphasis on Good works AFTER believing in Jesus Christ, not believing that good works would save on grace alone. The Bible clearly shows in Ephesians 2:6-10 that it is useless to rely on works alone since people would use this as an excuse to boast. However it does say that one must do good works which God has set aside in advance for those who have faith in him. The bible also shows Jesus emphasizing in performing works in accordance to salvation:
"For the kingdom of heaven is LIKE A LANDOWNER who went out early in the morning to HIRE MEN TO WORK in his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard. Matt. 20:1-2
So they answered Jesus, "We don't know." Then he said, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things. "What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and WORK today in the vineyard.' " 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. "Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go. "Which of the two did what his father wanted?" "The first," they answered. Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, YOU DID NOT REPENT AND BELIEVE HIM. Matt 21:27-32
Contrary to what the author believes, works are used by God to determine who enters into heaven. Notice in the parable above that Jesus said that God wanted the man who worked as opposed to the other son who did nothing. It is truly hard to believe that the author doesn't know this information since it is regularly taught throughout Christendom. Notice Jesus interaction with the Good Samaritan woman:
Here, Jesus tells us that many have benefited because of the hard work of others, hence this sufficiently puts to rest the notion of "salvation being based on grace alone without works". You couldn't show your love for God without proving it through your works. The bible proves this matter by having the Holy Ghost, the third member of the Trinity set Barnabas and Paul aside for their Christian work:
Now if works is required along with salvation, why is God the Holy Ghost setting aside Paul and Barnabas to perform works? If Paul and Barnabas disobeyed the Holy Ghost by not performing the works they wouldn't be able to have salvation since TO HAVE SALVATION IS TO FOLLOW GOD'S COMMANDMENTS. The bible shows the results of Barnabas and Paul's work here:
The importance of works is clearly shown here through the actions of both men. If they didn't do works in accordance with their salvation they wouldn't have been able to lead others to Jesus. They performed miracles, healed the sick as well as appointed elders to churches in these various cities. What if they didn't do any works? None of this would have been possible. Do you think God would have regarded them as being saved through grace by not adhering to his commandment to PERFORM WORKS IN THESE VARIOUS CITIES? No. This is why the bible can say this in Hebrews:
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, AND MAY HE WORK IN US what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. Heb 13:20-21
The Bible does count works as being important and as it even illustrates that Christ is working through us for the good of mankind. This is all apart of the Christian theology of Salvation. You couldn't be Christian if you never performed any good works to the glory of God. To believe otherwise is unbiblical and totally against the word of God itself.
I have heard it explained that we must believe the gospel to be saved. Another description is that we must accept the free offer of salvation, that we must figuratively reach out and take the gift. Therefore, in my mind, since I am held accountable for doing something in order to receive salvation, then in a very small way, I have contributed to earning my salvation.
Yes it is very true that one must believe the gospel to be saved, however this is only step one. A person can freely gain salvation but they must work to continue holding on to it. "You don't work to gain salvation you work after salvation is gained". The Bible shows us that believing in itself would lead a righteous man to perform works:
Notice the content of this passage closely, 1. Abraham's belief was accredited to him as righteous. 2. When a man works it is an obligation but yet 3. If a man who does not work but trust God, his faith is accredited as righteousness. This means that despite the fact that a person's faith and God's grace saves them, works are an obligation and despite the fact that one does not work, YET HE WORKS BECAUSE FAITH WOULD SHOW THEM TO FOLLOW GOD WHO SAYS TO KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS WHICH IN ITSELF IS WORKING SINCE FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD!!
Admittedly, accepting a gift is not doing much, but it is still doing something. Another analogy presented to my skeptical mind went like this: If a deposit is made in your bank account making you a millionaire, then it can be said you have the free gift. It is up to you to make a withdrawal to reap the benefits of the gift, you have to believe that it is there in your account in order to make use of the money. This analogy was persuasive to me for quite some time, but I believe it breaks down in the fact that whether I use the money or not, I am still rich, and on my death my estate will benefit even if I lived like a pauper all my life. I do not loose the money in the bank simply because I do not believe it is there. The existence of the money, and my ownership of it, is not impacted by my acceptance of it's reality. The only thing affected is my lifestyle.
The Author presents what is seemingly a good counter argument in his statement however what he fails to connect with his analogy is that the money here is already assumed to belong to him. Biblically it is alleging that people are originally saved through salvation and whether they utilize their choice to tap into it or not THEY ARE STILL SAVE AFTER THEY DIE. This is totally flawed and it shows that the author has no knowledge of the biblical concept of salvation. The bible says:
Unlike the author's example, no one originally had salvation, and all have fallen short of the glory of God. It is only through God's grace unto which a person can be saved. Other places in the bible clearly show that salvation wasn't originally with people as his example about the money tries to illustrate:
According to the bible, mankind will see God's salvation after the coming of Jesus. That is why the Apostle Peter said that
According to the bible, salvation is found in Jesus and not just lying dormant like a million dollors. It isn't originally the property of mankind. The apostle Paul further illustrates this by saying:
Salvation comes by believing on the Gospel not just ignoring it by assuming, like the author's example, that it will benefit you whether you utilize it or not. The Author says that the only thing that the money would affect is his lifestyle while alive. It should be noted that heaven will be given to those based on their lifestyle!!! If the author doesn't live the proper lifestyle given by God, and repent when he commits a sin, here and there, he is doomed.
>I am constantly told that the Christian religion is different because all other religions require it's adherents to follow some code, or perform certain established rituals, or do good works to earn the favor of whatever god the religion promotes. In my opinion Christianity is no different in regards to this.
Well I don't know who informed the author about the fact that Christianity does not have rituals for the bible mentions some things that a Christian must adhere to. Out of our reverence for Christ, we perform these rituals and the difference between Christianity and other religions is that they aren't necessarily used as a guarantee for salvation. One example is Passover, or the last supper in which Christ himself said to observe until his second coming. Another example is baptism in which many churches perform out of reverence to Christ.
The true believer in Christ must pray the sinners prayer, he or she must repent, turning from their old lifestyle and sin, they must ask Jesus to become the Lord of their Life. This is the basic formula presented by Campus Crusade for Christ, by Billy Graham and by most of Evangelical Christendom. If this is not a ritual, or a good work in order to achieve the notice of GOD, I don't know what is.
First of all the author has failed to understand the meaning of ritual, which is associated with ceremonies and repeated over and over. A Christian isn't required to repeat the sinner’s prayer over and over in a ceremony. Also in Christianity "praying" can be liken as being a "work" more than a ritual. As we mentioned earlier, believing that one can achieve salvation and enter heaven on grace alone is both unbiblical and untaught in orthodox Christianity.
If I do not submit myself and conform to these established rules, then my seat on the heaven train is unavailable to me.
The author continues to show his ignorance of Christian theology because to be considered a Christian a person must ask Jesus to forgive their sins. The author has limited Christian theology to a bland set of rules and rituals. After accepting Jesus, the Christian must then live life as instituted by Jesus and the apostles. Heaven isn't freely given to a person for adhering to established rules because a person's heart could still be wicked. Notice that in the Gospel, Jesus says that to enter the kingdom of God, one's righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees:
However, notice elsewhere what John the Baptist says about the Pharisees:
Jesus mentioned that the pharisees as a model for righteousness however lets show you his encounters with them:
Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?" But when the Pharisees heard this, THEY SAID, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons." Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. "Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house. "HE WHO IS NOT WITH ME IS AGAINST ME, and he who does not gather with me scatters. Matt 12:22-30
THEN SOME PHARISEES AND TEACHERS OF THE LAW came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!" Jesus replied, "And why do you BREAK THE COMMAND OF GOD for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' he is not to 'honor his father ' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; THEIR TEACHINGS ARE BUT RULES TAUGHT BY MEN.' " Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' " Then the disciples came to him and asked, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?" He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Leave them; THEY ARE BLIND GUIDES. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit." Matt. 15:1-14
The Bible clearly shows that the Pharisee's righteousness wasn't enough for them to be counted worthy of the kingdom of God despite the fact that Jesus says that a believer's righteousness must pass the Pharisees!! In Jesus eyes the Pharisees were righteous according to rules and regulations but this isn't enough to carry them to heaven. The author is no better than the Pharisees of the first century in believing that rules and regulations would carry a person to heaven. The bible continues to illustrate this point as we continue to see further interactions between Jesus and the Pharisees:
Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: " 'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone ; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes'? "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed." When the chief priests and THE PHARISEES HEARD JESUS' parables, they knew he was talking ABOUT THEM. They looked for A WAY TO ARREST HIM, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet. Matt 21:42-46
Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" But Jesus, knowing their EVIL INTENT, said, "YOU HYPOCRITES, why are you trying to trap me? Matt 22:15-18
The Pharisees' rules were what Jesus taught against even though he extolled their righteousness as what believers should surpass. The Bible clearly shows us that rules and regulations doesn't change the heart nor guarantees entrance to heaven. The author has not only misapplied Christian theology in his writings he has given the impression to other skeptics that Christianity is nothing more than a set of rules and regulations. This is totally negative to the reader and many uninformed readers will just accept what the author says without bothering to search the scriptures for themselves. So why does Jesus tell us to surpass their righteousness but yet calls them evil and hypocrites? This passage should answer this completely:
Here Jesus totally puts the theory about "following rules and regulations" to rest in dealing with the Pharisees. Their righteousness was an outward appearance however Jesus wanted his followers to go beyond their outward righteousness by having an inward righteousness. Jesus told his disciples to obey what the Pharisees said but DON'T DO WHAT THEY DO SINCE THEY DON'T PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH. The words of the Pharisees are the words of God since they were repeating it from the LAW however their actions were anything but Godly. If the author believed that a person, in Christianity, must adhere to rules and rituals to gain heaven he has totally ignored Jesus’ interactions with the Pharisees who held this same doctrine and theology. The purpose for us illustrating the Pharisees interactions with Jesus is because God in his wisdom has already prepared the answer for modern day skeptics who think that salvation in Christianity is nothing more than a daily repetition of rituals and rules.
The bible continues to illustrate to us in how the Pharisees, who believed like the author that rules and rituals would save them, missed the purpose of God's original message:
We turn our readers attention to the fact that the "rules and rituals" of the Pharisees couldn't help them receive his purpose for their lives. If the author believes that salvation comes through rules and rituals then he would have not legitimate way of knowing if he is going to heaven, even if he believes so, according to the Bible!!! Established rules, even if they are instituted by God doesn't guarantee salvation if the person themselves isn't lead by God to properly interpret what these rules mean in different situations. Notice how the Pharisee treated this woman in the bible:
In following traditions and rules, the Pharisee shunned the sinful woman and even alleged that if Jesus was a true prophet he wouldn't even allow her to touch him. This is the type of attitude that a person can be likened to when they follow "established rules" instead of having a true belief in Jesus in where faith, works, and following rules based on faith in Jesus" come later. Notice what Jesus did:
Notice that Jesus' grace as opposed to rules and rituals saved this woman's soul. What if Jesus told her that she had to follow rules and rituals? Would that have saved her? No. Salvation comes through believing Jesus not rules and rituals. After believing Jesus and being changed, a person can now follow his commandments and rules. Trying to follow rules before changing inside won't help a person it would just make them self righteous. Jesus again illustrates our above point in the parable of "the Pharisee and the tax collector:
Notice how the Pharisee emphasized HIS RITUALISTIC OBSERVANCE while the tax collector repented and acknowledged that he was a sinner. According to Jesus rituals wouldn't justify a person before God nor would rules. Even more damaging to the author's belief that a person can gain salvation by following rules can by seen by Jesus words here:
This sufficiently puts the author’s argument to rest on the issue of "believing that rituals can help a person gain salvation". Clearly the lack of reading constitutes the author's failure to understand the Christian concept of "Soteriology". No one who reads the Bible accurately will ask the questions that this author is guilty of asking.
>Another thing that just makes no sense to me is the propitiation for sins embodied in the death of Jesus on the cross. Supposedly Jesus suffered the condemnation that I deserve, that he stood in my place, and took upon himself all the consequences for not only my sins, but the sins of the whole world. Correct me if I am wrong, but according to Christian doctrine, if I do not have the propitiative blood of Christ on me when the last trump shall sound, I will face eternal separation from God as the recompense for my unrepentant life.
First of all the author fails make sense with his comments above on the crucifixion of Jesus and its atonement for one's sins. The Bible clearly teaches that if one is to have the propitiative blood or favor of the blood they need to just believe in Jesus and repent of your sins. To believe in Jesus one would
1. Do godly works, since he did them
2. Help others since he did this, etc etc.
If that is too hard for the author then the problems rest with his reasoning and not the Biblical message of salvation. It seems like the author wants to make it through life sitting on his behind while waiting for God to reward him for nothing!! The author wouldn't even reward his own kids if they didn't work in school or do well, even though he'd love them. Just like salvation the author's love for his child would be free.
Or more simply, I go to hell forever. Apparently my punishment is more severe than that endured by Jesus. The way I understand it, Jesus spent about three hours in agony on the cross, with perhaps a few more hours before crucifixion being beaten and scourged. I do not mean to minimize the pain suffered by being tortured and executed in such a cruel way, but even a few weeks of torture do not seem to evenly compare with an eternity in torment.
The author presents a very interesting argument in claiming that his eternal punishment is more severe than what Jesus endured after his death on the cross. While admittingly he says that he doesn't want to minimize Jesus' suffering the author is still basically saying that eternal damnation is a greater punishment than what Jesus ever suffered. The author commits the fallacy of 'appealing to sympathy' by playing on the emotions of the reader in hopes to convincing them that Jesus' punishment doesn't justify the punishment of those who are in eternal damnation. We should note that there is no way possible to arrive at the author's conclusion since neither he nor we (nor do we plan too) experienced eternal damnation.
The only basis the author uses is how long Jesus was dead and compared it to the unending punishment of those who reject Christ. Apparently the author has committed the fallacy of equivocation in this aspect since 3 days in 'space time continuum' cannot be used to measure eternity which is outside of time itself. With that being said we should note that the eternity in torment is because a person didn't even want to make a simple effort to say that they are sorry to God for their sins. If he sent his son to die just so you can say "I am sorry" and you don't take the chance why should he allow you in heaven if you reject his death and torment just for not taking the time to say a few words of "forgive me of my sins"?
In the book of Genesis, the consequence of sin was death. Adam and Eve and all of humanity began to die, and continue to do so to this day. Christians are absolved from that since Christ died in their place, so why do they still die?
First of all the author has clearly confused the concept of death in Christianity. The author clearly assumes that death refers to only the physical body. Hence, if Christians die then the author somehow believes that Jesus didn't save them from death. Not only is this teaching unbiblical, the bible clearly shows that the death Christ saves people from is eternal death in hell.
In the Bible, a Christian who dies goes back to be with God which is totally different from eternal death in Hell. The author needs to make a better effort to understand more about the Bible and the Christian concept of death before confusing concepts and terms.
Obviously everyone still dies, so it is contingent on religionists to spiritualize the plain words of Scripture that states that Christ has set the believer free from the wages of sin through his free gift.
There is no need to spiritualize the concept of "Christ saving people from death" in the context that the author tries to portray it. He is indirectly claiming that if Christians spiritualize this that this cover up for the allege embarrassment of people still dying even though they believe that Jesus saves them from death. Unlike the author, Christians know that the death Jesus saved us from is the second death:
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such THE SECOND DEATH hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. Revelation 20:6
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. THIS IS THE SECOND DEATH. Revelation 20:14
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: WHICH IS THE SECOND DEATH. Revelation 21:8
The Bible clearly illustrates that Jesus saves us from the second death and not necessarily physical death. If Jesus saved us from the first death, based on the author's logic, all Christians wouldn't be with God, since to be absent from the body is to be present with God:
The passage above thoroughly refutes the author's reasoning.
>If I accept that the free gift of eternal life is resigned to a future after death, a resurrection life, then let me ask this, did Jesus really die?
Yes, Jesus did die so you can experience this eternal life. The author believes that because Christians die, that Jesus death really didn't save them from "death". Indirectly one can conclude that all people who never died would be the ones who can experience salvation. The bible does teach that some will see the lord without dying however it also shows that those who did die would also experience this salvation. The author also fails to notice the difference between the types of death of Christianity, one physical and the other spiritual. The bible clearly shows these differences in these verses:
and,
And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; FOR GOD TOOK HIM. Gen. 5:24
By faith Enoch was translated THAT HE SHOULD NOT SEE DEATH; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. Heb 11:5
The author commits the fallacy of exclusion in trying to make death apply to only one instance "bodily" when in Christianity it can be either "bodily" or "spiritually".
Oh sure his body died, but his bodily death did not win an escape from physical death for us, so it must have won an escape from spiritual death for us.
The author here commits the very flawed fallacy known as the fallacy of false dilemma:
The glaring problem with his conclusion is that those who lived and saw Jesus second coming, won escape from both physical death and spiritual death through his death. The author has clearly limited his stance into 2 options. Even if only a portion are saved from spiritual and physical death, it still logically refutes the notion of only two options, which is clearly illustrated in his argument because if Jesus saved people physically and spiritually it can't be either or but both.
So did Christ die spiritually?
Yes.
What is spiritual death exactly, isn't it eternal separation from GOD?
Yes.
Hell and death are thrown into the Lake of Fire, which is the second death, is how the writer of Revelation concludes the final book of the Bible. So Christ suffered eternal separation from GOD then right? No, wrong! If he was separated from God at all it was only for a few days.
The author continues to confuse his statements. His definition of "eternity" is totally wrong in Christianity since eternity means being "outside of time". Not only is the author's definition of eternity a misrepresentation of Christianity it is also wrong according to how the dictionary defines eternity:
ETERNITY
1 : the quality or state of being eternal
2 : infinite time
3 plural : AGE 3b
4 : the state after death : IMMORTALITY
5 : a seemingly endless or immeasurable time (From Merriam Webster online dictionary)
Eternity isn't just infinite time as the author erroneously assumes and claiming so is using the fallacy of exclusion (eliminating other definitions) and then begging the question (assuming that eternity is infinite all the time). Notice that eternity also simply refers to the state of a person after death. Since Jesus died, whether he was gone a few days or not constitutes as being eternity according to the definition of eternity itself!! Hence physical earth time has no bearing on whether death is eternal or not!! If you look at "eternal" one of the definitions of eternity you see that it is:
ETERNAL
1 a : having infinite duration : EVERLASTING b : of or relating to eternity c : CHARACTERIZED BY ABIDING FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD (From Merriam Webster online dictionary)
Jesus had both a fellowship with God as well as physically died which would qualify him for entering into "a state after death". Upon Jesus death he passed from time to eternity and earthly time periods have no bearing on any point of his death as the author seems to believe.
For thus saith the high and lofty One THAT INHABITETH ETERNITY, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. Isaiah 57:15
“Eternity” means something is outside of time, outside the physical world, as the bible clearly illustrated above. When Jesus died he went from time to eternity and therefore when one tries to say that Jesus died and then claim that he was dead only a few days and therefore wasn't eternally from God is a contradiction in itself.
1. Eterity means state after death
contradicts
2. Not being dead long enough even though eternity is state after death!!
Although the author’s argument looks indestructible on the surface when it is closely analyzed it is the ultimate self refuting evidence one can use to counter his stance. His argument makes no sense whatsoever when it is closely studied and analyzed.
>Then of course there is the whole trinity thing. Christ prays to himself, he dies and is separated from himself, He turns away from himself when he sees himself on the cross. None of this makes a bit of sense.
Of course none of this makes sense. First of all this person saying that Christ prays to himself and is separated from himself means nothing of a Trinity but the heretical belief of Oneness modalism, in which the Trinity is called Jesus or that all 3 members of the Trinity is Jesus!!! That is why it makes no sense; the author can't differentiate between Jesus, the Holy Ghost, and The Father.
>Now let's consider the justice of someone dying for a crime that someone else committed. If my son, my only son, were to commit some heinous crime deserving of death, is there a single court anywhere on Earth that would accept my sacrifice in his place?
This is the fallacy of false analogy, since Jesus death for others isn't based on a court system. If we do use a court system which form of law should we use to judge this by? What court is the best? And, to really show you how the author doesn't understand Christianity we present this:
Since the God's ways aren't like Human ways we clearly see why he is confused in trying to use the false analogy of the human court system. This is a classical strawman attempt.
If I were to die, while my depraved son went free, would anyone believe justice had been served? The people who my son victimized, would they be satisfied with my death in his place, while he roamed quilt less for his own crimes? The concept of justice that is promoted by the Biblical writers is defies simple logic. It is quite frankly bazaar.
Logic demands that the author studies a religion first before commenting. If God says that his ways aren't like human ways logically one can't illustrate a court system to show this analogy. But then again I reckon that the author has never even studied logic in his life other than using it as a word which sounds good to him.
>The retreat of Christianity is to foam at the mouth here and state emphatically that we cannot understand the workings or mind of God.
No, this is another classical fallacy, by the author since he is trying to discount evidence against what is stated in a religion and then judge it by a court system. Maybe it should be noted to the author that most courts don't judge religions in the first place unless they are Islamic courts. Even in that case Christians wouldn't care about and Islamic court verdict since they don't believe in Islam in the first place.
We must simply accept these contradictory concepts on faith. I contend that such statements are a bold admission by the believer that indeed, salvation does not make any sense, but the believer believes it anyway.
Salvation does make sense, it is the author's argument, that we reviewed here is senseless. Little kids, who are 5 years old, in Sunday school know more about the Bible and Christianity than he does.
>The need to believe is powerful. It is terrifying to many people to think that this is the only life we will ever have, that there is no one in heaven pulling the strings, that our happiness or our misery is dependant on us alone. Some people need a friend, a friend that is totally in control, and gives them the assurance that their lives are mapped out for them. Some people want to believe that no matter what difficulties they may face in life, all their efforts and the injustices they had to endure will be lavishly rewarded in the next life.
People will be rewarded for what they do in life; the problem with this statement is that it has already utilized the fallacy of begging the question in which the author assumes that it isn't necessary to believe. The author then argues this fallacy into his conclusion, which is in itself flawed.
>In Porgy & Bess there is a song which says, "It aint necessarily so, the things that you're liable to read in the Bible, it aint necessarily so." The ancient Egyptians spent their whole lives preparing for the afterlife. Some of them are on display in museums to this day. While their extravagant preparations for a life after this one helps us understand the past, it should give us reflection on our own beliefs and what we do with our lives now.
>This is the only life we have.
>
>.: posted by Dave VanAllen
>Thursday, May 30, 2002
>4:13 PM
>Got a Comment to make? Click HERE!
No, this is not the only life we have. Such thinking comes from the atheist. However, God says that:
When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I WAS DEAD, AND BEHOLD I AM ALIVE FOR EVER AND EVER! And I hold the keys of death and Hades. Rev 1:17-18
The idea of this being the only life we have is foolish and is based on nothing more than conjecture. God Bless all.
Quennel Gale at queball20@yahoo.com