Logistics of accepting Jesus

[Muffled]

I'd rather you didn't. Proselytizing isn't allowed on RF.

I believe there are a great many things offered on RF, so why would savation be forbidden. Is it a prejuidice on the part of those who consider God evil and in a sense are offering you evil instead?

 

[Muffled]

I still have no idea what that means.

I believe that would be submitting your will to his will which in effect saves you from sin since the will of God is to not sin.

 

[Muffled]

Yes I think that free will is a large part of it! I do wonder though: why did God give us the choice to be saved if He knew we would choose incorrectly? Why not save everyone, and only condemn those who directly reject Him? Just a thought!

I believe this verse explains it.
Matt 12:30 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

I believe God wants people to recognize the truth and accept it. Being forced to be good does not accomplish that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe there are a great many things offered on RF, so why would savation be forbidden.

Not salvation; proselytizing.

Is it a prejuidice on the part of those who consider God evil and in a sense are offering you evil instead?

No; proselytizing is inconsistent with respect for the person being proselytized at.

 

[e.r.m.]

Hello everyone!

I recently came across an article that I thought was very interesting: Why do we have to “accept” Christ to make our salvation count?

The part that stuck with me was the original question:

“Why do we have to “accept” Christ to make our salvation count? If Christ’s sacrifice is wholly sufficient, why do I have to do something (“believe”) to get it? Doesn’t that make it not truly “Christ alone”?”

This is something I’ve never thought about, but found interesting. I understand what she is saying, and have never heard that perspective before.

I’m not ashamed to admit that the answer she was given went over my head, so I just thought I’d post it here to see if anyone wanted to analyze and dissect the answer that was given, or if anyone wanted to try to answer it themselves!

Is there a verse in the New Testament that says Christ's sacrifice is wholly sufficient for everyone to be saved?

 

[Muffled]

Is there a verse in the New Testament that says Christ's sacrifice is wholly sufficient for everyone to be saved?

I believe this works:
Matt 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[e.r.m.]

I believe this works:
Matt 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Thank you. This passage indicates the purpose for Jesus's blood, but it doesn't state anything exclusive, as "wholly" sufficient. It doesn't exclude man's acceptance thereof, of faith or any faith responses.

 

[e.r.m.]

Not salvation; proselytizing.


No; proselytizing is inconsistent with respect for the person being proselytized at.

Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. [19] Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, [20] teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Mark 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

Luke 24:46-47 and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, [47] and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

If it wasn't important and good to spread the message to people, Jesus wouldn't have set it into motion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. [19] Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, [20] teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Mark 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

Luke 24:46-47 and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, [47] and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

If it wasn't important and good to spread the message to people, Jesus wouldn't have set it into motion.

I don't care.

Proselytizing is disrespectful. Even if you think Jesus commanded you to do it, it's still disrespectful.

 

[e.r.m.]

Is there a verse in the New Testament that says Christ's sacrifice is wholly sufficient for everyone to be saved?

I don't care.

Proselytizing is disrespectful. Even if you think Jesus commanded you to do it, it's still disrespectful.

We can agree to disagree.
I am not going to be trying to convert anyone here on RF, but it is no question that Jesus commanded it. Whether or not it is disrespectful sounds like how the recipient takes it. Some may feel disrespected, others feel grateful.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Really, it boils down to this, if you take some Christian's notion of salvation:

God did not make human incorruptible, like he is, but had a set of rules or characteristics that require punishing corruption.

Men became corrupted.

God commits suicide to negate the effect of the rules or characteristics that require punishing corruption.

Men must make some kind of mental assent that indeed God committed suicide to save them from a problem that arose from his set of rules or characteristics and accept his pardon.

If they do not accept his suicide as payment for their sins, they will be tormented forever.

This raises two question (at least!) for me:

1. Why do the rules or characteristics of God require punishment for corruption?

2. Who asks to be born? Wouldn't it be better never to have existed rather than chance eternal torture?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We can agree to disagree.
I am not going to be trying to convert anyone here on RF, but it is no question that Jesus commanded it.

*I* question that, so apparently there is.

Whether or not it is disrespectful sounds like how the recipient takes it. Some may feel disrespected, others feel grateful.

Proselytizing is based on the assumption that no matter what the other person believes or how strongly it's supported, you know better than they do and they should abandon their beliefs for yours.

It's disrespectful and arrogant, and if you aren't just as open to being convinced of the other person's beliefs and you want them to be toward the beliefs you're selling, then it's an exercise in bad faith on your part.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Proselytizing is based on the assumption that no matter what the other person believes or how strongly it's supported, you know better than they do and they should abandon their beliefs for yours.

It's disrespectful and arrogant, and if you aren't just as open to being convinced of the other person's beliefs and you want them to be toward the beliefs you're selling, then it's an exercise in bad faith on your part.

I agree.

 

[e.r.m.]

*I* question that, so apparently there is.

rDisagreeing with Jesus's expectation is different than disagreeing that He set that expectation. What is your basis of questioning that Jesus commanded the spread of His message, in light of the fact that it is explicitly stated?
P.S. - I don't know that we're talking about the same thing when you say proselytizing and Jesus said "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

Proselytizing is based on the assumption that no matter what the other person believes or how strongly it's supported, you know better than they do and they should abandon their beliefs for yours.

It's disrespectful and arrogant, and if you aren't just as open to being convinced of the other person's beliefs and you want them to be toward the beliefs you're selling, then it's an exercise in bad faith on your part.

And that appears to be based on the idea that at the end of the day, there is no ultimate truth, and in such case all such discussion is completely meaningless. We can't both have the truth if they are contradictory. If one's God and message is "true" then its adherents ought to be fully convinced. But one will unavoidably be wrong and the other will have a message of good news to offer. No one should ever offer this message with any sort of smugness or sense of superiority. We're only servants. I am all too willing to hear other's positions, and I have listened to Islam, Baha'i, atheists, and others. We've always been respectful. I haven't seen any evidence stronger than that of Judeo-Christianity. Others may feel the same about theirs. At the final day, there will be no question as to which one was true all along, but if somebody has that now and doesn't tell others about it, that would be akin to withholding the cure for cancer.

I think one of the great differences I'm seeing is that you honestly see it as a sort of competition where one is trying to be superior to another. We see it as offering good news, like finding this awesome root vegetable in Uruguay that improves health in many ways and getting the word out to as many as possible. That's just a basic comparison.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Disagreeing with Jesus's expectation is different than disagreeing that He set that expectation. What is your basis of questioning that Jesus commanded the spread of His message, in light of the fact that it is explicitly stated?

The same basis by which I question the Bible and everything in it. I'm on the fence about whether Jesus existed at all, so I'm certainly several steps away from accepting that he said or did anything the Bible describes him as doing.

P.S. - I don't know that we're talking about the same thing when you say proselytizing and Jesus said "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

I'm talking about trying to convert people to your religion. What are you talking about?

And that appears to be based on the idea that at the end of the day, there is no ultimate truth, and in such case all such discussion is completely meaningless.

No, it's based on the idea that *you* are fallible and have only a partial, subjective understanding of the facts.

We can't both have the truth if they are contradictory. If one's God and message is "true" then its adherents ought to be fully convinced. But one will unavoidably be wrong and the other will have a message of good news to offer.

I'm not sure it's a matter of truth. It's possible to speak the truth tactlessly.

No one should ever offer this message with any sort of smugness or sense of superiority. We're only servants. I am all too willing to hear other's positions, and I have listened to Islam, Baha'i, atheists, and others.

Are you open to being convinced that those positions are true?

We've always been respectful.

I've yet to see respectful proselytizing. I'm not sure it can even exist, so I remain unconvinced.

I haven't seen any evidence stronger than that of Judeo-Christianity. Others may feel the same about theirs. At the final day, there will be no question as to which one was true all along, but if somebody has that now and doesn't tell others about it, that would be akin to withholding the cure for cancer.

Yes and no. If you're going to market what you're selling as "akin to the cure for cancer," then you take on a heavy moral burden of demonstrating that your claims are actually correct. "We'll find out who's right when we're dead" isn't enough.

I think one of the great differences I'm seeing is that you honestly see it as a sort of competition where one is trying to be superior to another, whereas we see it as offering good news, like finding this awesome root vegetable in Uruguay that improves health in many ways and getting the word out to as many as possible.

I see problems with your analogy. For one thing, there's the exclusivity: you aren't just trying to tell people to try some "awesome root vegetable;" you're also telling them to stop eating every other vegetable they might currently be eating.

... and you're doing this without having considered the nutrition of those other vegetables or the possibility that they have advantages over the one you want them to eat. You just assume without checking that yours is better.

And that's what makes proselytizing disrespectful and arrogant.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

What is your basis of questioning that Jesus commanded the spread of His message, in light of the fact that it is explicitly stated?

Many churches these days have thrown out the idea of Discipleship from what I've heard, and for good reason.

Also, I feel like Jesus led by miracles and even used wisdom in the form of parables. Modern day "preaching" to me, respectfully, seems like more of a movement.

Also, thinking that one has the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, does get a knee-jerk reaction from me, and not because I'm overpowered by the message being given.

 

[e.r.m.]

The same basis by which I question the Bible and everything in it. I'm on the fence about whether Jesus existed at all, so I'm certainly several steps away from accepting that he said or did anything the Bible describes him as doing.

Ok, I guessed it was something like that but I would rather to have heard it from you. Certainly, the reliability of the Bible is another discussion. For those who do believe in the Bible then, that expectation is established.

I'm talking about trying to convert people to your religion. What are you talking about?

For me it's not about me or my anything. It's about relaying the message from God as an ambassador of sorts and offering a person a chance to come home and reconcile with God. Not my ....., is better than your .... .

No, it's based on the idea that *you* are fallible and have only a partial, subjective understanding of the facts.

Ok.

I'm not sure it's a matter of truth.

I believe it's more than just truth. Truth (what really is) is a vehicle to help people reconnect with God.

It's possible to speak the truth tactlessly.

Absolutely true, I agree.

Are you open to being convinced that those positions are true?

If the reality was that there was a more loving, wise God than the one I know and the one I believe didn't really exist, I believe that God would have the power to show me, in which case I believe so. But that's a tall order.

I've yet to see respectful proselytizing. I'm not sure it can even exist, so I remain unconvinced.

I suspect part of that is you've seen some ugly misrepresentations of the Gospel being preached or taught. And different people define respect differently.

Yes and no. If you're going to market what you're selling as "akin to the cure for cancer," then you take on a heavy moral burden of demonstrating that your claims are actually correct. "We'll find out who's right when we're dead" isn't enough.

That's fair. In the Bible it gives such means of proof
Proverbs 2:3-5 For if you cry for discernment, Lift your voice for understanding; [4] If you seek her as silver And search for her as for hidden treasures; [5] Then you will discern the fear of the LORD And discover the knowledge of God.

John 8:31-32 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. [32] Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

God has the ability to give each person what he/she needs to see through the fog and find Him and what the truth is, if that person will seek Him and puts Jesus's teachings to practice.

I see problems with your analogy. For one thing, there's the exclusivity: you aren't just trying to tell people to try some "awesome root vegetable;" you're also telling them to stop eating every other vegetable they might currently be eating.

... and you're doing this without having considered the nutrition of those other vegetables or the possibility that they have advantages over the one you want them to eat. You just assume without checking that yours is better.

And that's what makes proselytizing disrespectful and arrogant.

That's why I said it's a basic analogy. It was just mean to address the attitude behind spreading the Gospel, one of wanting to offer good news, not one conquest and superiority.

and you're doing this without having considered the nutrition of those other vegetables

Not at all. I take the time to learn where the person's coming from. But if there is an "ultimate" good news and that good news is a vegetable, there can't be a plethora of vegetables. One of them will turn out to be what it claims, and the others will fall short of that. There aren't a variety of ultimate truths.

 

[e.r.m.]

Many churches these days have thrown out the idea of Discipleship from what I've heard, and for good reason.

Why for good reason if I may ask?

Also, I feel like Jesus led by miracles and even used wisdom in the form of parables. Modern day "preaching" to me, respectfully, seems like more of a movement.

Wasn't it a movement from the day of Pentecost onward?
Luke 24:47, Acts 1:8
Or what do you mean?

Also, thinking that one has the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, does get a knee-jerk reaction from me, and not because I'm overpowered by the message being given.

I think we'll be learning truths until we die. We've all had some level of bias or misconception, whether doctrinal or application.

 

[e.r.m.]

Did I miss an announcement from religious forums that they would be changing the format?

 

[Muffled]

Thank you. This passage indicates the purpose for Jesus's blood, but it doesn't state anything exclusive, as "wholly" sufficient. It doesn't exclude man's acceptance thereof, of faith or any faith responses.

So what are you saying by wholly sufficient? Are you saying something else is required? I believe it is like a computer that has been manufactured. It is a computer, so the only question is if I want it or not.