Posted on 06/22/2003 3:13:08 PM PDT by NYer
The truth is not as black or white as the Calvinist would wish it to be. We do not believe Original Sin is death, only disabling. Consequently, other cultures, including that of Islam, are operating at a great deficiency, but they are not dead or totally in the dark.
There can indeed be great "good" done by Muslims, as it can be done by Hindus or athiests.
I realize this conflicts with your Calvinism, but such is the way we view things. One can say the Koran and Islam are false paths to salvation. But one can not say that therefore the Koran contains nothing that is true, and that Muslims have accompished absoutely nothing good and decent in the attempt to follow their faith.
You will respond that all enelected men are entirely dead and that nothing that they do is pleasing to God.
I will note that the Samaritan's actions were pleasing to God, even if his attempts to follow and udnerstand God were less than perfect.
SD
It simply amazes me that anyone with a godly, christian faith, firmly rooted in God's Word, that differs from yours is "spewing venom". Many of us have been raised in the RCC and were very "devout" RC's. So why did we come out of her?
God knows why and, it is our duty before God not to shrink back from telling others. You also know why. However, the "fear" of leaving has control of you. It is this very same demon of "fear" that had control of me.
I thank God for truth and reality and deliverance.
One unique feature about Jesus was that he was the only person born in this world, not to live, but to die. Anyway, thanks for piquing my interest. I will read on.
I have no idea why you came out.
Can you tell me with which of the 7 steps listed in the above article, you disagree and why?
OKie fine.
Listen to Jesus and Peter then.
John 14:6 [JESUS] Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Acts 4:12 [PETER] Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Do you believe these passages? This isn't a Calvinist issue, that's a red herring.
***There can indeed be great "good" done by Muslims, as it can be done by Hindus or athiests.***
That was not and is not the point. Atheism, Hinduism, and Islam are paths to eternal destruction.
***But one can not say that therefore the Koran contains nothing that is true, and that Muslims have accomplished absolutely nothing good and decent in the attempt to follow their faith.***
That again is not the point. The Satanist Bible has some true statements in it. In fact, the essence of deception is to include enough truth to make the error palatable.
I never said I didn't, did I? I do believe in a merciful God who might forgive invinbile ignorance, so my reading is not quite as literal as most. But in general, yes I agree.
***There can indeed be great "good" done by Muslims, as it can be done by Hindus or athiests.***
That was not and is not the point. Atheism, Hinduism, and Islam are paths to eternal destruction.
Sure, it was the point. If the Pope was showing respect for the good in Islam, this is what it is. If a Calvinist wants to believe there is no good in Islam, then he won't see this.
I can recognize that those religions are paths to destruction without having to individually condemn every single teaching and every single adherent. For example, if I was to believe that all of you Protestants were going to hell, that wouldn't at all lessen my appreciation for the good works you do. When you do good, it is for the glory of God.
But one can not say that therefore the Koran contains nothing that is true, and that Muslims have accomplished absolutely nothing good and decent in the attempt to follow their faith.
That again is not the point. The Satanist Bible has some true statements in it. In fact, the essence of deception is to include enough truth to make the error palatable.
Now we come to it. You have grudgingly admitted that there could be some good contained in the Koran. So we don't have to argue about it.
SD
Ah, excellent. I eagerly await your historical sources of proof for walking on water, loaves and fishes, etc.... Please do not utilize self-referential documents, since that would defeat the purpose. Further, please explain with this evidence the extraordinarily close parallels between the biblical accounts and those of Buddhism that predate them by 500 years.
What rationalists do when they claim this is to reason backwards. Since they believe miracles can't happen, they come to the conclusion the Gospels must lack historical validity.
Who is making that claim here? I am asserting nothing either for or against the possibility of miracles. What I stated is that there is no historical evidence for them.
But this contradicts the rules of the historical methods used for determining the historicity of other ancient documents. The Gospels clearly deserve to be judged like these, not according to rules especially devised to deal specifically with them.
You are conflating the Gospels with teh miracles attributed to Christ.
Huston Smith is indeed a good author. For much more exact and intimate details of the Buddha's life, however, you'll have to resort to a much more comprehensive and dedicated work than the sort that Smith usually writes.
One unique feature about Jesus was that he was the only person born in this world, not to live, but to die. Anyway, thanks for piquing my interest. I will read on.
Glad to have posted something you find interesting.
So that's YOPIOtheseS ???
LOL. Of course not. It's straight out of Catholic Tradition and the current Catechism. Invincible Ignorance.
***But in general, yes I agree.***
By what other name can one be saved?
No other. The point is that because of historical or other circumstances beyond an individual's culpability, an individual may be "saved" and live a life completely in the Spirit of God without the intellectual knowledge of the name "Jesus."
SD
LOL. Thanks. I was hesitant in admitting that I was going to use Smith to check your claims. I do have a good book on Buddhism, but haven't been able to locate it yet. ( If not for the wife, I could find anything right where I left it. But for some reason, she seems hostile to my system.):o)
I'm an enigma.
(Actually, I meant "most" Christians, and most (around here, anyway) are of the "hyper-literalist" bent)
No other.
Did you miss this? I affirmed that there is no other name by which we can be saved.
The point is that because of historical or other circumstances beyond an individual's culpability, an individual may be "saved" and live a life completely in the Spirit of God without the intellectual knowledge of the name "Jesus."
Is that Scripture or tradition? If Scripture, please cite references. I have cited two to the contrary. One from the lips of Jesus, the other from the one you recognize as the first Pope. No spin, please.
Scripture and Tradition are not mutually exclusive. It is a traditional understanding of the Scripture, the nature of salvation and the nature of God. I know that the Calvinists's God has a different nature, which we regard as capracious. It all stems from there.
John 14:6 [JESUS] Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Acts 4:12 [PETER] Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved
By the way, neither of these Scriptures "contradicts" my position, as you state. There is no question that those who are saved are saved by Jesus, that there is only one Way, one pleasing Sacrifice. The question that I posed is that a person may be an elect, be chosen by God for salvation (in your parlance), and yet because of circumstances completely outside of the individual's control, he remains ignorant of the name "Jesus."
Let me put it this way, is salvation contingent upon being chosen by God, or in knowing a name?
SD
Now I am really confused. Is this your theory or established Catholic teaching?
It's not something I invented. It's authentic teaching. Is it outside of the realm of your possibility to imagine a person moved by the Spirit who has no cultural idea of the name for the Spirit? Or does God only "elect" those in cultures where the Gospel is spread?
***Did you miss this? I affirmed that there is no other name by which we can be saved.***
Yep. And then you waffled. BTW the text does not say "can be saved" it says "must be saved" [greek = dei] That is a significant difference. The name of Jesus isn't an option according to Peter.
No waffle here. "Must be saved." I affirm it. Is it the knowledge of the name of the name that saves us, or is it God's selection of us to be saved that saves us? That should be an easy question for ya.
All salvation is because of and by Jesus. But do we need to speak the name at least once in our lives in order to be elect? Or can God elect the ignorant?
SD
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.