Only God saves so says the Bible

[Phil12123]

On a personal note I can understand why a Christian would believe so. I believed so for many years myself. It was only after I sought evidence as to why we were taught about the Trinity, when I could find no reference prior to the Nicene Counsel. Then it struck me as even odder that since the Nicene Council was composed of the Catholic Church, why do so many who consider themselves Christian deny other teachings of the Catholic Church. Seems like it is a belief brought about through selective "evidence".

I don't think many would not believe in God's(swt) ability to create a trinity. I just do not think we have seen any evidence that he has done so.

Woodrow, many people who are raised in a Christian home (at least nominally Christian) might believe in the Trinity because it is just part of the Christian "package" of beliefs. A person like that who later tries to figure God out using only reason and logic might then question or even reject a belief like the Trinity that was initially accepted on faith. That is all understandable. But then there are so many other things we cannot, and should not be expected to, understand about God using only reason and logic, that where does it end? Not believing in God at all, like some of the atheists who post here?

When you're dealing with God and the supernatural, at some point I think we all just accept certain things on faith and expect that at some point later, in the sweet by and by, we will get all the answers to our unanswered questions. At that point, I suspect many of our questions will not even be important anymore. The thing I think important is that eternity is soooo long and our present life is soooo short that when so much depends on what we do or believe in this short side of eternity, it becomes crucial to the extreme---a matter of spiritual (and eternal) life and death, so much so that if we mess up and get it wrong now, we will likely not have a second chance to get it right on the other side.

I appreciate this forum because it gives us all an opportunity explore the belief systems of people who reject our own belief system, as well as to perhaps explain to them that which we presently hold dear, while hearing how others explain what they presently hold dear. Hopefully, we all have as a goal the search for TRUTH, even though at any given moment we may all think we already have it. This forum is like a grand cyberspace university offering countless classes, each thread a different class, in which ideas pro and con are bounced off each other in the search for that TRUTH. I appreciate the role of the moderators to keep that process civil and respectful, and therefore fruitful. It is usually lack of understanding of another person's point of view that leads to lack of civility, which we may all be guilty of from time to time.

Now then... back to the Trinity. I think the belief in Jesus' Deity may have been one of those things that was accepted early on but which later called for a gathering of teachers and theologians to debate it, hence Nicea, when someone began to question it and teach something against it. All the early church Fathers taught His Deity, calling Jesus "God" and when the final decision was made concerning it at that Council, there was perhaps one or two (among hundreds) that argued against His Deity. I mean the vote was not even close. And it was not really a matter of Catholic vs. non-Catholic. It was a matter of what saith the Scriptures? That was their authority so that is what really decided the issue. Arianism (named after Arius, the dissenter) was determined to be heresy and therefore rejected by the Council. There may have been no reference, or very little, to the Trinity prior to that Council, as you note, because it was not until then that it was even an issue.

As a non-Catholic I don't think it is "selective evidence" that causes me to reject some Catholic teachings---it is no evidence at all, from a scriptural standpoint. For example, I reject the idea of purgatory because I believe there is NO evidence for that doctrine in the Bible, and much evidence that goes against it. I mean, that is such a major doctrine---what happens when you die? do you go straight to heaven or hell, or stop off in purgatory on your way to heaven?---that if it were true, it would be explicitly and unambiguously taught in place after place (like hell is) throughout the Scriptures. But it is NOT! So I reject it.

Peace

 

[Phil12123]

Originally Posted by Phil12123
What I would like to know from you is, after knowing Jesus died for your sins, are you going to forsake that and risk paying for them yourself throughout all eternity? Payment MUST be made for ALL sin. If HE didn't make that payment, YOU have to. It is as simple as that. How does your "true faith of God" deal with that FACT? Simply overlook sin, or forgive it without any payment? God would not be a just Judge if He did that.

look you see all mankind as sinful, i simply do not.

every person is capable of repentence to God, to seek their salvation and knowing God is most merciful,

you are denying God's mercy when you say we must go through another person to get mercy.

Well, yes, I see all mankind as sinful and needing forgiveness and salvation, and you "simply do not"? How so? Are there some sinless people that you know of (let's exclude babies and small children, for the moment)? They have never sinned in word, thought, or deed? I would love to meet them!!

Yes, every person is capable of repentance and seeking salvation. But the issue is, what is the basis for God's granting that salvation and forgiveness of sins? If it is not Christ's payment for your sins, what is it? YOU paying for them? Or NO ONE paying for them? Are they simply wiped out with no payment? How is God just, if that is the case? To say that He is merciful does not cut it. He is also JUST. Justice requires that ALL sin be punished. His mercy is based on the sins being PAID for, at the same time that He is saying YOU don't have to pay for them. The only acceptable payment before God is the payment Christ has made. When you accept that, the payment is credited to your account before God.

Romans 4(NAB):
3 For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
22 That is why "it was credited to him as righteousness."
23 But it was not for him alone that it was written that "it was credited to him";
24 it was also for us, to whom it will be credited, who believe in the one who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead,
25 who was handed over for our transgressions and was raised for our justification.

Before that credit is granted, your account before God (like everyone's) is full of sin, nasty sin, that needs dealt with. The beauty of it is that GOD has already dealt with it at Calvary. All you need to do is receive it, as a free gift. When Jesus bore your sins on the cross, He paid the price for them to be freely forgiven. Payment was made. Now God can be both MERCIFUL and JUST in saying YOU walk free, no more to ever have those sins brought up against you. It's a beautiful thing...if you don't reject it.

Peace

 

[strider]

Assalamu alaikum

Interesting.

All this 1+1+1=3=1 stuff was once put to me by a Christian in the following manner: 1 x 1 x 1=1 -- three forms of the same entity. I can't say i ever did understand it, but there you have it.

 

[Phil12123]

actually i was never a christian, was never christened and only ever turned up at church when forced into it for family christenings, weddings and funerals.

i have had this discussion with christian missionaries, vicars and priests and none of them could make me believe 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 or that we are all born sinful.

For the moment, let's set aside the math problem and talk about the other matter, that we are all born sinful. That, of course, is treated in another thread, about original sin, but let me say this here:

I don't believe we are all born "sinful" in the sense that we have any sins at birth that we are guilty of before God that need cleansing. But we all have a fallen, sin nature that leads to actual sins of choice that make us guilty before God. We are not guilty for having a sin nature (we had nothing to do with that), but we are guilty of sins that result from it.

We both agree, I think, that all adults are sinners. We all sin in word, thought, and deed, perhaps every day. WHY is that? At what point did we commit our first sin, with the rest of our lives contaminated by all of our other sins that occurred thereafter? Did you have to teach your child to disobey you? How did he/she learn that? Why did he/she do that? How did WE learn to sin?

Because we all have a will, some stronger than others, we all have asserted it in ways that are harmful to ourselves and others. However you define "sin," we all do it when we assert our own wills in a way contrary to God's will.

What we were born with is a free will, to make choices every day. It is only when those choices amount to "sin" that we become "sinful." That obviously has to happen at some point after birth. So perhaps it is wrong to say we are "born sinful," other than having that fallen nature that at some point in time will result in our making sinful choices, or sin. Comments?

Peace.

 

[Phil12123]

Interesting.

All this 1+1+1=3=1 stuff was once put to me by a Christian in the following manner: 1 x 1 x 1=1 -- three forms of the same entity. I can't say i ever did understand it, but there you have it.

Yes, very interesting. I have heard about that idea of multiplying instead of adding. Obviously, the result comes out better if you want to end up with a 1, to show ONE God. The addition comes out with a 3, to show 3 Persons.

I think, though, that if we can explain God by simple math, HE would no longer be GOD!! Like I said in one of my other posts, us trying to explain God is like one ant explaining to another ant how man got to the moon and back. It is all so far beyond our pea-brains that it isn't even funny.

All we can really do, is try to understand what God has revealed of Himself in Scripture. I think He does want us to KNOW Him and have a personal relationship with Him, as our children have with us. It's the sin problem that is the main difficulty in having or maintaining that relationship. When our children disobey, there is punishment or some consequences. We don't kill our children when they disobey; we try to correct them. Similarly, when we sin, there is a consequence---either it breaks our relationship with God, or is a problem that must be dealt with before such a relationship can be established.

That is why how the sin problem is dealt with in any religion is really the ultimate issue. If that issue is resolved, most everything else will fall into place. And as I posted elsewhere, all religions deal with that problem in one of two ways---you solve your own sin problem by good works, etc., or GOD solves the sin problem by sending His Son to pay for all our sins.

Peace

 

[strider]

For the moment, let's set aside the math problem and talk about the other matter, that we are all born sinful. That, of course, is treated in another thread, about original sin, but let me say this here:

I don't believe we are all born "sinful" in the sense that we have any sins at birth that we are guilty of before God that need cleansing. But we all have a fallen, sin nature that leads to actual sins of choice that make us guilty before God. We are not guilty for having a sin nature (we had nothing to do with that), but we are guilty of sins that result from it.

We both agree, I think, that all adults are sinners. We all sin in word, thought, and deed, perhaps every day. WHY is that? At what point did we commit our first sin, with the rest of our lives contaminated by all of our other sins that occurred thereafter? Did you have to teach your child to disobey you? How did he/she learn that? Why did he/she do that? How did WE learn to sin?

Because we all have a will, some stronger than others, we all have asserted it in ways that are harmful to ourselves and others. However you define "sin," we all do it when we assert our own wills in a way contrary to God's will.

What we were born with is a free will, to make choices every day. It is only when those choices amount to "sin" that we become "sinful." That obviously has to happen at some point after birth. So perhaps it is wrong to say we are "born sinful," other than having that fallen nature that at some point in time will result in our making sinful choices, or sin. Comments?

Peace.

Hmm.. i have a question, which i hope you won't mind answering.

Say a person was born into a non-Christian home so was never Christaned but was in a home with good morals. They grew up and went through life without sinning (not because of religious beliefs but because of good morals), never encountered Christianity, and died. Will such a person be saved?

 

[Phil12123]

Hmm.. i have a question, which i hope you won't mind answering.

Say a person was born into a non-Christian home so was never Christaned but was in a home with good morals. They grew up and went through life without sinning (not because of religious beliefs but because of good morals), never encountered Christianity, and died. Will such a person be saved?

I realize it is a hypothetical question, which means you can make up any facts you want to put into it, but can you really say anyone can go through life "without sinning"? Sinning is a universal experience, even in the most moral home. Nevertheless, if you want to maintain that he never sinned, then he has no sin to be saved from, no need for a Savior, and he goes to heaven without ever hearing about Jesus.

There are only three ways to get to heaven: (1) never sin; i.e., live a perfect, sinless life; or (2) die before you are accountable for your sins, such as very young children who have not yet reached an age of accountability, or (3) accept the Savior Who died to pay for your sins and rose again. Your hypo put the person in the first category, though no one has ever lived a perfect, sinless life on the earth, other than the Savior Himself.

Peace

 

[Md Mashud]

If you told a secret to the mother, the wife, and the daughter too would know - As its the same person.

However, in the bible it says Jesus states that (rough quote) no one has the knowledge of the hour (day of judgement), not he himself, nor the holy ghost, but the father alone.

This verse proves that the 3 are not the same being - rather an innovation/misconception. Jesus was just a prophet - NOT God himself.

This is just one reason, of many - which shows indefinate proof of Jesus not being God.

 

[Phil12123]

If you told a secret to the mother, the wife, and the daughter too would know - As its the same person.

However, in the bible it says Jesus states that (rough quote) no one has the knowledge of the hour (day of judgement), not he himself, nor the holy ghost, but the father alone.

This verse proves that the 3 are not the same being - rather an innovation/misconception. Jesus was just a prophet - NOT God himself.

This is just one reason, of many - which shows indefinate proof of Jesus not being God.

Wording must be precise, or we may have a strawman argument. No one says the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are "the same being"---they are separate and distinct Persons, 3 Persons. But they are all GOD, of the same essence, substance, or nature. Similar in semantics to saying a husband and wife are ONE flesh. They both have the same essence, substance, or nature, namely, human, and yet they are separate and distinct persons.

Peace

 

[Md Mashud]

BUt your not saying Husband = WIfe, as you are Jesus = God, so same knowledge should apply.

 

[Dawud_uk]

peace be upon those who follow righteous guidence,

this is an interesting discussion but it comes back to exactly the same points made in previous discussions with vicars and priests.

Christians ask people to accept things on faith without any or little resort to reason or evidence.

Atheists ask people to ask things things on reason and evidence alone without using their faith.

islam asks people to believe but has a logical and reasonable method of varifying their beliefs according to evidence.

Now the evidence of islam we use for denying the trinity and original sin is the word of God, the Quran. The bible when subjected to the same logical scrutiny comes up lacking because of its mixed up formation.

so i accept islam because to me it is in accordance with logic and faith combined, the two important parts of the human nature working together.

atheism and christianity are both lacking in this.

i actually think it was the fact the bible was so full of flaws and errors that led western thinking men to reject their faith and look for other things where as islam has not had this problem as faith and reason can be perfectly combined in our way of life.

peace be upon those who follow righteous guidence,

Daw'ud

 

[Phil12123]

BUt you're not saying Husband = WIfe, as you are Jesus = God, so same knowledge should apply.

I am saying the husband and wife are both of the same essence, substance, or nature (human), just as Jesus, the Son, is of the same essence, substance, or nature as God, the Father (Deity). And yet the husband can have certain things which might make one conclude he is "greater" than his wife, in the same way Jesus said His Father is "greater" than He (position or whatever).

So, both are equal as to essence, substance, or nature, but the Father has perhaps retained the prerogative to send the Son back according to HIS (the Father's) will, when the Father decides to do it, and the Son has submitted His will to the Father in that matter, and therefore leaves that up to the Father, which might be a self-imposed limitation of knowledge. Remember how Jesus prayed in the Garden, "Not my will, but yours be done"? That shows they are separate personages with separate wills when the Son is praying to His Father, just as they were separate before the incarnation ("and the Word was with God"). And yet we also see they are of the same essence, substance, or nature ("...and the Word was God"), which did not change after the incarnation. When the Word or Son left heaven, He did give up something when He "made Himself of no reputation" or "emptied Himself" (Phil. 2:7), though that was probably just His glory and the use of His divine prerogatives when He "took the form of a servant" and "humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross" (2:8).

In any event, Mark 13:32 cannot be interpreted in such a way as to make conclusions like Jesus is not God, thereby negating all the other verses that clearly teach He is God. One verse cannot negate a dozen others, so we must interpret the one to be consistent with all the others. That's much easier than making all the others mean something that they clearly do not say. I do not mean to minimize the difficulty of understanding that one verse and perhaps that is one of the many questions I will want to ask Him when I get there. Nevertheless, that ONE cannot negate the many others.

Peace