Sad to read

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]Is your wife's sister really severely retarded? or are you just trying to make the argument appear to be personal?

May I ask how severely retarded is she? Can she hear? Can she respond to questions?

She's six and she speaks in grunts. (She's also one of the happiest people I've ever met.)[/quote]

I'm glad you took time to answer this. Do you believe this is important to know? Would you require more of someone that can full function in society or will you make everyone else in society meet her requirement?

No really...I'd like to know where.

And are you also making an exception to the must believe rule you say is clearly spelled out in Scripture?

What you mean an "exception"? First, its detailed IN THE SCRIPTURES, so its not an exception TO THE SCRIPTURES.

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=T-Bone]I merely quoted Scripture ....you have a problem with that, then that's your problem.  You brought into the discussion those who are incapable of full belief...God is good and just so I trust Him with them.  This was not the question...if you are capable then you must believe.  Stop trying to make it more difficult and simply cause stupid arguments.  I will not play your meaningless word games...last response to you on this.

The original question was about folks in India. I merely pointed out that God might save even them. You challenged me on it. So, tell me, how can one be capable of believing in a Jesus they have never even heard of?
[/quote]

I don't remember those in India being severely mental disabled or toddlers that died before their time. Why are you constantly moving the "shell"?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]Is your wife's sister really severely retarded? or are you just trying to make the argument appear to be personal?

May I ask how severely retarded is she? Can she hear? Can she respond to questions?

She's six and she speaks in grunts. (She's also one of the happiest people I've ever met.)

I'm glad you took time to answer this. Do you believe this is important to know? Would you require more of someone that can full function in society or will you make everyone else in society meet her requirement?[/quote]

I wouldn't require anything. Jesus saves, not anything we do (or believe).

As far as how I would understand the "believe" verses, I would understand them to mean "believe to the best of one's ability to understand". That's going to look different for my SIL, different for the pygmy in the jungle, different for the man in church every day, and different for the toddler.

[quote author=christundivided]

No really...I'd like to know where.

And are you also making an exception to the must believe rule you say is clearly spelled out in Scripture?

What you mean an "exception"? First, its detailed IN THE SCRIPTURES, so its not an exception TO THE SCRIPTURES.
[/quote]

Other ways are also listed. CM has mentioned several. I have mentioned several. What is correct? As I stated earlier...

Jesus saves. There are many methods He uses to bring about salvation.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=T-Bone]I merely quoted Scripture ....you have a problem with that, then that's your problem.  You brought into the discussion those who are incapable of full belief...God is good and just so I trust Him with them.  This was not the question...if you are capable then you must believe.  Stop trying to make it more difficult and simply cause stupid arguments.  I will not play your meaningless word games...last response to you on this.

The original question was about folks in India. I merely pointed out that God might save even them. You challenged me on it. So, tell me, how can one be capable of believing in a Jesus they have never even heard of?

I don't remember those in India being severely mental disabled or toddlers that died before their time. Why are you constantly moving the "shell"?[/quote]

Same shell. You are still talking about people for whom "accepting Jesus" is an impossibility at this point.

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]Is your wife's sister really severely retarded? or are you just trying to make the argument appear to be personal?

May I ask how severely retarded is she? Can she hear? Can she respond to questions?

She's six and she speaks in grunts. (She's also one of the happiest people I've ever met.)

I'm glad you took time to answer this. Do you believe this is important to know? Would you require more of someone that can full function in society or will you make everyone else in society meet her requirement?

I wouldn't require anything. Jesus saves, not anything we do (or believe).

[/quote]

Let me rephrase....

Would God require more of some than others? I can't help but see your system requiring such.

Also, have you ever read the word "require" in the Scriptures? Can you think any place you might find the word "require"?

If you can think of such a place. Do you think that word actually means "require" or is it more of the same "Jesus saves" with you?

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=T-Bone]I merely quoted Scripture ....you have a problem with that, then that's your problem.  You brought into the discussion those who are incapable of full belief...God is good and just so I trust Him with them.  This was not the question...if you are capable then you must believe.  Stop trying to make it more difficult and simply cause stupid arguments.  I will not play your meaningless word games...last response to you on this.

The original question was about folks in India. I merely pointed out that God might save even them. You challenged me on it. So, tell me, how can one be capable of believing in a Jesus they have never even heard of?

I don't remember those in India being severely mental disabled or toddlers that died before their time. Why are you constantly moving the "shell"?

Same shell. You are still talking about people for whom "accepting Jesus" is an impossibility at this point.
[/quote]

I must object to the use of the toddler if you're going to say its an "impossibility" for them to believe.

Do you see the same responsibility level of an adult nation of mankind who's ancestors rejected the Gospel long ago, with the mentally disabled child of 6 who can't do anything but grunt?

or do you see no responsibility at all?

 

[ALAYMAN]

1 - According to you (et al), Scripture is not silent. One must believe in order to be saved.
2 - And yet in those spots where Scripture is not silent, say for instance those cases where people have never heard of Christ, you ignore what said (not-so-silent) Scripture teaches...

1 - Scripture is not silent that faith is required for salvation.  Faith requires conscious capability to comprehend propositional truth.  Infants aren't capable of conscious understanding that leads to faith, therefore they are a different category of people. 

2 - I interpet Scripture in light of things that are known or knowable with reliable certainty and specificity, not from arguments of silence.  It's a basic rule of hermeneutics.  I don't overturn clearer passages with more ambiguous ones. 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]Let me rephrase....

Would God require more of some than others? I can't help but see your system requiring such. [/quote]

Yes.

Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.

Also, have you ever read the word "require" in the Scriptures? Can you think any place you might find the word "require"?

Yes. I just cited such a verse.

If you can think of such a place. Do you think that word actually means "require" or is it more of the same "Jesus saves" with you?

It's always 'Jesus saves' with me.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]I must object to the use of the toddler if you're going to say its an "impossibility" for them to believe.

Do you see the same responsibility level of an adult nation of mankind who's ancestors rejected the Gospel long ago, with the mentally disabled child of 6 who can't do anything but grunt?

or do you see no responsibility at all?[/quote]

I see people being responsible insofar as to what has been entrusted to such an individual.

 

[rsc2a]

1 - According to you (et al), Scripture is not silent. One must believe in order to be saved.
2 - And yet in those spots where Scripture is not silent, say for instance those cases where people have never heard of Christ, you ignore what said (not-so-silent) Scripture teaches...

1 - Scripture is not silent that faith is required for salvation.  Faith requires conscious capability to comprehend propositional truth.  Infants aren't capable of conscious understanding that leads to faith, therefore they are a different category of people. 

Scripture is not silent that baptism is required for salvation...

2 - I interpet Scripture in light of things that are known or knowable with reliable certainty and specificity, not from arguments of silence.  It's a basic rule of hermeneutics.  I don't overturn clearer passages with more ambiguous ones.

CM (and I) cited a whole bunch of passages that are pretty clear. Yet you reject those. Hmm....

 

[ALAYMAN]

Scripture is not silent that baptism is required for salvation...

Well, if you believe that, then go with it.  Add it to the Solas to make six....Sola Aqua.

I don't think you believe it, and thus again you are proven intellectually dishonest.

CM (and I) cited a whole bunch of passages that are pretty clear. Yet you reject those. Hmm....

No, they weren't clear, they were abuses of Scripture.  But for the sake of argument, go ahead and take that flimsy use of sarcasm and parody to another thread and ask forum members if your and CMs interpretation of those passages mean what you say they mean.

 

[rsc2a]

Scripture is not silent that baptism is required for salvation...

Well, if you believe that, then go with it.  Add it to the Solas to make six....Sola Aqua.

I don't think you believe it, and thus again you are proven intellectually dishonest.

I've been clear over and over and over. Jesus saves. Period. End of story.

How He does it is varied. It's not a single point in time. It's a  process. I am being saved when I confess. I am being saved when I help out a neighbor. I was being saved when I was baptized. I am being saved as I believe. I will be saved when He gives restores my body.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

CM (and I) cited a whole bunch of passages that are pretty clear. Yet you reject those. Hmm....

No, they weren't clear, they were abuses of Scripture.  But for the sake of argument, go ahead and take that flimsy use of sarcasm and parody to another thread and ask forum members if your and CMs interpretation of those passages mean what you say they mean.[/quote]

Actually, they were plainly stated, clear Scripture that you modify based on your preconceived notions. You have two sets of Scriptures that say virtually the same thing, and you choose to accept one set and reject the other. I choose to accept all of them.

 

[rsc2a]

Any hypothesis which can display an overall consistency of thought, provided that the data are retained and enhanced, and provided that there is at least the promise of coherence with wider fields of study, will always be preferable to one which leaves the writer as a scatty individual, chopping and changing his mind at every turn.

So we have two options presented so far:

- Belief is a requirement for salvation. Of course, to say this you have to define salvation as a very personal experience, have to make salvation a particular point in time, have to also make it anthro-centric, ignore large portions of the Bible, and make exceptions to this requirement from time to time. It raises significant questions about God's sovereignty and looks a lot like gnosticism. This understanding also ignores the eschatological meanings, ignores the historical context of the NT writing (1st century Judaism), and dismantles meta-narrative presented in the Bible (among other things).

- Jesus saves. There are many methods He uses to bring about salvation. In this case, salvation is all from God, can be both a corporate and an individual experience (PSA and CV), allows for salvation to be a process, makes it Christo-centric, allows for all Scripture to be addressed in a consistent manner (including the OT and the Gospels), and doesn't require exceptions. It maintains, no demands, the sovereignty of God and doesn't rely on "secret knowledge". As an added bonus, this understanding addresses eschatology, retains the meta-narrative, and deals with the major concerns within first-century Judaism.



Which one fits the model Wright has outlined above?

 

[ALAYMAN]

I've been clear over and over and over. Jesus saves. Period. End of story.

How He does it is varied. It's not a single point in time. It's a  process. I am being saved when I confess. I am being saved when I help out a neighbor. I was being saved when I was baptized. I am being saved as I believe. I will be saved when He gives restores my body.

The context of the conversation regarding salvation is that of the new birth/regeneration, and how it is brought about.  Are you trying to say that justification is a process rather than an instantaneous moment in time?

Actually, they were plainly stated, clear Scripture that you modify based on your preconceived notions. You have two sets of Scriptures that say virtually the same thing, and you choose to accept one set and reject the other. I choose to accept all of them.

I choose to allow systematic contextual synthesis of Scripture to dictate my interpetation, which helps prevent inconsistencies and incoherence of Biblical doctrine.  It's called hermeneutics, you should try it sometimes.

And if those things CM wrote were all means by which regeneration is brought about, do like I said and open up a new thread to stimulate conversation about it.  I doubt you'll get much affirmation though.

 

[Frag]

So how do you guys advise me to tell my wife that her severely-retarded sister is Hellbound? How should I tell the friends that lost a toddler that their child is now burning in Hell? What about the neighbor who lost an infant grandson? Should I explain that he is now sentenced to a life of everlasting torment?

So predictable.....

 

[ALAYMAN]

- Belief is a requirement for salvation. Of course, to say this you have to define salvation as a very personal experience,

Were we discussing salvation of people, or were we considering the restoration of all things?  Oh, that's right, we were talking people, and you've jumped the shark, again.  How many rabbits can you possibly chase?

have to make salvation a particular point in time,

Yes, in a very real sense regeneration occurs at a point in human history.  God may be timeless, people aren't.

have to also make it anthro-centric,

Again, more obfuscation.  We are talking about the scope of salvation/regeneration relating to human beings, not the Spotted Owls.

ignore large portions of the Bible,

Yes, I dismiss Acts 2:38 as a basis for demonstrating that baptism is required to complete conversion.  So does the vast majority of people on this forum and any self-respecting evangelical Christian.

and make exceptions to this requirement from time to time.

If by "exceptions" you mean to say that I hope the grace of God and His sovereign hand will provide salvation for those who cannot consciously assent to the gospel, guilty as charged.  I stand on the shoulders of Christian giants in that respect, from all sort of Christian traditions.

It raises significant questions about God's sovereignty and looks a lot like gnosticism.

Stuff and nonsense, tantamount to ad hominem of the "your mother was a hampster and you father smelled of elder berries" variety of reasoning.  You even claimed to not have any problem with my explanation of God's sovereignty (to Castor) stipulating that ordinarily the gospel is the instrument but ultimately God can do as He chooses.  Of course it is a Berean Christian who acknowledges that where God speaks we speak, and when He appoints explicit means to salvation that we heed them, not claim some POMO squishy uncertainty factor to what has been plainly commanded.

This understanding also ignores the eschatological meanings, ignores the historical context of the NT writing (1st century Judaism), and dismantles meta-narrative presented in the Bible (among other things).

Well, the "historical context" of Galatians and Romans both reveal that the gospel of grace through faith has always been the meta-narrative, but you seem to have real problems with the plain meaning of the word of God, so I won't bother dissecting the rest of this tripe of yours.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]...[/quote]

You didn't understand the quote from N.T. Wright, did you?

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]...

You didn't understand the quote from N.T. Wright, did you?
[/quote]

To quote the dithering theologian known as rsc2a....

I'm not asking what Spurgeon <or Wright> believed.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]I think you're drawing phantom conclusions and putting words into the 'guys' collective mouths that can't be gleaned from the discussion on this thread. Where DO you get the conclusions you sometimes reach?

All four of them stated that belief in Jesus was a necessary requirement for salvation. They cited Scripture. Some said anyone who believes otherwise is a heretic. They cited more Scripture. They said that anyone who cited Scripture that didn't mesh with their notions were misinterpreting what was being read.

They were quite adamant in their stance.  I'm not putting any words in their mouths; instead, I am asking whether they consistently hold to that view in all circumstances or if they pick and choose when that view is correct or not.
[/quote]

To be intellectually honest with you (as opposed to the tactics of sfl ),I read the thread and never thought of salvation of infants or the extreme mentally handicapped. But, I do see your point after the fact, so to speak. I don't think they considered that either.

I can't speak for them, but I believe infants and the handicapped are saved, but not thru any different means. I basically agree with Spurgeon:

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0411.htm

 

[rsc2a]

- Belief is a requirement for salvation. Of course, to say this you have to define salvation as a very personal experience,

Were we discussing salvation of people, or were we considering the restoration of all things?  Oh, that's right, we were talking people, and you've jumped the shark, again.  How many rabbits can you possibly chase...

[quote author=ALAYMAN]...

You didn't understand the quote from N.T. Wright, did you?

To quote the dithering theologian known as rsc2a....

I'm not asking what Spurgeon <or Wright> believed.[/quote]

I'll take that to be a "Yes, I didn't understand the quote," especially since your rebuttal was a clear example of what was referred to as a poor hypothesis.