09 Sep 08
3 edits
Originally posted by black beetleIs this what you really mean or I misunderstood you due to my poor English and therefore my assumption is wrong?
Hi epiphinehas, I love cooking too🙂
OK, so let’ s go a bit back to see what you said. You quoted:
What do you mean by "truly born of God"?
Born again of water and the Spirit (John 3:5). A new birth wrought by the Holy Spirit and signified by water baptism.
At what point is a Christian "truly born of God"?
The moment a person is quickened/ n or I misunderstood you due to my poor English and therefore my assumption is wrong?
Atheists are capable of virtue. One need not posit the existence of God in order to develop characteristics which promote collective well-being. Anyone can actively form and sustain, to the best of their ability, virtuous habits. What a person is not capable of changing is one's essential nature, which is dead to God.
When a person is 'born-again' he or she is given a new nature, or heart, i.e., the believer is spiritually raised from the dead and made alive to God (a resurrection of the spirit which precedes the physical resurrection prior to the day of judgment). Ephesians 2:4-10, I think, encapsulates this fact more succinctly than any other passage:
"But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:4-10).
The believer's new nature is one to which good works come naturally, without difficulty. When a born-again individual is personally injured or slighted, the first reaction is no longer governed by the old nature (which has its roots in selfishness, e.g., anger) but by the new nature in Christ. Instead of cursing those who belittle or injure him, in Christ the believer blesses his enemies and works for their benefit. The old nature might be able to accomplish the same, i.e., an atheist may be able to accomplish the same, but only externally and legalistically. Until God makes us alive to Him through faith in Christ, we cannot please Him, because until then we remain opposed to God inwardly, though we may develop virtuous habits.
To become a truly righteous person it is not enough to merely cease doing evil and strive to be virtuous, i.e., repentance isn't enough. Wrong actions aren't the problem, they are symptoms of a more fundamental issue; namely, the heart. An atheist is certainly able to become virtuous, even to an extreme degree, nevertheless, because of unbelief his heart cannot be right with God.
Unlike the atheist, a believer's new nature, i.e., new heart, is capable of living in partnership with God's Spirit. Therefore, the righteousness of the born-again believer is really God's righteousness, while the righteousness of the atheist is man's righteousness. One is produced by God's grace, and the other is produced in one's own power. I think you were attempting to frame Christians as prideful, but for the reason that our righteousness is God's work in us, not achieved in our own power, we cannot boast. It is God who must receive the glory.
I hope this clarifies my position for you.
09 Sep 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasThe righteousness of the born-again believer is the righteousness of God:
[b]Is this what you really mean or I misunderstood you due to my poor English and therefore my assumption is wrong?
Atheists are capable of virtue. One need not posit the existence of God in order to develop characteristics which promote collective well-being. Anyone can actively form and sustain, to the best of their ability, virtuous habits. ...[text shortened]... is God who must receive the glory.
I hope this clarifies my position for you.[/b]
"So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:16-21).
10 Sep 08
I see your point and I thank you for your reply. But I still evaluate this thesis as ill considered due to the reasons I mentioned back on page 3 and page 4 at this thread.
In addition, definately one can have the qualities you described and still to be an atheist/ non believer, or to be a theist with a religion different than yours. Humanity was full of people with these qualities centuries before Jesus, and it is not acceptable to hijack their beliefs insisting that they were "unconscious Christians". They were not.
This theological thesis is common in every religion and that 's why I asked earlier our friend KM to clarify who was the above mentioned "god". A Muslim or an Hindu etc. is not truly born by God as you defined it but he still can have exactly the same qualities as a truly born Christian. And you cannot hijack their beliefs claiming that they are "unconscious Christians".
Furthermore your thesis fails immediately when we check it by philosophical means, while vistesd showed too from another point of view that this theological thesis is simply false.
In addition, this religionist approach today is even more dangerous because it radiates discrimination. You tell your opinion to your fellow Muslim Americans, you enjoy the Divine Love sparkling in their eyes.
But due to your kind answers to me and to vistesd I see you cannot see it, my friend Epi. So be it🙂
10 Sep 08
7 edits
Originally posted by black beetleHumanity was full of people with these qualities centuries before Jesus...
I see your point and I thank you for your reply. But I still evaluate this thesis as ill considered due to the reasons I mentioned back on page 3 and page 4 at this thread.
In addition, definately one can have the qualities you described and still to be an atheist/ non believer, or to be a theist with a religion different than yours. Humanity was f your kind answers to me and to vistesd I see you cannot see it, my friend Epi. So be it🙂
No doubt there have been "godly" people since time immemorial, but that which the Bible attests to, i.e., the pouring out of God's spirit upon those who believe in His only Son, Jesus Christ, is absolutely unique. It is described as such biblically, and in order to deny the uniqueness of the impartation of the Holy Spirit via faith in the person, Jesus Christ, you would have to deny the authority of the New Testament itself.
The NT explicitly states that the Holy Spirit is only given to those who believe in the flesh and blood, Jesus Christ. And according to the NT book, 1 John, any attempt to strip Jesus Christ of his flesh and blood personhood, a popular tact among subjectivists, is something prompted by the spirit of the Antichrist.
"By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world" (1 John 4:2-3).
A common tactic is a reformulation of Jesus Christ's identity. For instance, if one divorces the person, Jesus, from the Logos, one might seize upon the Logos as the object of one's faith instead, and fill that word Logos with anything considered worthy (e.g., love, justice, mercy, charity, kindness, etc.), and thereby justify to oneself the abandonment of the person, Jesus Christ. This is a clever way to convince oneself of being personally righteous, yet without having to be associated with the man, Jesus, in any significant way; i.e., neither acknowledging Jesus as Lord publicly, nor openly identifying oneself with Christ's sheep (Christians).
...and it is not acceptable to hijack their beliefs insisting that they were "unconscious Christians". They were not.
It is your claim that I hijack the beliefs of people who adhere to other religions, insisting that they are "unconscious Christians"? Aside from the fact that I made no such assertion, it is curious that what you've gone on to do is attempt to convince me that I am an unconscious Muslim.
In addition, this religionist approach today is even more dangerous because it radiates discrimination. You tell your opinion to your fellow Muslim Americans, you enjoy the Divine Love sparkling in their eyes.
If the NT is objectively true, then adhering to its claims is rightfully discriminatory. Must I amend the Truth for the sake of ecumenicism? What fool would do such a thing? Would you? If people are offended by the Truth, should I be concerned?
Your religious subjectivism is really only an a priori dogmatism, i.e., a prejudice. What is required, however, is a careful and fair consideration of the claims of religious truth, Christian or otherwise. For example, is the intended meaning of "sin," biblically speaking, something altogether different than the intended meaning of "illusion" found in Buddhism? Is the Bible talking about something unique in the pouring out of the Holy Spirit upon all those who believe in Jesus Christ, or is it comparable to something found in Hinduism, Sufism, or Islam? I think, if you were to pursue these questions with an open mind, you would discover that on many essential points the various claims of religious truth aren't comparable at all. Religious subjectivism, I suspect, could not survive such an inquiry.
10 Sep 08
authority of the NTOriginally posted by epiphinehasI have no problem at all to deny the authority of the NT. I deny it. I accept no authorities -NT, Quran, OT ect. included. There is not a way to show me that this Is the "word of God". This is the "word of God" for You.
[b]Humanity was full of people with these qualities centuries before Jesus...
No doubt there have been "godly" people since time immemorial, but that which the Bible attests to, i.e., the pouring out of God's spirit upon those who believe in His only Son, Jesus Christ, is absolutely unique. It is described as such biblically, a ...[text shortened]... at all. Religious subjectivism, I suspect, could not survive such an inquiry.[/b]
The NT explicity, the reformulation of Jesus Christ etc. to which you refer is clearly a preaching of an irrational theological thesis. Anybody can claim that he had a telephone from Heaven and Jesus was on the line. I feel free to evaluate his opinion accordingly. BTW, this severe multiple self assurance, this exact so called Truth, has killed countless people. The point over here in my humble opinion is: Love and respect for Life and compassion. The rest is delusion.
Then you said that "If the NT is objectively true, then adhering to its claims is rightfully discriminatory. Must I amend the Truth for the sake of ecumenicism? What fool would do such a thing? Would you? If people are offended by the Truth, should I be concerned?"
The NT is true for you and for the people that they follow your religion. For an atheist like myself is not at all objectively true, for somebody who is not Christian/ Muslim/ Jewish is not at all objectively true.
The problem evolves because of your (not yours in person) activism; you feel the need to preach "Your Truth" by any means (not you in person, I mean the "spread the Divine Message" virous). Everybody is unable to conceive the Ultimate Truth and Your Ultimate Grace (absolutely throught the faith to Your God, a helluva theological delirium), but you and your Christian fellowship. Great.
Regarding the "unconsious Christians", yes Epi, it is my claim and not yours. I supposed that you too, like many good Christians, you would assume that the men of virtue, ie like Socrates, were "unconsious Christians". I am sorry for this assumption. My intention was to show that your theological thesis is used from another religions too (just as your religion derived from another religions too), because the aim of every decent theist regardless his religion is to become a man of righteousness and virtue as you theologically mean it.
Finally, regarding my "religious subjectivism": I don't claim that every religion has exactly the same aspects with any other, surely we agree over this. I was talking about the cornerstone of the concept of the "religion", which is the so called need of the humans to establish a firm relation with "god" and to worship him. Well, every religion states that, without this firm relation with "god" one cannot be righteous and virtuous (as you mean it). Therefore in every religion there is the "truly born by God" jazz.
🙂🙂🙂
10 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleMy intention was to show that your theological thesis is used from another religions too (just as your religion derived from another religions too), because the aim of every decent theist regardless his religion is to become a man of righteousness and virtue as you theologically mean it.
I have no problem at all to deny the authority of the NT. I deny it. I accept no authorities -NT, Quran, OT ect. included. There is not a way to show me that this Is the "word of God". This is the "word of God" for You.
The NT explicity, the reformulation of Jesus Christ etc. to which you refer is clearly a preaching of an irrational theological thes e is the "truly born by God" j
And this is precisely where I disagree with you. I understand that Christianity is a dead option for you, so I won't waste my time engaging in apologetics. The point is, when the Bible talks about the pouring out of the Holy Spirit upon those who believe in Jesus Christ, it is talking about something completely unique. You claim not to be engaging in religious subjectivism, but in this instance you definitely are. The impartation of the Holy Spirit, alluded to in the OT and described in the NT, is about something more than living a righteous and virtuous life. Indeed, religions in general promote righteous living, but the impartation of the Holy Spirit in the NT, the historical event, is something altogether new and different. If you are as impartial as you claim, I don't see how you could fail to recognize this.