The Kingdom of God is At Hand

All these disputes between various kinds of Christians and various kinds of evangelicals are silly. None of you face the most important issue: is the bible believable. On the basis of a lifetime of study I can say categorically that both the OT and the NT have no historical truth. Only religious propaganda, apocalyptic dimentia, and wishful thinking. Face it, guys and gals, Christianity is a monumental fraud. Those who believe in it are either fools or knaves, sometimes both.

Glad to have you Candide. I never considered I could be both a fool AND a knave! Knave: a man of humble position. Yep, sounds about right. :) 1 corinthians 1:27,28

Candide, you’ve done a “lifetime” of study – yet you’re not dead yet – what’s your secret? Just kidding – now try stopping the studying and start questioning your own heart.

I find it interesting you would make a statement that the Bible is not historically reliable, considering modern archaeology continues to uncover manuscripts, artifacts, and structures that lend creedance to the historical existence of people, places, and things within the Bible. I’m not quite sure what sources you’ve consulted, but they don’t seem to be taking into account this fact. But then again, faith isn’t an issue of empirical evidence to begin with.

Ever wonder if Brian Mclearen is only out for the money??? THe Bible says the only way to the Father is through ME (Christ) so how can Brian say that salvation may not be given only to those who follow Christ?
Please answer!!

Sally I would suggest you take the time to discover for yourself what McLaren says. Read his books and engage with them. Think through the theology before you condemn and ridicule.

Hello Sally,
You ask an interesting question about McLaren’s theology essentially wondering, how can someone who does not follow Jesus receive salvation if it only comes through him? This is a legitimate question, and while I do not claim to be an expert on McLaren the general answer given is as follows:
Jesus says none shall come to the father expect through him. But Jesus does not say that in order to come “through him” one must necessarily “follow him” as personal Lord and Savior. There is a difference between “receiving salvation through him” and “following him”. This theology basically understands Christ’s work on the cross as a universal restoring of relationship between God and mankind, not a personal restoring of relationship between God and the individual believer who recognizes Christ’s work.

That is the basic idea, and I would encourage you to do your own research if you have more questions. I personally think there is truth to this idea, and have come to this conclusion largely after wrestling with the following two questions:

1. Does someone need to understand Christ’s role on the Cross in order to benefit from it? (If yes, then what about infants, the mentally handicapped, and those who where never told about Christ due to their historical and cultural setting?)

2. Who are we as fallen mankind to place limitations on who God may choose to give the gift of salvation to?

I would love to hear your thoughts…

I have not been aware of this site until just this evening, but was intrigued by some of the conversation and posts, the questions and responses. I cannot call myself in honesty a “Christian” for I think I do not believe many of the things it seems one must accept in order to be what is commonly referred to as a Christian. I do seek to keep myself mindful of the ways in which Jesus taught we should treat one another. In one of the above posts someone speaks of finding “salvation” and of only being able to do so by “following” Jesus. It seems to me that Jesus simply was saying that to live and treat others as he did was the way to find what we all are seeking in order to live a full life which we can one day leave without regrets for things we should have done but did not. I do not know what to make of those who seek “eternal salvation”, and focus so much on such things. It seems like we must live the best we can in relation to others and the eternal salvation aspect will work itself out. I think too many folks complicate the matter by attributing too many meanings and interpretations to what Jesus origins and life signify. Nothing seems more clear than how he taught others to treat one another. The sharing of a meal, the last supper, the symbolism of breaking bread and having wine, all are reminding us of the simplest and most enduring of relations with one another in a community. Sharing and community are the essentials underlying the idea of the eucharist, it seems to me. To partake of food together is the most elemental of human interactions and is in almost all cultures an event of sharing and peace among people. And all are welcome at the table, that’s the idea, right? Whatever the rituals and debated points that have gone on forever, it seems, about the act of communion, it all seems underlain by a very simple and deep idea. If someone focuses too much on the debates over what is “true” in the Biblical stories and accounts and means what is factually or historically accurate, the whole message gets lost probably. It is the meaning and the message conveyed that are important and hold their own truths. Was Jesus man or god, divine or mortal, born of a virgin or not; all these questions again obscure the message if over-dwelt upon. Man or God – can the two really be so separated? A “living god” means to me living by the ways we have been taught are the best ways to treat one another and it is no more complicated than that. The debates should really only come over how best to do that, if there are to be debates. I hope I have made enough sense that this is not a waste of your time.

Shaun,

I really appreciate your answer to Sally… both content and spirit, though I’m concerned with your understanding of salvation through Jesus.

Jesus made other claims to exclusivity in terms of the need for personal commitment to Jesus alone and the linkage of salvation to that relationship with and commitment to him, uniquely and personally. For instance, Jesus also said, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live.” Those who live are those who trust him. For that to make any sense at all, that trusting in him cannot be a trust without any knowledge or understanding of him.

I agree that we are not saved by knowing right doctrine, but we must know something about who it is that saves us and have some kind of a trust in him and what he has done.

In the book of John, Jesus describes himself as the gate of the sheep and the only way to be saved… that is one must enter through him. It is clear that Jesus is saying that some will not enter through him and thus won’t be saved, but others will enter through him and will be saved as a consequence.

Your are correct, I think, to say that God can chose whoever he wants, but the Bible teaches that he has seen fit to save those who he choses to save in the context of a real relationship with Jesus.

Thus in John 17, Jesus can talk about and pray for the ones that the Father gave him, as opposed to those the Father did not give him (the world). He even prays for those down the ages who would come to be one with Him and with other believers by believing the message (content, truth) that is specifically about him.

I don’t have all the answers to what God does with people who don’t have the capacity to “know” about Christ (e.g. aborted babies, infants that have died, and handicapped), but there have been many answers proposed through the years which have not gone so far to say that any and every person can be saved without a knowledge of Jesus Christ.

I also appreciate your giving voice to our fallenness. However, our fallenness is all the more reason why we must limit ourselves to what God has clearly revealed to us in his Word as opposed to coming up with speculation propositions, however attractive those speculations may seem to those in our world today.

Thanks for “listening” and God bless.

Greg

Just got on this one. Shaun – I appreciate your thoughts and insightful questions.

Just wanted to jump into this conversation on salvation. I may not totally agree with McLaren on this issue, but he does raise a good point in saying that conservative/evangelical/fundamentalist/protestants (which by the way is how I have been raised) have narrowed our definition of salvation so much that only those who jump through our hoops are considered “Christian”. I am begining to rethink much of what I have been taught in this regards and have not reached any conclusions, except to say that this conversation will help open the rusted gate that many of us have neglected. Meaning, acknowledging other faith traditions as being just as legitimate as ours!

I was just wondering. I see two seemingly different statements above. Does Brian McLaren really say that salvation may not be given only to those follow Christ or to “Christian”?
I believe these two statements can bring out two different conclusions.

A BREATH OF FRESH AIR HAS HIT THE INTERNET. Log on www.twistedlogos.com and catch the new breath of fresh air that is invading this earth’s atmosphere for the kingdom of God. VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED, if you’re not sold out for Jesus (the Christ).

I grew up thinking about Christianity quite a bit. I went to Bible college and seminary. I came to believe that most Christians believe their own faith over reason and experience. They are not able to reason because they are guided by their need to keep the faith. They have a bias that will not allow them to question their beliefs. I had many classes on apologetics and creation science. It took a long time before I was able to shed the need to defend my faith and feel like I had the answer to salvation and relationship with God. I am glad some people on this web site are still seeking truth.