Accepting Christ
Submitted by Heather on July 31 1999 at 14:28:05
In reply to Re: The centurion and his servant Submitted by Ben on July 31 1999 at 07:29:25
|
Paul's a difficult case. I do think that those who say, "Paul followed the God of retribution, while Jesus followed the God of love," are being simplistic to the extreme; who was it that kept nattering on about hellfire? On the other hand, I think that it's helpful to keep in mind that (1) Paul, however great a man he was, wasn't God, and (2) Paul often distinguishes between what Jesus says and what he himself says, and (3) Paul was writing for specific people in specific situations and had no idea that his letters would still be read two thousand years later. "there is clear indication in the bible that salvation comes from accepting Jesus, turning one's life to God and repenting of sin." You know me; I always ignore the parts of a person's post that I agree with, and zero right in on the parts that worry me. :) We've discussed the goats and sheeps parable, I'm sure, which suggests that some who follow Jesus may not know that they are doing so. There are other verses in the New Testament which are suggestive: "And Peter opened his mouth and said: 'Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.'" (Acts 10:34) "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." (Romans 2:13-16) "For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those who believe." (1 Timothy 4:10) There are also, of course, passages in the New Testament that suggest that only an explicit acknowledgment of Jesus as the Son of God will bring about salvation. Leaving aside the possibility that one group just got it wrong, there does seem to me to be a certain amount of tension in the New Testament over the requirements for salvation, a tension similar to the scientists' inability to decide whether light is a wave or a particle. Myself, I find the Logos doctrine to be a comforting doctrine, because it seems to offer a possible solution to the problem – that is to say, in identifying Chist with the Logos, and in saying that the work of the Logos extends beyond that of the visible Church, John seems to be saying what common sense tells us: that some of the greatest saints in this world have explicitly rejected Christianity, yet still seemed to be guided by Christ. Otherwise, one has to say that people like Gandhi will end up in hell, and I'm very reluctant to make that leap. I'm almost embarrassed to link the post below, because it's one of those posts where I got overenthusiastic and started calling people who don't agree with me on this extremists :), but it has some interesting quotations in it to show how early Christians interpreted such passages. Heather |