A question for Christians

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

If a person professes to be a Christian, especially at a mature age, does that mean that they change their way of living if they have been doing things that are against Christ's teachings? Or can they continue acting as they always have because Jesus will forgive them?

I'm asking because I have met Christians who lie, cheat, and steal, and tell me with a straight face that they are "washed in the blood of the Lamb" and that that means they can do whatever they want because when they take communion on Sunday, all their sins are washed away.

I guess the reason I'm confused is that I was raised a Christian, and I always had the impression that one had to have a change of heart, belief, and action to really consider oneself a Christian. But then I was raised in a liberal Methodist church. But nowadays, I've encountered people as described above. So I'm thinking that either my childhood impression of Christianity is wrong or Christianity has changed.

Any comments or explanations will be greatly appreciated.

[hiley]

1. if you were like me

when I was young apparently I was also naive.

[roguevalley]

2. You are supposed to live the way his teachings meant us to.

Anyone who doesn't is just afraid of dying and are hedging their bets. Too bad they don't take the easier route and just do what Jesus hoped we would all do.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Thank you

I try to live by the teachings of Jesus, because it is the same as the teachings at the core of all faiths. That's why it has mystified and upset me when people seem to consider Jesus merely a "get out of Hell free card".

[seriousstan]

3. Communion doesn't absolve sins in any Christian faith I know of.

I believe that you have to confess your sins to Jesus, or through the sacrament of confession in the Catholic faith, and even then you are not absolved unless you believe in your heart that you will try to sin no more. Crossing your fingers behind your back doesn't work with Christ, omniscient and all. The only people they are kidding is themselves and if they are not ignorant, then they are hypocrites.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Thank you for this information

because I was told by someone that they thought communion was all you had to do to erase all your sins every week. This person was a Protestant, so the concept of Confession never came up.

[Indiana_Dem]

6. Your childhood impression of Christianity is correct.

I believe it's only God who can judge a man's heart. However, the words Jesus had for people like the Christians you've described above were not good.

[zeemike]

7. You are right

Jesus spent a lot of time on criticizing the hypocrite. And he put it nicely when he said " a tree is known by the fruit it bears"

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. A tree is known

thanks for the quote!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. I thought my impressions were correct

and I agree that only God can judge a man's heart. Sometimes I wonder if people who profess to be Christians yet don't follow His teachings have even read the words of Christ.

[Indiana_Dem]

10. Either that or they haven't been given the gift of

understanding what they read. I think people are at their own level of understanding and learning and in their own timing of it. Some people never get it. Some people like to hear only what they want to hear. Some like to have others interpret and don't like to think for themselves. Some people are just plain unrepentant and unremorseful.

The quote about the tree is good.

[checks-n-balances]

11. And you sum it up very well yourself

It reminds me of Jesus' parable of the sower...

The farmer threw seed on the ground. Some of it landed on shallow soil, some on rocky ground, and some of it actually took root.

Hmmm...trees bearing fruit, seed taking root...Jesus would definitely be an environmentalist today, because he was always using metaphors from nature!


Thanks, all, for the discussion on this thread.

On edit: grammar correction

[Indiana_Dem]

13. Hey thanks!

That was exactly the parable I was thinking of only I couldn't remember the whole story! I just remembered the importance/moral of it. Thanks for bringing that up.

[bigmonkey]

12. Antinomianism

That's the word for it. My Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy defines it as:

"The belief held by various sects, but particularly by radical protestant movements of the 16th and 17th centuries, that certain chosen Christians are by faith or by predestination unable to sin, and are hence set free from any requirement to obey any moral law. Antinomianism is frequently associated with unconventional life styles and sexual practices."

I was up late one Saturday, and I saw a woman on "Cheaters" who was accusing her boyfriend of infidelity. When he countercharged her, she said something like "I'm saved by Jesus, so screw you". That's my thumbnail sketch of antinomianism. This period should be a good one for anyone studying various heresies. :-)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. I hadn't heard of this

but considering what the Puritans thought about themselves vs others, this variation of predestination doesn't surprise me. Thanks for the information!

[T_i_B]

15. The old Faith v Works question

Hopefully, this bit of scripture (from the letter from James) should be of help. I myself must admit that the need to make my own faith living faith is a great spiritual challenge that I face.

http://bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp

14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

20. Thank you for this passage

I tend to read the words of Jesus alone, and was not aware of this passage.

[MemphisTiger]

16. It's my understanding that you have to live by the

teachings of Christ. When you take communion you must ge "truly" sorry for the sins you have commited. That is not to say that man is without sin. We are all sinners in the eyes of God. These people will be in for a rude awakening when they are judged by God.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

17. No. Christianity has not changed. American attitudes towards it

have.
I find that more and more now. People think just because they go on Sunday they are good to go for the week.

Of course everyone is a sinner, everyone who tries to control those sins and comes to God with an open heart and mind will be absolved.

The others. Well, they can meet Caiaphis and Hitler most likely.

[xchrom]

18. it's a spiritual path

there's no such thing as perfection.
jesus knows this --- and why one is continually asking for forgiveness.
what would be a mistake is not having a sense of humility about the human condition.
christians will sin -- there can be no doubt -- it's through belief in christ that one makes a humble confession. knowing all the time -- one will also fall once again -- if not tripped by the same sin -- then by another.
we all, always, fall short of the grace of god.
the others you refer to -- well what can one say? i'm glad for confession.

[banana republican]

19. We don't Choose God; God Chooses Us.

the Luthern Faith is based on the one scripture:
You are justified by GRACE through FAITH.

Either God Love you or he doesn't.

The good new is that Jesus told us that He(God) loves us; all of us. And he would like us to love each other in the same way.

The bad news is that we do not always believe this; and try to arrange for our own salvation. As if we could SUCK UP, or BROWN NOSE God. Forget it He is way smarter than that.

[JVS]

24. "Either God Love you or he doesn't."

Actually, Lutherans believe that God loves all and wants all to accept the Grace freely offered on the cross. The whole idea being that we cannot be agents of our own salvation, bur must rely on Christ. Calvin would later extend this into the what is sometimes called strong predestination, which says that God picks and chooses among humanity.

Basic chart

RCC: All can achieve salvation through faith and works.

Lutherans: We are too sinful to assist in our own salvation, but it is quite possible for us to reject the forgiveness offered and prevent our salvation.

Calvinists: God has decided and we cannot alter that which is his will

[T_i_B]

29. Luther and predestination

Luther did belive in predestination, and had a famous theological quarrel with Erasmus of Rotterdam over the question of free will and predestination.

But you are dead right to mention Calvin here as Calvin is the man most associated with predestination. Calvin took that theological concept to places Luther did not. For example in Calvinism tends towards the belief that God predestines some to hell, which Lutherans have not generally accepted.

I'll post some history of the Erasmus/Luther dispute from the Catholic Encyclopedia here for reference.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05510b.htm

One after another, the leaders of the religious anti-Roman movement withdrew from the famous humanist, especially Zwingli and Œcolampadius. This same year Erasmus resolved at last to heed the many appeals made to him, especially by Adrian VI and Henry VIII, to write against Luther. For the first time he took a decided stand, moved, no doubt, by the fear of losing the confidence of both parties.

He chose with skill the point on which he would attack Luther. Erasmus had complained much earlier that the new religious movement begat only commotion, moral disorganization, and the interruption, if not the complete ruin, of learned studies. These abuses he traced to Luther's denial of free will. He wrote, therefore, in defence of the freedom on the will, an attack on Luther, entitled: "Diatribe de libero arbitrio" (1524). The work, it may be said, was couched in a calm and dignified style. Though by no means sufficiently profound in its theological reasoning, the proofs are drawn with skill from the Bible and from reason.

Luther's reply was the "De servo arbitrio" (1524), henceforth the official programme of the new movement. Starting from the third chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, it teaches the absolute incompetency of man in his fallen state to perform moral acts; no franker antithesis to the humanistic ideal could be imagined. Erasmus replied in a work entitled "Hyperaspistes" (1526), but without effect. Luther ignored this reply, except in private letters in which he showed much irritation. Some years later, however, when the "Explanatio Symboli" of Erasmus appeared (1533), Luther attacked him once more in a public letter, to which Erasmus replied in his "Adversus calumniosissimam epistolam Martini Lutheri". These passages at arms brought on Erasmus the violent hatred of the Wittenberg reformer, who now called him nothing but a sceptic and an Epicurean.

[JVS]

31. As a Lutheran, at no time was I taught predestination...

or at least predestination as we understand it in modern society.

BTW, your source, while convenient, is a product of its time and writers. It is the Catholic encyclopedia of 1917, which predates Vatican II and relations between the RCC and Protestants at the time were extremely contentious and often displayed gross (and possibly intentional) ignorance of each other's positions. Some errors persist to this day. This source should be considered with the same amount of scepticism that would be given to say, Pat Robertsons views on Islam.

To read a view that does not try to paint Luther and Lutherans as raving asshole heretics (which seems to have been the RCC stance until fairly recently) try this linkhttp://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals/v1n8.htm

Calvin taught Unconditional Election: "God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will. His choice of particular sinners was not based on any foreseen response or obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom he selected."

Luther was uncomfortable with the idea of predestination. He said " Dispute about predestination should be avoided entirely... I forget everything about Christ and God when I come upon these thoughts and actually get to the point to imagining that God is a rogue. We must stay in the word, in which God is revealed to us and salvation is offered, if we believe him. But in thinking about predestination, we forget God . . However, in Christ are hid all the treasures (Col. 2:3); outside him all are locked up. Therefore, we should simply refuse to argue about election."

If I may conjecture as to why Luther didn't want to talk about it, I'd have to quote John Wesley, founder of the Methodists "It (unconditional election) overturns both his justice, mercy, and truth; yea, it represents the most holy God as worse than the devil, as both more false, more cruel, and more unjust. ... This is the blasphemy clearly contained in the horrible decree of predestination! And here I fix my foot. On this I join issue with every assertor of it. You represent God as worse than the devil; more false, more cruel, more unjust."

In a debate on this, I've seen the Lutheran POV described as "God desires all to be saved and offers redemption to all, but through our free will it is possible for us to reject the forgiveness" In other words free will let's you choose to be damned, but only through God's actions can you be saved.

If you care to look more closely at original sources. the positions of the Lutheran Church, and probably Luther (remember we did not name ourselves after him, we were labeled that by Rome, and he is neither the only founder nor did he have complete authority on theological matters within the Evangelical Church as it was known) on a matter like this would be found in the Lutheran Confessional writings, which are all collected in the Book of Concord www.bookofconcord.org these are the only official texts of the Lutheran faith.

[JVS]

32. Lutherans and predestination

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2241

In discussing differences with other denominations (Presbyterian in this case) they say this:

"Predestination. Most Presbyterian churches teach a "double predestination," i.e., that some people are predestined by God from eternity to be saved and others are predestined by God from eternity to be damned. Lutherans believe that while God, in his grace in Christ Jesus, has indeed chosen from eternity to save those who trust in Jesus Christ, He has not predestined anyone to damnation. Those who are saved are saved by grace alone; those who are damned are damned not by God's choice but because of their own sin and stubbornness. This is a mystery that is incomprehensible to human reason (as are all true Scriptural articles of faith)."

I couldn't find a statement from the ELCA because they generally dislike pointing out differences in beliefs with others.

[T_i_B]

38. That's right

Luther did teach predestination, and the bits from the Catholic Encycopedia I posted refer to Erasmus of Rotterdam, who had a famous quarrel with Luther over the Issue. You can read up on the history of the reformation for yourself and the chances are you will find plenty of coverage of this debate.

Now Erasmus, although he did quarrel with Luther was often said to have "laid the egg that Luther hatched", although the dispute over free will was the point at which Erasmus came off the fence on the Catholic/Lutheran issue. he remained Catholic till he died, although he was condemmed by both sides after his death.

But Luther did not run with it as far as Calvin did. That is beyond dispute. Indeed if we are to discuss predestination then Calvinism is probbably a better reference as predestination plays a greater part in that theological approach.

P.S. Notice that whilst I tend to talk about the historical Luther, you are in the here and now with the Lutheran Church today. Maybe that's why we are looking at things differently. I'll post the differences between the Methodist and Lutheran Churches here for reference anyway.

The primary differences between Lutheranism and "classical" Methodism rooted in the theology of John Wesley center in Wesley's doctrine of salvation. Wesley taught, contrary to Lutheran theology, that
1) man is free not only to reject salvation but also to accept it (free salvation) by an act of human will;
2) all people who are obedient to the Gospel according to the measure of knowledge given them will be saved (universal salvation);
3) the Holy Spirit assures man of his salvation directly, through an inner "experience" (sure salvation);
4) Christians in this life are capable of Christian perfection and are commanded by God to pursue it (full salvation).

[Dorian Gray]

40. The Catholic Church

actually has a place for predestination, also. They don't deny its existance, but it's not viewed in the same way that we see it today when we speak of Calvin.

from www.newadvent.org

Predestination (Lat. prœ, destinare), taken in its widest meaning, is every Divine decree by which God, owing to His infallible prescience of the future, has appointed and ordained from eternity all events occurring in time, especially those which directly proceed from, or at least are influenced by, man's free will. It includes all historical facts, as for instance the appearance of Napoleon or the foundation of the United States, and particularly the turning-points in the history of supernatural salvation, as the mission of Moses and the Prophets, or the election of Mary to the Divine Motherhood. Taken in this general sense, predestination clearly coincides with Divine Providence and with the government of the world, which do not fall within the scope of this article (see DIVINE PROVIDENCE).

More can be found here (a lot more!!):

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

Sorry, I don't know if this actually interests me, but the discussion of predestination vs. free will fascinates me!

[tjdee]

21. Don't believe in brown-nosing God.

As banana republican says above.

I'm not a Lutheran (maybe I should be), but I don't believe you can be unsaved. The big thing about Christianity, to me, isn't being perfect, but having faith. That is not to say that there is no consequence to bad behavior, which inevitably leads to pain of some sort, to someone,

At one time, Jacob was a cheat and a liar. David had a man killed. I don't believe God goes oh, you fucked up, no heaven for you. (I curse, for example. Would that mean I'm not really a Christian?)

However, I also believe that as a Christian you try to live a life that is reflective of the way Jesus lived, so that people may see his light through you. If you make a mistake, you try sincerely to make amends and do better. Some people have a false faith based on the free pass thinking...but as most of you have said, God knows what's up.

[Brentos]

35. Hee-hee, brown nosing God!

That's how I see some religions! :-)

My studies have taught me that, technically, in a lawyerly-way, you could be saved and do all the evil things you wanted, because you believe in God and are saved.

But, in reality, if you are lawyer-ing your way around what you truly know God to want of you, you probably aren't a true believer, or are further down the slippery slope towards unbelief than is probably good.

The Old Testament teaches us that when we stare God in the face, his countenance shines down on us, as God is ALWAYS looking at us. It is when we look away that the natural evils of the universe affect us. The New Testament teaches us that through Jesus we are saved, and by communing with him (eating with, accepting him and his teachings, etc.) we are saved. If we are looking away from Jesus, are we truly with him?

Good discussion!

-Brent

[Mabeline]

22. I have always believed...

That when a person in saved there usually is a visible change, someone who steals, won't...someone who cheats, won't...because these are things God teaches are wrong, and they won't want to do them.

I am usually skeptical of people who claim to be saved and continue to do the things they always did. But only they and God know what is truly in their heart.

We all sin daily, looking at a neighbors nice expensive new car (or his sexy young wife..etc) will cause many a man to be envious...and we should all pray daily for those sins and for strength not to feel that way....which most will do again for we all fall short of perfection.

That said....I fully believe there will be many who have done good works in Gods name but are not saved (born again if you will) who will be surprised when they die and open their eyes in hell.
-------------------------

John 3
1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

---------------------------------------

I feel the same way as you about Christianity changing, but I realized not too many years ago it is not the faith that has changed, it's the people...Churches now a days accept so much that is not right just to have the numbers and they are doing an injustice to those who ARE.

A couple of years ago my dads mom was ill(parkinsons)and she had a feeding tube, she was bed ridden, had to be taken care of 24-7, her husband (dad's step-father)was ill at the time too so both were being tended by our family, so my aunt was there doing her shift...while she was there he propositioned her...this from a man who is a minister...she thought maybe she'd heard him wrong or maybe he was joking...but the next day he did it again and this time she KNEW he wasn't kiddng.....

Long and short of it is my aunt has been a member of this Church for many, many years and he has only been in it and a minister for less than 10...the church officials believed HIM and she was run out of the church.

The only good was the family ran him off and he couldn't abuse (by neglect, after he'd went through every thing she had) my grandma any more, she died penniless but with family who loved her, not really knowing (because of the illness) what happened.

[supernova]

23. No, you're right

I always had the impression that one had to have a change of heart, belief, and action to really consider oneself a Christian

You're correct. And this is the true meaning of the phrase born again. If you have been doing things that are wrong and or unhealthy for you, then you are supposed to turn over the proverbial new leaf.

That's the squeaky clean, idealized version. In practice, it's much harder. Think about how many times it takes a heroin addict to quit. It's the hardest thing in the world to work on yourself.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. You're supposed to have a "new attitude"

In other words, since nobody's perfect, you will continue to sin, but you will try not to, and you will look for ways to be more generous and loving.

You are not supposed to willfully wallow in being a lecherous greedhead who beats up your family members. You may backslide once in a while, but you're supposed to try your best to follow Christ's teachings. When you do backslide, you're supposed to repent, but cynically continuing to do evil simply because you think you can get your guilt erased periodically is missing the whole point. The repentance part is supposed to be for honest moments of weakness, not for cynical exploitation of some cosmic "get out of jail free" card.

[Brentos]

26. My belief

My belief is that all were forgiven by Christ. All are saved. Through acts alone we are not saved. Since we have all been saved by Christ, it is only by the denial of Christ that we are condemed. Thus, technically, is you truly believed in Christ and his teachings and continued to sin, it is still forgiven. But, if you truly don't believe, and use the religion to hedge your bets, it doesn't matter if you were the most humanitarian person on the planet. An interesting place that my studies have taken me is that the only way not to be saved, based on my understanding of the Bible, is to deny God. So, if you've never truly known God, yet don't believe, you haven't denied God. Only if you have truly known God, and then denied him, are you cursed by your own choosing. God created humans with free will. After Christ, we were all saved. It is by free will only we are doomed.

Now, though, if you truly do believe in God and Jesus, you will choose to follow in his teaching and strive to be a better person constantly. We aren't with sin, though, so we need to ask forgiveness and repent our sin (symbolically through communion) and continue our journey.

Thanks,
-Brent

[doni_georgia]

28. How does this belief line up with the parable of the prodigal's son?

Not bashing your beliefs, just curious as to how you see this parable working in there.

[Brentos]

34. Thanks for the question!

The parable of the prodigal son, in my view, shows one of the hardest things for current Christians to deal with (along with the parable of the field workers (I know that's not the title, but, at work I don't have access to it)). It is the tale of one son, who dutifully does what he is supposed to do, day in, and day out, with the assumption that he will inheret what is his. The other son is a party animal :-), and rebels, and leaves his father (turns away from God). Out in the world, bad things happen to him, but in the end, he tucks his tail in, and realizes that his true home is with his father (God). His father embraces him wholeheartedly and makes him a meal of his most valuable beast (possibly: eating of Jesus, communion). The dutiful son is quite upset by this, as he thinks he has done everything right and deserves this treatment. But, he has never asked for it.

These parables tell the same basic story, that it doesn't matter when you decide to come to God (through Jesus as a Christian), that you are all equal in God's eye, and are all deserving of eternal salvation.

Again, though, it isn't an excuse to go do bad stuff, knowing that at the end you can turn to God, because the more you turn away from God, the further down that slippery slope you tread, and the harder it is to return (but return you can). The farther from God, the easier it is from Satan (evil, lack of God) to grab ahold of you.

Does this anwer your question?
(Feel free to ask more questions, I love discussing beliefs, and I'm not offended by questions, or closed minded)

Thanks,
-Brent

[doni_georgia]

27. I believe all spirituality is a process

Now, some people who profess to be Christians are religious, but they are really not spiritual people. Spiritual people live their beliefs. A lot of churches have totally rejected good works. There's is a gospel of grace alone. These are the folks you will see with bumper stickers on their cars which read "Forgiven Not Perfect," or "I'm Just a Sinner Saved By Grace." Personally, I believe that if you REALLY believe something, it can't help but change who you are. But for many, all they want is fire insurance (a ticket out of hell, if you will). I personally believe hell is only a metaphor, and my own Christianity is heavily influenced by Zen, so I really can't speak for others who don't share my beliefs, but for me, I could not call myself a Christian (which literally means "little christ") if I wasn't attempting to be more like Jesus.

[Brentos]

36. I can agree with this.

See some of my other posts here about the lawyer type trying to get around God's laws, knowing that he is saved.

If one truly believes in something, they have no choice but to be affected by that belief. By God's grace we are saved, but doing the works (walking the walk) is what set's those apart that truly believe something to the highest degrees.

The other side of the argument, though, is the parable of the field workes (I forget the actual name). The basic meaning is that if a person did great works their entire life, but didn't believe, they are not saved. If a person did great works their entier life and believed, they are saved. If a person, such as Hitler, did evil their entire life, but on their deathbed, truly repented their sins and believed, they are just as welcome in heaven, and all recieve the exact same reward.

Thanks,
-Brent

[PsychoDad]

30. The behavior you refer to...

Is a product of an evangelical fundimentalist christian doctrine called "Eternal Salvation".

Once you are "Saved", "Washed in the blood" and "Born Again", you posess "ETERNAL SALVATION". All your sins are forgiven, past present and future, so have fun!

Yes, Rape, Pillage and Burn, cause you are washed in the Blood! The "Law" no longer applies to you. You are now under "Grace".

Of course, you are supposed to be a "new creature", one less willing to sin and go against the will of God... but...

Not all denominations of Evangelicals belive this way. The Nazarines for instance.... It's mostly various baptist and pentacostal groups.

Hope this helps.
Salaams

[Cheswick2.0]

33. a question for you

you could ask this question of anyone in any religion and you chose to ask Christians, why?

It seems to me you have picked a particular "pop" criticism of people hostile to Christianity and decided to mask it as a question.

[PsychoDad]

37. Not all religions teach "eternal salvation"

Nor do all christian denominations.

I see the doctrine as an excuse for some of the behavior. Most religions place a great deal of weight on deeds and intent. The fundimentalists use the doctrine as a blanket pardon for all deeds and intentions past present and future regardless how they may violate the 10 commandments or the teachings of Jesus.

Can you think of another case of the "eternal salvation" doctrine in another religion?

Of course we all know, anyone who wants to can justify anything in any religion :(

So I guess the real answer to the post would be they have been led astray and are wrong.

[Dorian Gray]

39. You'll get many different answers

I'm Catholic, and because of that, I believe that good works are necessary along with faith in God. Through faith we are led to do good things and live a life of that Christ would be proud of.

Sadly, there are a lot of religious holy rollers who believe in the axiom, "Do as I say, not as I do." I believe that treating each human being with dignity and grace is the only way to live. (And, yes, I fall far short of that much of the time. I am, after all, only human!)

[Liberal Christian]

41. Salvation is through grace, not works

I'm Calvinist enough to believe that salvation is through the grace of God. It's not something we work to deserve. It's not something we can earn. It's a free and abundant gift of God.

This frees me from having to be perfect in order to "make God love me." God just does love me. The end.

Calvin would also have said that acknowledging and accepting this gift of grace inspires the recipient to live differently, not out of fear of losing God's love or salvation, but out of gratitude for having received it. "Living differently" would include living as faithfully as we can.

Having said all that, the reality is that we also have the gift of free will. We are going to misuse that gift from time to time. We are going to mess up. The miracle is that God still loves us anyway. That's really what election is all about.

I also believe that at its heart "salvation" is not about whether one is "going to heaven" or "going to hell" but about being in right and just relationship with God as one goes about one's daily life.

[MellowOne]

42. My Understanding

No one is perfect or can lead a perfect life. That is why Jesus died as the perfect sacrifice for our sins. Before Jesus, the Jews performed animal blood sacrifices to atone for sins. Once Jesus died, the curtain in the Holy of Holies was torn in half so animal sacrifices were no longer necessary. We claim Jesus as the atonement for our sins, we are then under his grace. We are not perfect but forgiven. So we are free to live under Jesus grace and not the law. So in a sense, we can do whatever we want. But Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandment." We are forgiven when we sin because we are under his grace but we do suffer the consquences for our sins. also God knows are hearts. He knows who truly loves him and wants to live for him. He know when we truly are sorry for our sins.

When we receive Jesus as our savior, he sends us his Holy Spirit which lives within us to guide us, teach us, and convict us. If we truly want to live as Jesus, we will be convicted of sin when we comment it or think about commented sin.

Unfortunately, many people become Christans for the wrong reasons and set the wrong example for people who have not made the commitment. If you truly love Jesus, he will guide you into all understanding and in to what is right and wrong.