|
Post by Andreas on Jun 11, 2010 17:33:06 GMT -5
In Germany, we already have the situation you describe. Almost all churches and ministries of Germany, alongside many other in all of Europe take part in one movement. The leaders of the churches and movements have made a "love covenant" and now work together and don't criticize the others any more. The movement was initiated by Chiara Lubich, an Italian woman who has worked for decades to bring all denominations and all religions together in unity. Alongside the Focolare movement founded by her, the movement is led by the Schoenstatt movement which seeks a spiritual unity of Europe by motivating people to totally surrender to Mary and giving their life to her. Another ministry in the leadership is the YMCA. I'm not sure that's the situation I was describing. I sure didn't mean we should never criticize. I don't understand what "surrender to Mary" and "giving their life to her" means. Does it mean you can't love God with all your heart, soul, mind, strength? Because I think everyone knows it is wrong to deny God as much honor and love as we know how to show him. Also, if Mary is still a woman, then she shouldn't have authority over men. Well, I was warning of unity without truth. That is what we have in Germany, and reading your posts I understood you would be in favor of such a development if it happened in the US or worldwide. I gave the two examples - the founder, who seeks the unity of all religions, and the Schoenstatt movement, who basically worships Mary as their Messiah, to make you aware how false unity can be. I don't know if I understand your question regarding Mary worship. I mean, the problem is that she is just a dead human person. To make a second risen Christ out of her is spiritual darkness.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 11, 2010 18:54:17 GMT -5
If I was raised a Hindu and taught Hindu ideals would you consider me a good person. I don't know much about Hinduism. If you gave me an example of a specific belief or doctrine then I could consider whether someone could possibly believe it in good conscience. But, no, being a Hindu does not make you automatically a good person any more than personally knowing the Lord Jesus made Judas Iscariot a good person. Same answer for this as for Hindus. Ok. I'm not sure I understand whether God reveals the gospel to every human before they die, or if it is dependent upon Christians, or a combination of both. Therefore I don't know if every single person hears the Gospel before they die. I kind of doubt it, but I am open to being wrong about that. Anyway, if everyone does hear the Gospel, then of course, as soon as they understand that it is true, they would be bad if they knowingly rejected the truth. But they can't be judged for lacking knowledge that has not yet been presented to them. They are judged according to their works just like the rest of us. I agree there are some things we are without excuse on. For example, as Paul wrote in Romans chapter one, the nations who worshiped idols knew better because they could understand about God from creation.
|
|
|
Post by john316 on Jun 11, 2010 21:13:59 GMT -5
Well all people are without excuse and can seek God and God might reveal Himself to them. I've heard of Muslims who pray in the mosque fervently and then got a revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ and were converted.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jun 28, 2010 22:17:40 GMT -5
John316,
The doctrine that many of these kind folks are introducing to you is the doctrine of the supremacy of the conscience. That is, they believe that the conscience is supreme in both the moral and spiritual realms.
This doctrine holds the position that just so long as one is sincere in his belief that God will not hold him accountable for it. Furthermore, they will reason that the conscience is not something that can be educated and that it is neither good nor evil, etc. Those who hold the position that you've seen presented before you believe that the conscience is an “intuitional verity.” Which simply means that the conscience needs no particular enlightenment of the Bible but instead, from birth, one has, instilled in him, a conscience which knows what is right and what is wrong (this coming about, separate and apart from, the word of God.)
When one takes this position concerning the conscience he is lead to many conclusions. What is commonly taught is that one can stop sinning, which is true to an extent. For instance, I can choose to commit a sin or I can choose not to commit a sin. However, the error that these men make is that when they commit a sin in ignorance or they have been deceived, then it's not a sin at all because all that matters is the supremacy of their conscience.
When you asked BenJoseph about various world religions he responded by saying; “I don't know much about... But if I did... I could consider whether someone could possibly believe it in good conscience.” There's a number of things that stick out here.
#1. It is implied that man has the authority to decide which religions a man can believe in with a “good conscience” and still go to heaven.
#2. That one must have knowledge of various world religions in order to know whether or not God is pleased with such. - We don't need to know every religion which God is displeased with: We only need to know that religion which God is pleased with.
#3. That God will grant salvation to anyone in any religion just so long as someone practiced it through a good conscience.
Acts 10:34,35 was also used to say that men in various religions will be saved (or in the context “denominations”) The argument was made that, just so long as a man is God fearing and works righteousness that God will save him from eternal damnation. However, one must not look too far from the text to realize that this fails to persuade the honest mind. After all, Cornelius was a God fearing man who worked righteousness that still needed to do something in order to be saved(Acts 10:1-6). According to this position we must suppose that Cornelius did not really need Peter to preach unto him the words by which, he and his household, would be saved and furthermore, obedience to those words is out of the question.
So what does the text mean? As Peter said in Acts 10:34 “... Of a truth I do perceive that God is no respecter of persons...” God is not concerned as of what gender or nationality men are but instead, whosoever fears God and works righteousness is an acceptable candidate for salvation. For instance, Cornelius was an acceptable candidate for salvation because he was God fearing and worked righteousness. It is also important to note that Cornelius was not saved before he obeyed the Gospel.
The scriptures teach that a sincerely wrong, ignorant, and/or deceived individual will still go to hell. The Apostle Paul had a good conscience towards God and he reeked havoc on the church of Christ (Acts 23:1). It is also said in Acts 3:17 that those who ignorantly crucified Jesus Christ still needed to repent and be converted in order to be saved (V. 19) (whether they sincerely believed him or not.) We're also told that we can be lead away by the error of the wicked, even if we're sincere in our believes (2 Peter 3:17). Eve was deceived (Gen 3), Uzzah was struck down even though he was sincere and ignorant of the law (2 Sam 6)
The question of ignorance and deception as it pertains to salvation can be summed up by examining what the Bible says about unity (Ephesians 4:4-6). The unity of the Spirit contains: The one Spirit, the one Body, the one Hope, the one Lord, the one Faith, the one baptism, and the one Father. As it pertains to facts about trivial matters, one can be wrong. For instance, I can be ignorant, wrong, or deceived concerning the number of wives Abraham had. I can be mistaken on how tall or long the Ark of Noah was but however, this is not part of the unity of the Spirit. We can say for certain that every single Catholic will go to hell because they are a part of a different body, they have a different baptism, and a different father. Furthermore, those who may disagree with the Catholic church, yet still worship with them, are living their lives in sin and consequently will be told "Depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Romans 16:17,18 commands us to withhold our fellowship from them (the Catholic church). There is no difference in one living in spiritual adultery as one who is living in physical adultery. Just as a man must get out of an un-scriptural marriage before he can be saved, so must he get out of the Catholic church.
The moralist will tell you that when you're breaking these laws, that you're not sinning. However, sin is “transgression” and this is a law of Christ, by which we will all be judged even if we do so in ignorance. Everyone will be judged by the gospel of Jesus Christ. If you'd like more information and debates on this topic, send me an email.
If anyone would like to debate this topic then here's some propositions:
“The scriptures teach that the conscience is supreme in the moral and spiritual realm.”
Affirm:
Deny: Jonathan Whitehead
“The scriptures teach that the good conscience obtains salvation after water baptism.”
Affirm: Jonathan Whitehead
Deny:
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 30, 2010 22:04:46 GMT -5
When you asked BenJoseph about various world religions he responded by saying; “I don't know much about... But if I did... I could consider whether someone could possibly believe it in good conscience.” There's a number of things that stick out here. #1. It is implied that man has the authority to decide which religions a man can believe in with a “good conscience” and still go to heaven.Not decide. The issue is innocent ignorance and to what extent someone can be involuntarily ignorant. My points were not about other religions but about the human beings who are in them. [/color][/quote]It sure sounds like I was saying that. I would only clarify that there may be me many religions or aspects of different religions that would be impossible to practice with a good conscience because of common sense. For example, I don't think atheism can be practiced in good conscience. Acts 10:1-2 says "There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always." Acts 10:35 says "he that feareth [God], and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." Did Cornelius fear God and work righteousness before he was baptized? I think the issue is whether the law of love requires more than all of our ability or not. You seem to imply that it does.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 1, 2010 15:23:44 GMT -5
My points were not about other religions but about the human beings who are in them. I wasn't talking about other religions either. I was talking about the human beings in those religions. - How can a religion go to hell?It sure sounds like I was saying that. I would only clarify that there may be me many religions or aspects of different religions that would be impossible to practice with a good conscience because of common sense. For example, I don't think atheism can be practiced in good conscience. Yes, I know that's what you were saying and the Bible disagrees with you. Also, why don't you think atheism could be practiced in a good conscience? (Note: if you use a Bible verse, then you've surrendered your position. Think hard before you type.) ;D Acts 10:1-2 says "There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always." Acts 10:35 says "he that feareth [God], and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." Did Cornelius fear God and work righteousness before he was baptized? Yes, Cornelius feared God and worked righteousness before he was baptized. As I said in my last post; Cornelius feared God and worked righteousness but was still lost. As you quoted in Acts 10:1,2 - The text says that Cornelius feared God and worked righteousness before he heard the words by which he and his household would obtain salvation through obedience. Acts 11:14 "Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved."Here we have a God fearing man who worked righteousness that was as lost as could be. I think the issue is whether the law of love requires more than all of our ability or not. You seem to imply that it does. The law of love includes keeping the commandments of Christ --> John 14:15Salvation requires obedience to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. "... And to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Thess 1:7,8
Furthermore, if anyone does not have the doctrine of Christ, then they do not have God. "Whosoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. he who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son." 2 John 9-11Infants and the mentally disabled are incapable of obeying the Gospel of Jesus Christ and you can't lump other religions into that category and say "Well, they can't obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ" when they really can. It is illogical and if you disagree, then I'm willing to prove it.
|
|