The Kerygma - God's Requirement for Salvation
- Thread starter GWH
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A papalist ilk or type is someone who thinks they have an inerrant understanding of GW akin to the RC dogma of papal infallibility.
It is manifested by pejorative persecution of Christians akin to the Inquisition or by not caring about what other Christians think
is the correct interpretation of Scripture, especially regarding GRFS, which Jesus called having a callous heart (Matt. 13:14-15).
What is the name for someone who they thinks their personl views and words trumps GODS word?
I am one who does not care what others THINK, I care more about what JESUS THINKS AND SAYS which trumps what men think.
Meaning, I more afraid of JESUS than man and will call out people who lie to others who boldly say HIS word says this or that and it don't.
Q. What is the name for someone who they thinks their personl views and words trumps GODS word?
A. pope
Semantics lesson:
a. I am one who does not care what others THINK,
b. I care more about what JESUS THINKS AND SAYS; Meaning, I more afraid of JESUS than man
which trumps what men think.
c. and will call out people who lie to others who boldly say HIS word says this or that and it don't.
Saying "b" (more about...) implies that you DO care what others think, but less than you care about what Jesus thinks--
because you fear him more.
Saying "c" implies that you think what you think is true, but that what others think is false where it disagrees with your thinking,
and thus you think it is right to call the others liars as though your thinking is infallible.
So here's the deal pope.
I don't have a dime in it, it's not my opinion v/s anothers mans opinion.
It's GODS word v/s that others mans opinion.
I don't THINK GOD'S word is true, I KNOW IT IS.
When a man shares his opinion and challenged with it many times and can't back it up with GOD'S word, it's A LIE.
What do you call a man who lies?
I am a truthseeker, not a pope; You are fully invested in your papal opinion.
You know nothing infallibly; we all walk by faith (2Cor. 5:7).
You THINK your opinion about what GW says is correct; I am confident but humble about mine.
When you share your opinion without citing GW fully, it is even more open to challenge.
A man who lies is called a liar; a man who thinks his opinion is infallible is called a pope.
I don't say GW means something other than it says, but I DO disagree with YOUR words,
and I see no reason to repent of that. (Let's not play ping-pong.)
I said GW says every Christian is loving when Spirit-filled per Rom. 5:5, Gal. 5:22-23, John 13:35, 1John 4:1-21, etc.
Did you??? I for sure am not going back to check exalty what you said, BUT I KNOW THIS I would NOT have asked you to back up what you say if you said that.
I do remember asking you to back up, when we are filled with the Holy Ghost we get filled with love!!!!!!!!
Since HIS word is clear when a person is filled they will speak in tongues not love, love may be part of it not the evidence they are filled.
YOU COULD NOT that is why after many attemts I called you a liar!!!!
Do you want to go back and look?
No, you speak in tongues and I will love.
Do you remember me betting my understanding is better?
Just remember what Jesus said about name-calling.
Yea, I remembe JESUS doing a little name calling also.
As long as you don't lie, like when I called you a liar I was not.
If JESUS filled, which is a part of being reborn then we both would be speaking in tongues and have love.
If I had no love in me I would have called you a liar when you first said when we are filled with the spirit we are filled with love.
I tired and tired to get you to look in HIS word so you could see you were wrong, but no luck so after a few times in love I called you a liar.
Yep in love, if I didn't have love I would just not said nothing and leave you in your lies without saying anything.
What do you call love? Leaving people think they are right when they are not???
1 Peter 3:15b instructs Christians to “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have…”–IOW, to share our testimony. Here is mine:
I was raised by loving, Christian (Southern Baptist) parents, who were happily married for 70 years. I attended church regularly as a child, believed what was taught and about the age of eight had enough courage to walk the aisle during an invitation and profess publicly my faith in Jesus by being water baptized.
My personality was rather introverted as a teenager, so I discussed my beliefs only with a few close friends. When I was a senior in high school, my favorite teacher was a former preacher turned agnostic, and in my freshman year of college, the daughter of a missionary became an atheist. My ignorance of answers to questions asked by skeptics prompted me to read the entire Bible (NEB), which I did over the course of my life in four translations, each time making notes in the margins to connect verses on various themes.
After college and military service I attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, where a professor of systematic theology (William Hendricks) was stimulating, as was a Bible study I attended (led by R.B. Thime). During this time I heard a debate on the radio between Christian evangelist Bob Harrington and atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair and I was chagrined to concede that the atheist won the debate on substance, so I determined to seek better replies to such questions and criticisms as I continued searching Scripture.
Years later as a military chaplain, I encountered the Atheist Community of Austin and offered to speak at one of their meetings.
I also debated atheists on an online chat site for several years, and although I may not have converted any of them, the discussions helped hone my beliefs, which I published on a website in 2005 and in two booklets in 2018 and 2019 (The Best Belief and The Christian Creed). (A book by Dinesh D’Souza in 2013, “What’s So Great about God”, and the 2014 movie “God’s Not Dead”, had a similar approach to apologetics.)
The following excerpts from “Love God with All Your Mind” by J.P. Moreland expresses my experience: “I used to be afraid of witnessing… I was rather defensive and nervous… But now I understand why I believe, and this has brought me both peace and a non-defensive boldness to witness to others.” (p.20) “Sunday School should be more effective in training believers how to think carefully about their faith. Training in apologetics should be a regular part of discipleship.” (p.26) “Our discipleship materials often leave Christian young people vulnerable to atheistic college professors.” (p.28) “The apostle Paul… reasoned with and tried to persuade people intelligently to accept Christ.” (p.30)
My reasons for believing NT Christianity include what I call the “Propensity Principle” (PP). The PP points out that until proof is provided in the future at the eschaton, humanity’s existential need and desire for eternal life and ultimate justice (the duo of desirables or DOD) make it logical for truthseekers to have a propensity to hope and believe a God who provides the DOD exists, to determine the most credible revelation of God’s requirement for attaining heaven, and to cooperate with His revealed will. IOW, it seems logical–given the existential facts of death and imperfect justice–that an unbiased truthseeker would have a propensity to hope the Christian view is correct, because there is no better (credible and desirable) way of attaining the DOD than NT theism. This PP restates Pascal’s wager in terms of reasonable comparison shopping (with all belief systems) instead of lucky/blind gambling.
The PP employs linear logic (rather than circular reasoning) to propose faith in the NT God as the best belief that solves the maze of reality as follows:
1. Current scientific knowledge cannot explain how the universe came to exist by means of natural causes, thus it is possible that the cause of the universe is a supernatural Creator/God.
2. The most creative species is humanity, whose traits also include language, moral conscience and God consciousness (personality), so it is possible that these human traits reflect attributes of a God who created humanity.
3. Existential reality indicates that humans are mortal and life is painful, but when life is happy, one wishes it would continue indefinitely. Thus, it is rational to seek how to be saved or to become immortal in a heavenly existence.
4. Comparing all possible ways of achieving the DOD, the best or most credible way/hope at this point appears to be the God who resurrected Christ Jesus.
5. When words from God are sought, the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul seem to be the most highly inspired when compared with other scriptures (including the OT), because its concept of one God as the just and all-loving Judge (rationale for morality) is spiritually highest or most advanced, and the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is most credible.
6. Thus, it is appropriate or wise to believe in the NT God and to accept Jesus as God’s Messiah.
Atheists deny the validity of this rational argument, but in the absence of disproof, I find the decision to reject the biblical gospel of salvation from selfishness, spiritual death, and a miserable destiny to be illogical or foolish. This is why all truthseekers should agree on NT theism now rather than assume atheism is an unlucky guess.
As someone has said, heaven is like a vision of water in the desert: the scoffer will surely die where he/she is, while the believer will live if right. Again, however, this analogy should be viewed in terms of comparison shopping and logic rather than of blind faith and fear. True love for God is evoked by His love for humanity and is a reflection of His loving Holy Spirit (1John 4:7-12); it cannot be coerced, although it can be imitated (2Cor. 11:14 calls Satan an “angel of light”). Heaven may not be a mirage!
A biblical illustration of the PP is the OT story about Naaman being told to bathe in the dirty Jordan River to cure his leprosy (2Kings 5:10-14). The Naaman Example teaches us not to let sinful pride prevent us from being cured of spiritual sickness by methods we think are silly or do not fully understand. Some people might not understand why God ordained Messiah to atone for humanity’s sins, so they think the Gospel seems foolish or silly (cf. 1Cor. 1:18-25). However, they accept physical reality without necessarily understanding very well how it works (cf. John 3:8), and Jesus said that those who seek salvation will find it, which indicates that God graces every sinful soul with the ability or opportunity to understand how to be saved (Matt. 7:7, cf. 1Tim. 2:3-4), which might be called “seeking grace”.
Those who reject the PP (and Naaman Example) apparently employ a logical fallacy that might be called non praecedere (comparable to non sequitur), making an unwarranted conclusion which precedes unknown facts, namely the cause for the universe “banging bigly”. Atheists assume a natural cause will be discovered, but their assumption is premature and thus inappropriate or illogical. The astute atheist will realize that the logical train of thought from Descartes to the PP that has been presented is common sense that is available to every normal human adult, which is why there is no excuse for disbelief in God (Rom. 1:20). On the contrary, it is the reason Christians can bet or have confidence that their faith is correct (Heb. 10:19&35, Phil. 3:3-7, Eph. 3:12) and it is the atheists whose faith is blind.
I was raised by loving, Christian (Southern Baptist) parents, who were happily married for 70 years. I attended church regularly as a child, believed what was taught and about the age of eight had enough courage to walk the aisle during an invitation and profess publicly my faith in Jesus by being water baptized.
My personality was rather introverted as a teenager, so I discussed my beliefs only with a few close friends. When I was a senior in high school, my favorite teacher was a former preacher turned agnostic, and in my freshman year of college, the daughter of a missionary became an atheist. My ignorance of answers to questions asked by skeptics prompted me to read the entire Bible (NEB), which I did over the course of my life in four translations, each time making notes in the margins to connect verses on various themes.
After college and military service I attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, where a professor of systematic theology (William Hendricks) was stimulating, as was a Bible study I attended (led by R.B. Thime). During this time I heard a debate on the radio between Christian evangelist Bob Harrington and atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair and I was chagrined to concede that the atheist won the debate on substance, so I determined to seek better replies to such questions and criticisms as I continued searching Scripture.
Years later as a military chaplain, I encountered the Atheist Community of Austin and offered to speak at one of their meetings.
I also debated atheists on an online chat site for several years, and although I may not have converted any of them, the discussions helped hone my beliefs, which I published on a website in 2005 and in two booklets in 2018 and 2019 (The Best Belief and The Christian Creed). (A book by Dinesh D’Souza in 2013, “What’s So Great about God”, and the 2014 movie “God’s Not Dead”, had a similar approach to apologetics.)
The following excerpts from “Love God with All Your Mind” by J.P. Moreland expresses my experience: “I used to be afraid of witnessing… I was rather defensive and nervous… But now I understand why I believe, and this has brought me both peace and a non-defensive boldness to witness to others.” (p.20) “Sunday School should be more effective in training believers how to think carefully about their faith. Training in apologetics should be a regular part of discipleship.” (p.26) “Our discipleship materials often leave Christian young people vulnerable to atheistic college professors.” (p.28) “The apostle Paul… reasoned with and tried to persuade people intelligently to accept Christ.” (p.30)
My reasons for believing NT Christianity include what I call the “Propensity Principle” (PP). The PP points out that until proof is provided in the future at the eschaton, humanity’s existential need and desire for eternal life and ultimate justice (the duo of desirables or DOD) make it logical for truthseekers to have a propensity to hope and believe a God who provides the DOD exists, to determine the most credible revelation of God’s requirement for attaining heaven, and to cooperate with His revealed will. IOW, it seems logical–given the existential facts of death and imperfect justice–that an unbiased truthseeker would have a propensity to hope the Christian view is correct, because there is no better (credible and desirable) way of attaining the DOD than NT theism. This PP restates Pascal’s wager in terms of reasonable comparison shopping (with all belief systems) instead of lucky/blind gambling.
The PP employs linear logic (rather than circular reasoning) to propose faith in the NT God as the best belief that solves the maze of reality as follows:
1. Current scientific knowledge cannot explain how the universe came to exist by means of natural causes, thus it is possible that the cause of the universe is a supernatural Creator/God.
2. The most creative species is humanity, whose traits also include language, moral conscience and God consciousness (personality), so it is possible that these human traits reflect attributes of a God who created humanity.
3. Existential reality indicates that humans are mortal and life is painful, but when life is happy, one wishes it would continue indefinitely. Thus, it is rational to seek how to be saved or to become immortal in a heavenly existence.
4. Comparing all possible ways of achieving the DOD, the best or most credible way/hope at this point appears to be the God who resurrected Christ Jesus.
5. When words from God are sought, the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul seem to be the most highly inspired when compared with other scriptures (including the OT), because its concept of one God as the just and all-loving Judge (rationale for morality) is spiritually highest or most advanced, and the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is most credible.
6. Thus, it is appropriate or wise to believe in the NT God and to accept Jesus as God’s Messiah.
Atheists deny the validity of this rational argument, but in the absence of disproof, I find the decision to reject the biblical gospel of salvation from selfishness, spiritual death, and a miserable destiny to be illogical or foolish. This is why all truthseekers should agree on NT theism now rather than assume atheism is an unlucky guess.
As someone has said, heaven is like a vision of water in the desert: the scoffer will surely die where he/she is, while the believer will live if right. Again, however, this analogy should be viewed in terms of comparison shopping and logic rather than of blind faith and fear. True love for God is evoked by His love for humanity and is a reflection of His loving Holy Spirit (1John 4:7-12); it cannot be coerced, although it can be imitated (2Cor. 11:14 calls Satan an “angel of light”). Heaven may not be a mirage!
A biblical illustration of the PP is the OT story about Naaman being told to bathe in the dirty Jordan River to cure his leprosy (2Kings 5:10-14). The Naaman Example teaches us not to let sinful pride prevent us from being cured of spiritual sickness by methods we think are silly or do not fully understand. Some people might not understand why God ordained Messiah to atone for humanity’s sins, so they think the Gospel seems foolish or silly (cf. 1Cor. 1:18-25). However, they accept physical reality without necessarily understanding very well how it works (cf. John 3:8), and Jesus said that those who seek salvation will find it, which indicates that God graces every sinful soul with the ability or opportunity to understand how to be saved (Matt. 7:7, cf. 1Tim. 2:3-4), which might be called “seeking grace”.
Those who reject the PP (and Naaman Example) apparently employ a logical fallacy that might be called non praecedere (comparable to non sequitur), making an unwarranted conclusion which precedes unknown facts, namely the cause for the universe “banging bigly”. Atheists assume a natural cause will be discovered, but their assumption is premature and thus inappropriate or illogical. The astute atheist will realize that the logical train of thought from Descartes to the PP that has been presented is common sense that is available to every normal human adult, which is why there is no excuse for disbelief in God (Rom. 1:20). On the contrary, it is the reason Christians can bet or have confidence that their faith is correct (Heb. 10:19&35, Phil. 3:3-7, Eph. 3:12) and it is the atheists whose faith is blind.
I shared my testimony on this thread, because there is an overlap between the topics of salvation and apologetics or reasons for believing Jesus is the Savior. Of course, there is overlap between all of the topics typically included in Christian theology:
theology, christology, pneumatology, soteriology, anthropology, ecclesiology, eschatology, ethics, apologetics, history and science.
It makes a complicated Venn diagram!
Would any else like to share their testimony here?
(Notice that mine included autobiography or how I became a believer
and apologetics or why I remain a Christian.)
theology, christology, pneumatology, soteriology, anthropology, ecclesiology, eschatology, ethics, apologetics, history and science.
It makes a complicated Venn diagram!
Would any else like to share their testimony here?
(Notice that mine included autobiography or how I became a believer
and apologetics or why I remain a Christian.)
The OT indicates that God chose the Jewish culture for the purpose of providing Messiah, through whom the world would be blessed or saved (Gen. 22:18, Isa. 42:6, 49:6, Joel 2:28& 32, Mic. 4:2-3, Zeph. 3:8-9, Zech. 2:11, 14:9&16), and the NT proclaims that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah or Christ (Acts 2:36, Rom. 1:1-4, Heb. 1:1-4, 3:3-6).
It is tragic that the person God has ordained to be the head of one worldwide body of believers (John 17:20-23, Eph. 1:9-10 & 3:6, Col. 1:18-20, Phil. 2:9-11) is rejected by so many who claim to be theists, and it is ironic that this gemstone, which is the foundation and cornerstone of ultimate reality (Eph. 2:20), is the stumbling-stone (1Pet. 2:6-8) to faith in GRFS for many souls (1Cor. 1:22-25). Messiah/Christ is the key stone.
A crisis that threatened a Philippian jailer with death prompted him to ask Paul and Silas the most important question in life: “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30) This question is most important, because—as sinful and mortal souls—we need saving from corruption, both moral and physical. We need saving from physical death if we value or enjoy life, and we need saving from immorality or evil-doing if it results in unhappy existence, especially after this lifetime.
Jesus expressed GRFS succinctly by saying "Repent" (Matt. 4:17) and “Ask… seek… knock…” (Matt. 7:7, cf. Heb. 11:6, Isa. 45:19), implying that God gives every sinful soul the ability to repent and seek salvation (cf. 1Tim. 2:3-4, 2Tim. 2:25, Ezek. 33:11), which might be why Paul said sinners are saved “through grace” (Eph. 2:8-9, Tit. 2:11). Seeking God is the beginning of saving faith, and not repenting or rejecting God’s salvation in Christ is the essence of evil atheism or faith in I-dolatry (Rom. 3:11, 1:18-23).
The reply of Paul and Silas to the jailer was, “Believe in the Lord Jesus” (Acts 16:31). This is GRFS in a nutshell: “Accept Christ Jesus as Lord” (as also in 2Cor. 4:5 & Col. 2:6). The main points of Christian orthodoxy implicit in this statement can be explained or elaborated as follows:
- There is a/one all-loving and just Lord or Creator God (Deut. 6:4, John 3:16, 2Thes. 1:6), who loves sinful humanity (Rom. 5:6-8, John 3:16) and who is both able (2Tim. 1:12) and willing (1Tim. 2:3-4, Ezek. 33:11) to provide all morally accountable human beings salvation or heaven—a wonderful life full of love, joy and peace forever.
- Human beings are selfish or sinful (Rom. 3:23, 2Tim. 3:2-4, Col. 3:5), miserable (Gal. 5:19-21), and hopeless (Eph. 2:12) or hell-bound at the judgment (Matt. 23:33 & 25:46) when they reject God’s salvation (John 3:18, Rom. 2:5-11).
- Jesus is God’s Messiah/Christ and incarnate Son, the way that God has chosen (John 3:16, Acts 16:30-31, Phil. 2:9-11) of providing salvation by means of his atoning death on the cross for the payment of the penalty for the sins of humanity (Rom. 3:22-25 & 5:9-11), followed by his resurrection to reign in heaven (1Cor. 15:14-28).
- Thus, every person who hears the NT Gospel needs to repent and accept God’s grace or justification in Jesus as Christ/Messiah the Lord or Supreme Commander (Luke 2:11, John 14:6, Acts 16:31), at which moment God’s loving Holy Spirit of Christ indwells/baptizes the believer into the church (Rev. 3:20, Rom. 5:5, 1Cor. 12:13).
- Loving Christ Jesus as Lord (Luke 2:11), God the Son (Matt. 16:16) or God in the human dimension (Col. 2:9) means reflecting divine love as empowered by the Holy Spirit, thereby obeying His command to love one another (Matt. 7:21, 22:37-40, John 13:35, Rom. 13:9)—forever (Matt. 10:22, Psa. 113:2), which will eventually achieve spiritual maturity on earth and heaven after Christ returns at God’s resurrection (John 14:6, 17&26, Rom. 8:6-17, Gal. 6:7-9, Eph. 1:13-14, Phil. 3:12-16, Heb. 10:36, 12:1, Jam. 1:2-4).