Q & A for Today

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Q & A for Today

Post by steve7150 » Fri May 21, 2010 7:27 pm

If God chooses to save such a person, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they found some other way to be saved than by Jesus. It may simply mean that Jesus saves them despite their ignorance of His name. Just because they were ignorant of Jesus doesn’t mean Jesus was ignorant of them. The Bible says that Jesus is the truth (John 14:6). If they were seeking truth, they were seeking Jesus all along!



Good insight, also in John 1 it says Jesus is the light and this light is in every man therefore somewhere in every heart we do all know him.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Q & A for Today

Post by mattrose » Fri May 21, 2010 10:15 pm

steve7150 wrote: True but the militant atheist will deny either that the letters are authentic or else he will deny the references in the Roman letters really refer to Jesus since he is called something like "Cristos".
I use the more conservative reading of Josephus (excluding the suspected Christian interpolation). If a rabid atheist wants to quibble about 'Cristos' not being a reference to Jesus Christ, they are really reaching. In my observation most atheists, when pressed, are willing to concede that Jesus existed. They just bring it into question to see if there will be any resistance.

There is also a reference to him in the Talmud where they derisively call him "Yeshu" , spitefully refusing to use his real name. They even acknowledge his miracles but claim Satan gave him the ability. They claim he tried to lead Israel astray.
Yep, I use that too sometimes. I decided to leave it out of the short pamphlet format though.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Q & A for Today

Post by mattrose » Fri May 21, 2010 10:16 pm

steve7150 wrote: Good insight, also in John 1 it says Jesus is the light and this light is in every man therefore somewhere in every heart we do all know him.
Thanks so much for the feedback :)

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Q & A for Today

Post by mattrose » Mon May 24, 2010 3:32 pm

How could a loving God send people to Hell?

The Question
Many non-Christians hear two consistent messages from vocal believers. First, they hear that God is love. Second, they hear that if one doesn’t become a Christian, this loving God will send them to a place called Hell where they will be tortured in fire forever. For many, these 2 messages seem to be contradictory. How could a loving God send human beings to an eternity of flames?

The Answer
Thoughtful Christians have responded to this important question in two very distinct ways. Some attempt to defend the two doctrines (God’s love & eternal torment) as non-contradictory. Others, however, have suggested an alternative fate for the wicked. In what follows, we offer a defense of the doctrine of eternal torment along with two alternative views held by some Christians.

“When did you stop beating your wife?” If you ask this question to a husband who has never beaten his wife, his only possible answer is to deny the legitimacy of the question. Similarly, if you ask “How could a loving God send people to hell?” a Christian has the right to deny the legitimacy of the question since, it may be argued, the wording doesn’t match with reality. Most Christians who believe the doctrine of eternal torment do not believe God sends anyone there. People choose Hell by rejecting God.

Defenders of the doctrine of eternal torment might also suggest that God’s love, in this objection, is given too much weight in comparison to God’s justice. If there was no punishment, the question could be turned on its head to ask, “How could a just God let the wicked go unpunished?”

Finally, those compelled to defend the doctrine of eternal torment might suggest that the fiery imagery associated with hell is symbolic rather than literal. It is, they suggest, symbolic for the fact that unbelievers will spend eternity separated from God (which itself is torturous).

While these 3 defenses of eternal torment may satisfy the objections of some, others (Christian and non-Christian alike) insist that problems remain. Many people (again, Christians and non-Christians alike) are unaware that there are alternative thoughts about the fate of the wicked.

One alternative to eternal torment may be called conditional immortality. This view insists that eternal life is a gift given to believers and not natural to humankind. Upon death, an unbeliever could be punished in accordance with their sins (for a time, not an eternity) and/or simply cease to exist.

Another alternative may be described as universal reconciliation. In this view, the wicked are punished after their deaths, but God’s purpose in the punishment is to bring them to repentance. When that happens, they are forgiven by Jesus and welcomed into eternity with God.

It is important to note that those holding these alternative views do not necessarily do so simply to avoid the question at hand. Both these alternatives had supporters in the early church and attempt to support their views with the Bible and reason. But, if true, these alternatives do resolve the main objection raised by this question.

In sum, the Bible leaves room for a variety of interpretations as to what happens to unbelievers when they die. In the end, if there really is a God who is loving and just, we can trust that this God will deal lovingly and justly with all people even if we do not know exactly what form that will take.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Q & A for Today

Post by steve7150 » Mon May 24, 2010 4:42 pm

People choose Hell by rejecting God.

Defenders of the doctrine of eternal torment might also suggest that God’s love, in this objection, is given too much weight in comparison to God’s justice. If there was no punishment, the question could be turned on its head to ask, “How could a just God let the wicked go unpunished?”




To me the belief that people choose hell borders on an irrational answer. Most unbelievers simply don't see enough evidence to believe and are not motivated to seek God. If this is correct , does this sound like a rational reason to punish people for eternity? As far as to much weight being put on God's love, He is called "love" by John , therefore it's not just an attribute , it's who he is. Justice and mercy are attributes but love is who he is. The only afterlife doctrine IMO that combines who he is with his attributes is a blending of conditional immortality with universalism.
If people don't want God then "love" will do the loving thing and destroy them not torture them. There is nothing loving about torture.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Q & A for Today

Post by mattrose » Mon May 24, 2010 10:56 pm

Thanks for the feedback :)

I tend to agree with you. I am firmly in the C.I. camp. That being said, since these pamphlets are being written by me BUT representative of my whole small group, I wanted to be a little more 'popular' in my response. I find the E.T. arguments weak, but I think I listed their 3 most used arguments.

This was definitely the toughest one to write so far b/c I didn't agree with much of what I was writing and had to really condense the part I actually believe, haha

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Q & A for Today

Post by mattrose » Fri May 28, 2010 11:34 pm

Why do Christians ignore some Old Testament Laws?

The Question
The Old Testament/Covenant contains 613 laws, but even a casual observer can recognize that Christians don’t even attempt to keep them all. For example, most Christians don’t eat a kosher diet or keep the Sabbath day (Saturday) separate. Isn’t it incredibly arbitrary for Christians to pick some laws and ignore others?

The Answer
The truth of the matter is that Christians are not directly bound to any of the 613 Old Testament laws. Christians, by definition, are people who are directly bound to Christ and his complete authority.

Certainly Christ repeated some of the 613 laws (and that is why Christians obey some of them). But other laws were not re-instated under Christ’s administration. Many Christians have come to understand why certain laws were not re-instated.

In general, the Old Testament/Covenant contained 3 different kinds of laws. Some laws were moral in nature (do this, don’t do that), some were instructions regarding religious rituals (sacrifice this, don’t sacrifice that), and others were national in character (lead like this, don’t lead like that).

When we examine which laws Jesus repeated/re-instated, it is not surprising to find that they were the moral laws. After all, what’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong no matter what administration you are under.

But Christ did not command his people to keep the Old Covenant religious rituals or national laws. Why would he? The religious rituals of the Old Covenant were symbolic of Christ. Once Christ had come, the symbols were no longer necessary. And the civil laws were meant for leading the people of Israel, but the New Covenant is not centered on an individual nation.

In most cases, common sense makes clear which laws are moral and, therefore, still in effect and which one’s are not. Christians, then, are not necessarily arbitrary in their submission to certain Old Covenant laws and their lack of submission to others. They are submitted to the law of Christ.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Q & A for Today

Post by Homer » Fri May 28, 2010 11:59 pm

Justice and mercy are attributes but love is who he is.
If love is the sum total of who God is, then logically wouldn't it be correct to say "love is God"?

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Q & A for Today

Post by steve7150 » Sun May 30, 2010 10:14 am

If love is the sum total of who God is, then logically wouldn't it be correct to say "love is God"?



Humans can love but since we are made in the image of God then this capability comes from God, so yes i think so.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Q & A for Today

Post by mattrose » Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:05 am

If Darwin was right,
is Christianity wrong?

The Question
In his 1859 book On the Origin of Species Charles Darwin developed the theory that simple life (like that of a microbe) evolved/changed through time into more complex life (like that of a man). To put it simply, this theory suggests that the accumulation of tiny changes over millions of years can account for the origin of a complex species like humanity.

If Darwinian evolutionary theory is true (and many suppose that it is) doesn’t this render God obsolete? Why should I believe in a Creator if Darwin can adequately explain the origin of species?

The Answer
To answer such questions, we first must understand the limits of the theory of evolution. Darwin’s theory offers a possible explanation of how a complex species came about, but it actually has nothing to say in regards to the origin of life in general. In other words, the theory suggests how microbes might become men, but it has no explanation for where the microbes came from.

Because of this, many people who believe in Darwinian evolution still believe in God. They believe that God was necessary to initiate the process of evolution. This view is known as Theistic Evolution.

But despite the confidence of many of its leading advocates, we are not convinced that Darwin’s theory best explains the evidence. While some Christians can be labeled as Theistic Evolutionists, others consider the Theory of Evolution to be fatally flawed on the basis of science and/or Scripture.

Some of the Christians who deny Darwinism agree with him that the earth is very (millions and millions of years) old. They believe the scientific evidence supports this and they suggest that each day of the creation week (Genesis 1) represented a long span of time. This view is known as the Day-Age Theory.

Other Christians reject the popular belief in evolution AND the popular belief that the earth is old. They believe the evidence demonstrates an ancient catastrophe (Noah’s flood) and not an ancient age (millions of years). This position is often referred to as Young-Earth Creationism.

In sum, then, Christianity does not stand or fall on the truthfulness of Darwin’s theory or popular ideas about the age of the earth. If Darwin was right, we still need an explanation for the original species and for the existence of matter itself! But Darwin’s theory has a lot more holes than we are sometimes led to believe.

Christianity stands or falls, not on the truthfulness of the Theory of Evolution, but on the truthfulness of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Post Reply

Return to “Essays and Writings”