Store up for yourselves treasures in Heaven
where moth and rust cannot destroy and thieves cannot break in and steal

Thursday, May 27, 2010

That’s Not The Point

It’s not uncommon for those who aren’t Christians to vehemently protest that Ghandi should be allowed to spend eternity in heaven. They say that it’s profoundly unfair that such a good man would be banished from God’s presence just because he didn’t understand what Jesus was talking about.

First of all Gandhi knew everything that anyone needs to know about Jesus and rejected everything that he needed to accept. Like every single atheist who blogs, Gandhi could not plead ignorance. Gandhi absolutely understood the concept of grace and rejected it. He, like most everyone else rested his chance for salvation upon being good enough.

On the other hand, I doubt that Gandhi was so stupid as to believe, to actually believe that one day he will stand before the Creator of the Universe and tell Him that He did it all wrong. Neither Gandhi nor anyone else will stand before their Creator and try to justify their denial and rejection of the offer of forgiveness.

“One day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus the Christ is Lord of lords and King of kings. And those who denied Jesus will be cast into utter darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” There won't be any debating. There won't be any pointing out to their Creator, "Don't you know that I'm a Bright?"

There are fools who think that they will appeal to their Creator and explain their rejection of His offer of salvation. However:

. It does no good when you’re penalised in hockey to tell the ref how good you are in bowling.

It does no good when someone says you aren’t doing the right thing in Poker to refer to some rule in Bridge that you do keep.

You can tell the cop that you’ve never run a red light in your whole life but that has no bearing on you being impaired while driving now.

You need to compete according to the rules of the game that you’re playing, not according to some other game. You might plan on telling your Creator what a good person you are, but according to Jesus being good is a non issue. “No one is good. All have sinned and fall short of God’s expectations for us.” Forgiveness is the issue and pretending it’s otherwise makes no sense. This is not a difficult concept. You either play by the rules of the game or you get disqualified.

Gandhi might have been a good person in your eyes (I’m sure his wife did not appreciate his adulteries and lies but that’s another story) but according to Jesus, being better than someone in this or that behaviour has nothing to do with anything regarding where you will spend eternity. You can never be good enough to be good enough for heaven because the only acceptable standard is perfection.

The only thing that matters is what Jesus taught about salvation. The means of receiving salvation and forgiveness for your sins is laid out so very clearly that no one is capable of misunderstanding. If you’re going to talk about heaven, then you need to discuss it from the point of view of Him who came from heaven to show you the way home.

If you’re going to reject what Jesus taught, you’d better be damn sure that Jesus wasn’t who He said He is. You need to be certain not beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt. Jesus can and will bring you to that point, but you have to ask. That's the point. You have to ask. Only pride and arrogance can keep you from missing the point.

9 comments:

  1. Only pride and arrogance can keep you from missing the point.

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thesauros wrote the following: If you’re going to reject what Jesus taught, you’d better be damn sure that Jesus wasn’t who He said He is.
    Wrong, and it's an ignorant thing to assert. Jesus could have been the son of God, while the Bible was being written by fallible, divinely uninspired men.

    It's possible to reject one and not the other.


    You need to be certain not beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt.
    Those are your subjective standards, not mine, and thus I have no need to adhere to them. I have very reasonable doubts that the Bible represents the spoken word of God. Those doubts might actually be leading me away from truth, but I'm willing to bet that's not happening.

    I do not need to know, beyond all doubt, that the Bible isn't of divine origin.


    Jesus can and will bring you to that point, but you have to ask. That's the point. You have to ask.
    I have asked, and the "answers" ;ed me away from the Bible.

    Only pride and arrogance can keep you from missing the point.
    Only pride and arrogance can keep you from seeing that you're assuming your subjective interpretation of Christianity represents the sole path to truth.

    Seriously, that last sentence was pure projection.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "I do not need to know, beyond all doubt, that the Bible isn't of divine origin."

    There is no other belief system, philosophy, religion, world view (atheism included) that carries eternal consequences.

    Christianity says, "We are destined to die once and after that, eternity."

    Christianity is based solidly in history. Its claims can be checked. No other character or series of events based in antiquity are as well documented as the life death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. Only those on the level of holocaust deniers say otherwise.

    Something that split history in two took place when Jesus was on earth. Jesus said that what you decide to do with Him carries eternal consequences.

    I say, If you're going to reject what Jesus taught, you'd better make sure.

    You say you are sure.

    So go and enjoy the rest of your life.

    Did you know that you can actually ignore what I say? You have a choice.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You've ignored what I've said, so I thank you for pointing out my right to behave similarly.

    No other character or series of events based in antiquity are as well documented as the life death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ.
    And despite this wealth of documentation, we still have no proof that Jesus even existed. We have nothing written or built by him, we have nothing owned by him, and we have no governmental records which list his name alongside the hundreds of other people he lived near.

    No, Mak, the history of Jesus Christ is not well documented. In order to believe so, you must first believe that the Bible is infallible, and that's the very document I'm claiming has been written by fallible and imperfect men.

    All of this is beside the point. Rejecting YOUR subjective interpretation of the Bible requires neither absolute knowledge nor pride/arrogance on my part. Only someone projecting his pride and arrogance onto others would assert otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Whateverman: if we apply your standards to the ancient world generally, there would be a lot of famous and important characters and events we'd have to dismiss as myth and legend long before we ever got to Jesus. The bulk of the history of the Roman Empire, for instance, would be out the window, as being far more poorly attested. It's not even true to say that one must believe the Bible infallible to conclude we have sufficient proof of Jesus' existence, since he's mentioned independently by other primary sources of the time.

    Also, w/r/t the insistence of non-believers that God wouldn't keep them out of heaven, I actually touched on that in my sermon last Sunday: http://wlpcsermons.blogspot.com/2010/05/life-of-world-to-come.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. "we have sufficient proof of Jesus' existence, since he's mentioned independently by other primary sources of the time."

    Wrong. Sources talk about CHRISTIANS, not CHRIST. You're so blinded by your faith that you do not see the difference. The fact that Christianity started around year 30 to 100 says nothing about the truthfulness of it or not.

    Anyway, even if Jesus was someone that really existed, which I have no problem with personally, your comparison with other antiquity historical facts is completely pointless, because history is not enough to prove miracles or any other supernatural claims (I gave virgin birth and resurection as examples on this blog before).

    Of course, as a believer, you have faith that what you believe is true, and a simple book is enough to convince you, but that's your own standard. Sorry if we do not share it.

    Perhaps you should explain us why this book is so special, because Rod (Thesauros) failed to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rob Harrison wrote the following to me: Whateverman: if we apply your standards to the ancient world generally, there would be a lot of famous and important characters and events we'd have to dismiss as myth and legend long before we ever got to Jesus.
    To be honest, my knowledge of human history is pitiful. I will say, however, that your argument here has merit. One of the only examples I can think of (without looking for more) is of Socrates. We have nothing written or owned by him; most of what we do have is anecdotal.

    Historical research is subjective. Simply put, based on the weight of the available evidence, the historian decides whether it's sufficient to override any reasonable doubt.

    The evidence for the existence of Jesus and Socrates? All anecdotal (AFAICT). We have no governmental records, nothing written by them.

    The significant difference between the two, however, is that Christians stridently exclaim Jesus existed, whereas fans of Socrates admit there's uncertainty. Even more significant is that Jesus' non-existence would destroy nearly everything attributed to him, whereas Socrates non-existence really wouldn't change much.

    And... Jesus the man having been attributed with divine abilities, the question of his existence becomes particularly important

    Rob, Thesauros statement is patently ridiculous: No other character or series of events based in antiquity are as well documented as the life death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ.

    Socrates existence is documented just as well, especially considering that the burden of proof is less demanding.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If Mak had said "No other character or series of events based in antiquity are written about as often as the life death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ", I wouldn't argue.

    Jesus having been written about is not the same as his existence having been documented. Mak knows this, too...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, let's see: Jesus is mentioned by Josephus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus),though I have no doubt that the text was embellished somewhere in the first few centuries; Tacitus, briefly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ)--some try to argue against the authenticity of the reference, and of course, no ancient text can ever be taken as unquestionable, but on the whole, I don't see the arguments for excision as sufficient; and perhaps Suetonius. The references (assuming interpolations in Josephus) are meager, slight, and prove nothing about who Jesus was, merely that somebody by that name lived and was executed around Jerusalem.

    And there are far more examples than Socrates; Socrates sticks out because he was such a significant individual. You are correct to say that there is a distinct element of subjectivity in historiography, especially of the ancient world; that's why the good historians are careful not to argue beyond their evidence, especially when it comes to arguing from silence. It used to be the academic consensus that the Hittites never existed . . . and then all of a sudden, evidence started turning up. I'm not predicting that we'll find the collected poetry of Sappho or the missing plays of Aeschylus next week--but it could happen (and here's to hoping). The good historian, and especially the good student of antiquity, must always be careful to remember how much we don't know, and to render judgments prudentially accordingly.

    This is particularly true when it comes to dismissing evidence as "anecdotal," btw. To take Socrates and Homer as less controversial examples, I have no doubt that both were real people--the alternative explanations are simply too implausible.

    ReplyDelete