Bad Theology and Salvation

[liamconnor]

this thread was provoked by Elijah JOhn's stimulating question on why the Trinity was not a focus of Jesus' (and I add, any of the N.T. authors) if it is so important.

I commented there that the N.T. authors did not think salvation came through belief in the Trinity.

But this raises a question which deserves its own thread.


Suppose a person believes that Jesus' death atones for sins; that Jesus is God's chosen King/Messiah/Christ of the world. But...

This person does NOT believe that he is God (i.e. denies Trinity) though Jesus actually IS God (reality has it that God is Triune)

(or)

The person DOES believe God is Triune; but God in fact is NOT triune (Jesus is not God).


Can either person be "saved"?

[Divine Insight]

Since this is about theology, doctrine and dogma I would like to ask a question squarely related to the questions in the OP:

If "salvation" is all about what a person believes about Jesus and/or the Father God, then how can this religion be said to have anything at all to do with morality or moral responsibility?

Consider the following:

Person A:

Person A believes all the right things about Jesus and the Father God (i.e. Whatever Person A believes about Jesus and the Father God just happens to be true). And Person A also believes that Jesus and God are real and Person A accepts Jesus as his or her "savior".

Will Person A now be "saved"? What if this Person A continues to do all manner of immoral and sinful things? Is that ok? Can they just claim to be stumbling and falling all over their desires and keep asking Jesus and/or the Father God for continued forgiveness?

If so, what does this religion have to do with moral responsibility?

If not, then does this person need to "EARN" their salvation in addition to what they believe about Jesus and God? And if they are EARNING it, isn't that a problem in this religion?

This brings me to:

Person B:

Person B believes all the right things about Jesus and the Father God (i.e. Whatever Person B believes about Jesus and the Father God just happens to be true). And Person B also believes that Jesus and God are real and Person B accepts Jesus as his or her "savior".

Person B also happens to be very diligent about avoiding committing sins to the very best of his or her ability.

Surely Person B would be "saved".

But then doesn't this bring up the question of whether Person B EARNED his or her salvation by avoiding sins to the best of his or her ability?

Finally, we need to look into at least one more scenario:

Person C:

Person C doesn't believe in Christianity at all. Person C might acknowledge that there may have been a historical Jesus, but doesn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God, or that there even exists a God at all.

However, Person C has very high moral standards and lives a life that would just coincidentally be in harmony with the moral behaviors that Jesus taught.

Now what?

Is Person C "saved"?

If not, why not? And if so, then surely Person C would have EARNED his or her own salvation via nothing more than being a righteous person. Just as Jesus had taught.

~~~~

Obviously we could continue on with even more scenarios, for example people who actually believe in other Gods from other religions and who also happen to be righteous people. Would they be "saved" because they are righteous as Jesus taught? Or would they be condemned simply because they didn't believe in Jesus and Yahweh?

In other words, is Christianity a religion that offers salvation due to "belief"? Or is it a religion that offers salvation to the righteous as Jesus taught?

It is about morality? Or is it about beliefs?

This goes into far more depth than the OP, but it's basically the same topic because the OP is asking what "Beliefs" are required for salvation. I just take it a step further and ask what happened to morality in this religion?

[Checkpoint]

this thread was provoked by Elijah JOhn's stimulating question on why the Trinity was not a focus of Jesus' (and I add, any of the N.T. authors) if it is so important.

I commented there that the N.T. authors did not think salvation came through belief in the Trinity.

But this raises a question which deserves its own thread.


Suppose a person believes that Jesus' death atones for sins; that Jesus is God's chosen King/Messiah/Christ of the world. But...

This person does NOT believe that he is God (i.e. denies Trinity) though Jesus actually IS God (reality has it that God is Triune)

(or)

The person DOES believe God is Triune; but God in fact is NOT triune (Jesus is not God).


Can either person be "saved"?

An interesting question, one of a number about how or if what we believe affects our salvation.

My short answer is yes, whatever your take on this controversy of nearly 2000 years, your salvation has its basis elsewhere.

However, your question assumes an acceptance of Jesus as God's atonement.

What if we don't accept that and reject the whole principle of atonement and Jesus as our ransom?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 3 by Checkpoint]

What if we don't accept that and reject the whole principle of atonement and Jesus as our ransom?

One would wonder what "saved" meant to such a person. Is there something to be 'saved' from? Are there actions that separate us from God? How does one achieve reunion with this entity (at-one-ment)?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]


First, how is this post not an example of hijacking a thread to publish one's own opinions on one's own subjective problems?

At any rate, we have person C.

Person C:

Person C doesn't believe in Christianity at all. Person C might acknowledge that there may have been a historical Jesus, but doesn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God, or that there even exists a God at all.

However, Person C has very high moral standards and lives a life that would just coincidentally be in harmony with the moral behaviors that Jesus taught.

Now what?

Is Person C "saved"?

Let's assume (as the N.T. does) a more 'relational' view of salvation: i.e., it is less like getting a free trip to the Bahamas from one's boss because he met certain deadlines, or getting a trip to the Sahara because he didn't. It is more like being reconciled to one's spouse, or remaining estranged to one's spouse.

Now, if person C is quite satisfied with himself, feeling he is, at the very least, a decent person, worthy of being treated well; and that this person does not believe in God, or, has no need of this God, or, when told by God that in fact he is not "worthy" of anything...

What ultimate destiny would truly satisfy such a person? My guess is, he would wish for that God to finally, fully, leave him alone. "You take your rode, I'll take mine".

And suppose 'hell' is simply that. Leaving men who wish to have no relationship with God completely alone.

[Divine Insight]

And suppose 'hell' is simply that. Leaving men who wish to have no relationship with God completely alone.

But see Liamconner, this is the scam of Christianity (and all the Abrahamic religions).

Can you not see the fallacy of what you have just stated in the above quote?

In that quote you are assuming that Christianity holds the COPYRIGHT and PATENT RIGHTS on "God".

In other words, you seem to think that if I reject Christianity then I am rejecting God. Why? Because Christianity is an extremely arrogant religion that teaches its followers that only it has the OWNERSHIP RIGHTS on God. That's why.

What about Buddhism? What if I have a really great relationship with "God" through Buddhism? Or any other religion. Perhaps even through "Wicca" which Christians would take conniptions over.

They would still claim that if I have rejected "Christianity" then I have rejected "God".

It's a religious cult that totally degrades and insults anyone who doesn't worship the RELIGION. Jesus is just idol to be worshiped in this religion.

If you reject Jesus then you have rejected God and therefore desire to be cast out away from "God".

That's absolute hatred actually coming from a religion that simply won't tolerate any other religions.

Consider the following:

To begin with I value HONESTY. And I honestly cannot say whether there exists a "God" or not. Therefore, even if a God actually exists, I MUST BE HONEST and confess even to that God that I cannot know that He/She/Them/It exists.

And don't you think that any "God" who values honesty would appreciate my honesty?

I have also studied the Bible for many decades, repeatedly. I've given the Bible more chances to make sense than it ever deserved to be sure, and it has failed every time. Therefore the TRUTH is that I have come to realize that the Bible appears to me to be clearly written by a very barbaric and highly male-chauvinistic superstitious society. I can't imagine any truly benevolent or intelligent God condoning much of the immoral things that are told in the Bible.

Again, this is the TRUTH. Don't you think that if there exists a truly benevolent loving God he would want me to be truthful with him? I would have to tell this God right to his face that the Bible appears to me to support a lot of horrific and immoral garbage, and I would stat it in precisely those words. I see no reason to pretend to think differently from what I actually think when speaking to a supreme being who could supposedly know my real thoughts anyway. May as well tell the TRUTH from the get go, right?

So all I'm doing is being HONEST and TRUTHFUL. For this the Christians would condone that a benevolent God should cast me asunder. But the truth is that any God who would cast me asunder for being honest and truthful could hardly be a benevolent God.

So this is the problem Liamconnor. Rejecting "Christianity", or Jesus, or the idea that Jesus was "The Christ" or the Son of God can in no way be equated with "rejecting God". And the fact that Christianity holds this up to be the case proves its fallacy.

In fact, an atheist who is totally convinced of pure secularism and that there is no God at all, is not "Rejecting God". All they are doing is being HONEST AND TRUTHFUL in the fact that they see no compelling evidence to believe that such a magical creature exists. It's no different from rejecting the tales of fairies, leprechauns, and Santa Claus, etc.

Just because religious people get all "uppity" about their God myths doesn't give those myths anymore credence than the myths of fairies, leprechauns, or Santa Claus.

Telling someone that if they don't buy into Christianity they are choosing to "reject God" and deserve to be "cast out into darkness to be alone", is no different at all from saying the very same thing only replace "God" with "Santa Claus".

If you don't believe in Santa Claus then you deserve to be locked up in a cold dark basement over the Christmas holidays.

I'm just saying this as a point of comparison. Whether a person believes in a God or not has absolutely nothing at all to do with what they might accept or reject if they actually met a God in person.

Here's my bottom line for me Liamconner:

If there truly exists a benevolent God then I have absolutely nothing to fear. A benevolent God would most certainly embrace me with open arms to be sure. Why would I reject a truly benevolent God. And why would a truly benevolent God reject me? There are no reasons for such rejections.

The only God I would need to fear would be a malevolent God who doesn't value honesty, truth, or sincerity. And, the Christians seem to think that I should fear their God quite a bit, because their God is evidently chomping at the bit to cast me asunder for not embracing ancient Hebrew barbarism as though it represents a benevolent intelligent God.

So no, Christianity does NOT OWN GOD. Even though the religion is hell bent on convincing its followers that it does. This should be a red flag for you as well.

Rejecting ancient Hebrew immorality does not equate to rejecting any "God".

This is just Christianity trying to OWN the rights to God. Islam does it too. This is a hallmark of the Abrahamic myths and their "Jealous God".

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

Your post does not belong on this thread, or indeed on this subforum, but on this one:

Christianity and Apologetics
Argue for and against Christianity

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

That would depend on what is meant by "saved".

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that those that have been mislead by their religious leaders will be given ample opportunity to learn the true nature of God before deciding if they want to worship him in (as Jesus put it) "spirit and truth". Even those that have died in ignorance will be resurrected and given the opportunity to learnt the truth about God and his nature. Ultimately no one will need to believe in a falsehood, just as there will be no atheists when Jesus returns to take control of the planet, but accepting a truth when there is no possible way to reject it is a poor meaure of a person's character.

Satan the Devil is absolutely sure about God's nature and is not the least bit confused as to whether Jehovah (YHWH) the Creator is truine in nature or not, he (Satan) has 100% accurate knowlege on this question; but does that mean he will be judged favorably? Does it mean he (Satan) is not evil? Eternal life will therefore not depend on whether we know the truth so much as whether we will prove to LOVE it.


JW

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

Your post does not belong on this thread, or indeed on this subforum, but on this one:

Christianity and Apologetics
Argue for and against Christianity

Are theologians interested in truth?

Or is this forum just a "Bible Study" for Christians?

Besides, I addressed the topic of interest. Apparently Christian theists are unclear of what they are supposed to believe about Jesus. I merely pointed out that no matter what scenario we attribute to the Christian scriptures, none of them can be made to work.

It was my understanding that this forum simply requires that people who study this theology consider the Biblical texts as being the "authority" on what the religion holds to be true. I'm not bucking against that. I'm simply pointing out that any and all scenarios of who Jesus supposedly was end in extreme contradictions.

As far as I see this should be permitted in any discussion on theology, doctrine, and dogma.

This isn't "Bible Study", this is supposed to be about theology. Aren't theologians permitted to consider that the Biblical stories (even as they are written) might be provably false?

If not, then theology is a failed academic field of study since it refuses to consider all possibilities and basically demands that all theologians become faithful Christians who believe in the Bible on blind faith and flat-out refuse to even consider the possibility that it might contain obvious self-contradictions or could potentially be false.

Demanding that the scriptures be taken as the final "authority" of this religion is not the same as demanding that they must be accepted as being any sort of proven truth.

If they can be demonstrated to necessarily be false, that most certainly should be a valid theological position. And if that's not permitted then theology is a scam.

[JehovahsWitness]

This isn't "Bible Study", this is supposed to be about theology.

Personally I get my "theology" from the bible which is why I often site it as authorative. I think this view is not unique, many Christians refer to the bible as the fundamental source of their theological ideas.



JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

In this subforum the canon of the Bible is considered authoritative with respect to the historical consensus of the canon's content.