Faith writes:
But he could have died and been resurrected and NOBODY KNOW A THING ABOUT IT and the purpose would have been accomplished according to the way you and jar talk about it. Salvation in your view does not depend upon anybody's knowing anything about Christ.
======
No, that's not what I've said at all. I've said that many can know the concept of Christ and confess their belief in him by the Holy Spirit moving them to do so. Therefore, if salvation is found in a person, it is because Christ is at work in them and saving them.
WITHOUT THEIR KNOWING HIM. By claiming they can know him without knowing anythign about him you are playing semantic tricks.
Faith writes:
Salvation would be given to those who did good works based on his resurrection whether anybody believed or not or knew anything about it.
======
And again, you're not understanding what I've said. I'm saying that if salvation is found in them, it is because they do know Christ -- even though they do not know his name.
YES, which is not KNOWING him, just a phony baloney bit of legerdemain. But whatever YOU mean about it obviously *I* don't mean that. My point is that BY YOUR STANDARDS there is no point in ANYBODY's EVER knowing what the Bible says about Christ, no need to preach it, no need even to mention him, no need for it to have been taken notice of by anyone at all that He died and resurrected. If anyone can be saved simply because it happened without their knowing that it happened then there's no need for ANYONE to know it happened or for the Bible ever to have been written. In other words there's no distinction between being a believer in Christ and being a total atheist by your standards. Or jar's.
Faith writes:
The Bible however is adamant that the gospel is to be PREACHED.
Yes. And I've never said it wasn't adamant about this.
You are being awfully coy. Is it possible you can't understand what I'm saying here? If it is to be preached, you need to explain WHY it needs to be preached, what's the point, why bother, if as you say nobody needs to know Word One about it in order to be saved through Christ?????
Faith writes:
What's the point of the preaching if people are saved without hearing the gospel?
I never said they couldn't be saved without knowing the gospel. I've said that they can know the gospel, however dimly, from other sources outside the Christian faith.
Obviously Mr Ex, I'm talking about having HEARD IT, UNDERSTANDING what's WRITTEN, knowing the BIBLICAL report of Christ. "Knowing the gospel" in YOUR sense MEANS that NOBODY ON EARTH NEEDS TO KNOW IT AS IT IS WRITTEN. SO YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY GOD BOTHERED TO SAY IT IS TO BE PREACHED, AND WHY ANYBODY BOTHERS TO PREACH IT, AND WHY THE WRITTEN REPORTS ARE OF ANY VALUE WHATEVER, since according to you there is no reason whatever for any of that.
As far as preaching is concerned, God calls us to do it because there is a very real danger in other faiths and worldly systems of falling away to the point that they no longer know God anymore -- to the point that their consciences are simply dead to God's call. Those that uphold the gospel are effectively immune to this falling away so long as they are attentive to the Holy Spirit -- but, even then, there are exceptions to the rule if they persistently ignore the Holy Spirit.
And how does preaching the gospel stop people of other religions from falling away?
Are you saying that those of us who DO hear the gospel have an advantage then? Please develop this point if so.
Faith writes:
What good does it do if Jesus "preached the clear message of God" without common errors, as you say, if nobody needs to know that message or believe it in order to be saved?
=======
Because it is the truth Faith. God wants us to know his son in whom he is pleased. Jesus is the perfect way to the father -- he is true God and true man -- and there is no other way to the Father except by Christ.
But if people can be saved by Christ without ever knowing any of this about Christ there is no reason for anybody to know it at all. There is no special advantage for those who know it. Might as well not bother if we'll be saved or damned with or without knowing it.
Besides that, I've always upheld that it was one's belief in Christ that reveals Christ's manifestation of salvation in their lives -- even if they don't know Christ by name.
Yes you say that but that is not what the Bible says. It's plain nonsensical to claim that someone believes in someone whose name they don't even know. And again, if that's "belief" that saves, what's the point of having a real belief in the Christ we know by name?
Faith writes:
And if the necessary revelation for salvation is already given in nature, as you've argued elsewhere, there was no need for him to come at all despite your insistence on the value of his life and resurrection.
======
Yes. And the value of his life and resurrection is the ultimate source of our salvation. I accept that you don't agree with my point of view.
However, I don't understand why you have to distort what I've said so as to make it look like I'm saying that Christ's death and return from the dead is irrelevent to my theology.
I'm not saying YOU are saying that, I'm saying that is the logical inference from what you are saying. You don't seem to have noticed that the WRITTEN REPORTS about his death and resurrection are irrelevant given what you believe. Given what you believe there is no value whatever to anybody's KNOWING any of the reality of the life and death of Jesus, ever hearing it preached etc, since we will all be saved or damned ANYWAY, saved on the basis of the resurrection whether we know about it or not, damned on the basis of our works not meeting some standard or other we'll never be able to grasp.
Everything I've said points toward Christ's redeeming us on the cross -- and that there is no other way for humanity to gain access to the father except by this.
But I am focusing on our KNOWING ABOUT THE REDEMPTION OR NOT. Your view implies that NOBODY NEEDS TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT so I don't see why the Christian Church has always made such a big deal about preaching it if it doesn't matter if anyone knows about it.
Faith writes:
No my interpretation of scripture is not wrong. Yours is.
More sweeping statements eh?
Gee -- this sounds like something coming out of the mouth of a first grade child, "I'm right and you're wrong...nah nah nah!". I'm not going to sit here and go back and forth with you saying, "I'm right and your wrong" 20 times over and over again because it accomplishes nothing.
Faith writes:
We're going to have to agree to disagree.
I've already agreed to disagree with you Faith. It's your insistence that you've somehow "won the debate" which cause the Spirit to flare up in me and prompts me to respond further to your responses.
That aint the Spirit, that's your ego.
See, I don't claim to have won anything. All's that I've presented is an what I believe to be a very valid alternative to your interpretation -- and to this extent I believe I've succeeded in doing so.
However, your response is usually something like, "I'm right...and everyone else who disagrees with me is wrong." I don't claim to be the absolute source of truth like you do. I've only responded as I felt the Spirit led me to do so. Whether I'm right or wrong -- ultimately -- Christ will be the judge. Not you.
You say you're right, I say I'm right. I don't see the difference myself. That's life. Of course Christ will judge.
™ Version 4.2