This idea of a "free pass" so completely misses the point. Being saved means being changed, changed into a spiritual being capable of doing good works in the right spirit.
Ephesians 2:10King James Version (KJV) 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Jesus had to die in our place to pay for our deserved eternity in Hell so that we could be changed in these ways. There was no other way for that to be accomplished. Any righteous good deeds we do without salvation through Christ amount to nothing in God's eyes:
Isaiah 64:6 writes:
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Good deeds that God recognizes are those He commissions us to do through the Holy Spirit, which cannot be done in our mere fallen flesh.
Death entered as a consequence of the Fall, and we lost contact with God because of the disobedience that brought about the Fall, and the Fall had to be corrected before any human being could recover the fellowship Adam and Eve had had with God before they disobeyed. Believing in Christ's death opens us to receiving the Holy Spirit through whom we have spiritual powers of obedience and love of God we don't possess in our natural fallen state. This is no "get out of jail free" card, this is a total transformation that will ultimately fit us for an entirely new life in communication with God.
You are right up to a point, but only up to a point. EvC is quite a test and I fail it quite a bit. The flesh remains powerful. Getting angry at personal attacks is wrong.
But God doesn't want us to tolerate attacks on Him; that only encourages unbelievers in the wrong direction.
2 Chronicles 19:2
And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD.
Jehoshaphat had been helping Ahab who with his wife Jezebel honored the prophets of Baal and denied the God of Israel. The above passage says God's wrath has come against Jehoshaphat for that. Christians these days often make the mistake of thinking that loving our enemies means loving God's enemies, but that is very wrong and dangerous. Of course we are to treat everyone with kindness and concern for their basic wellbeing, but respecting their blasphemies and treating their sins as not sins is not loving them.
Tolerating such denigrating falsehoods as the idea that Paul or other Christians "market" Christianity is not a good thing in God's eyes, nor is tolerance shown for things God clearly condemns in the Bible, such as homosexual acts. Loving the homosexual doesn't mean pretending sin is not sin. Also we should be kind to Muslims personally, but treating their belief as equal to our own is a big mistake and an offense to God. Islam hates Christ, says God has no Son etc., and advocates killing Christians, yet there are Christians who are willing to turn their churches over to the practices of Islam. This shows extreme hatred of God and brings judgment on the nation.
As for US nationalism, I don't think that's the best way to understand the conservative political trend of Christians: the point is that conservatism supports Christian values and liberalism these days does not, though decades ago perhaps it did.
A medieval peasant was generally not taught the truth, being under the thumb of Rome. It took some courageous men, a lot of English among them such as Wycliffe and Tyndale, to get the truth to them, often losing their own lives as a result.
Every day people come to recognize the truth and get saved. As Jesus said "the gates of Hell will not prevail" against His church, it's going to last forever.
A remark about the medieval peasant (who was deprived of the Bible by the Roman church) sent you on that rant? Wow. I've read a lot of Christian history and I do know a lot, not nearly as much as I wish I did but a lot, and far more than most Christians. Is that so strange?
I also know quite a bit about the UK's illustrious Christian history, which isn't so illustrious any more though there are still some solid British Christians.
Methinks you protest too much. I don't know why but your emotion about it all is rather extreme.
I know two sciences are wrong because I believe the Bible. You inflate that absurdly.
Well, truth is truth, it trumps all the lies fallen humanity can dream up, and that's a lot, and I've studied Christian theology enough to know what's true and what isn't.
However, you do exaggerate about science, because there is nothing in the Bible against true science, the science that gets rockets to distant planets, that invents medical systems that save lives, and even genetic engineering which I may object to ethically but not as science. And there is no objection to the many true observstions in biology or geology either, just to the wacko theory-skewed interpretations thereof.
True science is useful, but there is nothing whatever about the vaporings about the distant past, either the biological past or the geological past, that is useful at all, and that includes the wacko interpretations of otherwise factual observations in terms of evo and OE theory.
True science is useful, but there is nothing whatever about the vaporings about the distant past, either the biological past or the geological past, that is useful at all....
You do realise that the radiometric dating that you so readily hand wave away is widely used in the exploration for mineral deposits? But maybe all that copper in your computer is not useful at all...
As I understand it, practically speaking the discovery of such mineral deposits involves the identification of the relevant rock associated with the relevant time period, which is more about physical identification than time and doesn't really require dating beyond that identification. If it occurs in, say, a rock identified as Triassic, all that's necessary is recognizing the rock called Triassic. I could probably do this myself without having a clue about its age.
Faith writes: True science is useful, but there is nothing whatever about the vaporings about the distant past, either the biological past or the geological past, that is useful at all
Right, geology isn't useful? Radioactive dating isn't useful, the evolution of antibiotics isn't useful, knowledge for its own sake isn't useful.....and on and on.
My god-daughter's life was saved by the medical cloning of pig tissue which was used to reconnect parts of her lower intentine after a traffic accident. The tissue wasn't rejected by her body because of the closeness of the pig genome to our own. Evolution did that. Hallelujah!
I don't think you read what I said very well. Ordinary everyday genetic change, or microevolution, is all you need to know about antibiotic resistance, which has nothing to do with the ToE conjurings about the distant past, and you certainly don't need the theory of evolution to identify the genetic closeness of pig tissue to human -- that closeness exists without any notions of genetic descent entering the picture. Science does not need either the ToE or the OE to have the necessary knowledge in these cases.
A Kind is a Species. The terms are synonymous but the classification system accepted today doesn't offer a clear definition so I don't attempt to define it beyond something like Cats, Dogs, Bears and Giraffes.