Salvation, choice, and reason

[5010]

Consider the Christian principle of salvation by choice. As far as I know it goes like this: If one chooses to subscribe to certain beliefs about Jesus, then in turn Jesus will save them.

Does the reason for choosing belief matter?

Some examples:

straw man - I chose to believe after being told exaggerated versions of alternate beliefs.

argument from adverse consequences / appeal to force - I chose to believe because I was told I would suffer eternally in hell otherwise.

excluded middle/false dichotomy/etc - I chose to believe in Jesus because of evidence against the existence of Athena

burden of proof - I chose to believe because the atheists couldn't disprove Jesus.

argument to the future - I chose to believe because of prophesy about the end of the world.

argument by emotive language - I was moved to believe by the feelings the speaker evoked.

appeal to pity - I chose to believe because Jesus suffered and died for me.

argument from authority - I chose to believe because I trust scholars because they studied it more than me.

statement of conversion - I chose to believe because someone who believed as I did before was converted so they must have learned something I didn't know

appeal to widespread belief/bandwagon/peer pressure/etc - I chose to believe because a lot of people I know do.

[Zhavric]

burden of proof - I chose to believe because the atheists couldn't disprove Jesus.

Well, we know it's not that one...

[jascowhiz0]

How would you explain. "I choose to believe in God because existence is contingent."

[PatrickHenry]

How about if you are satisfied in your own mind that God exists and loves people?

How about if you are conscious of His presence in your own life?

How about if you really think the soul is potentially immortal and that Jesus has made a way for the otherwise impossible?

You guys...so full of hate...

[Jack]

so full of hate

Why presume hate? I'll admit to bemusement, frustration and lessening tolerance. I'll admit to having a real issue with fanatics who spread hatred and violence in the name of religion. But hate in return, no. I don't hate the religious or their beliefs.

[PatrickHenry]

I have observed the hate, Isherwood.

What can I say? You hadn't posted yet when I made my comment.

Volconvo is full of hate for Christians. Always has been, sometimes going over the top (eg, Gorgo and Starboy) but with a very strong undercurrent...

[Slevin57]

For Christianity there are only three qualifications.

1/ You must accept that man is flawed (sin)

John 3:3, "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

2/ You must accept that the price of sin is going to hell

Romans 6:23, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

3/ That Jesus died on the cross for your sins.

John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-----------------

I think most of the things you said are frowned upon. Normally you decide to believe in Christ through faith that he does exist.

Mathew 16

13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

Side Note: If you happen to be Catholic this is the part of the bible that legitimizes the entire structure of the church. Catholics believe Christ bestowed his church on earth in Peter, the first pope. Making the Catholic Church the one true church of God. They also believe that because the "father revealed" it to Peter, that all successive popes had the ability to converse with God directly.

Or if your protestant you have decided to ignore this part of the bible, and when it's convient you will fall back to the Greek translation, but only here. God forbid you invalidate the rest of the things you believe

[Zhavric]

Quote by: jascowhiz0 How would you explain. "I choose to believe in God because existence is contingent."

Easy: flawed logic.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: PatrickHenry How about if you are satisfied in your own mind that God exists and loves people?

Special pleading.

How about if you are conscious of His presence in your own life?

Delusion.

How about if you really think the soul is potentially immortal and that Jesus has made a way for the otherwise impossible?

Unchallenged indoctrination / propaganda.

You guys...so full of hate...

Ingrained defense mechanism.

This is fun. Any more?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: PatrickHenry I have observed the hate, Isherwood. What can I say? You hadn't posted yet when I made my comment. Volconvo is full of hate for Christians. Always has been, sometimes going over the top (eg, Gorgo and Starboy) but with a very strong undercurrent...

When I was in college, I went to a party at a big hotel... a sci-fi convention known for nerds of the world uniting for nights of drunken fun. The con has a reputation as a place for nerds to 'hook up'. During the day and before the partying, I met a young lady, hung out with her for a little while, took a liking to her and (in a large open atrium in plain sight of several individuals who were out of ear shot) asked her if she wanted to come to a party with me as a date.

I propositioned her.

She declined. I shrugged my shoulders, exchanged a few more polites with her and went on my way... sure in the knowledge that I had been a gentleman. I hadn't laid a hand on her. I asked, she said no, and I had respected that and gone about my business.

Later, I started to hear things. I started to hear stories about what had 'happened'. I saw looks in people's eyes. Apparently, the little drama queen had contrived a tall tale about me... how I'd cornered her in my hotel room (I wasn't checked into a hotel & had no access to any room) and tried to do things to her.

I talked to some more people and straitened things out. She ended up being thrown out of the convention as individuals who know me would not stand for such lies.

No one likes a person with personal issues who blows minor issues out of proportion...



...

I hate the dead Germans who murdered my great grandmother in a concentration camp.

I hate suicide bombers and Osama Bin Laden.

I hate the guy who roughed up my girlfriend before I met her.

...

Honestly, Christianity isn't worthy of my hate. Instead I find it frustrating Christians have an ingrained martyr complex; They assume any challenge to their propaganda is an "attack". It's absurd. It's a minor frustration which they blow out of proportion. Just like the girl from the con, Christians try to see things as being much worse than they are for BS personal reasons.

No one is buying it. Enough of the drama.

[5010]

Quote by: Slevin57 I think most of the things you said are frowned upon. Normally you decide to believe in Christ through faith that he does exist.

So if I am reading that right, a known method for salvation is choosing to believe by reason of faith, not faith in reason. This seems to match the concept of 'faith by gift of God'. If one continues to believe based on faith, then there is no logic, flawed or valid, that can shake that faith.

So would you say that the salvation status is unknown to man when one believes based on flawed logic? It seems to me that if flawed reason leads you to Jesus, then flawed reason can lead you away from Jesus. The foundation of reason is not as firm as the foundation of blind faith. But another question: If one dies while still subscribing by reason, are they saved? Is the uncertainty over whether or not God allows reason-converts, or whether or not reason-converts will still be in the camp at their end? And is there disagreement among the sectors? I've heard some say 'once saved, always saved', but not all seem to follow that belief.

Now the shaky ground of flawed reason is not special to Christianity. For example: one who is convinced that we breathe oxygen by peer pressure could later be convinced that we don't by additional peer pressure. Consider someone who researches oxygen and human metabolism, and they then believe we breathe it by valid reason based on their instruments. But instruments or the perception of results can err, so if the same instruments were flawed to the point of indicating we don't breathe oxygen, then they would lose faith. But still, they won't be turned away by peer pressure or other flawed reason. This tells me that even limiting onesself to valid reason is not as strong as blind faith although it is stronger than flawed reason.

The above leads me to consider the whole point of a Christian debating. If they successfully convince an unbeliever by a valid point, then they have led them (in their point of view) from the lost ground of unbelief to the shaky ground of faith by reason. (And yes, Zhav, you smirk at that hypothetical by my point isn't whether the former is possible, but whether the latter would result). The same is true if they convince an unbeliever by an invalid point! However, I would expect knowingly using an invalid point would violate the commandment against 'bearing false witness'. But does it matter? Doesn't their faith save them from the wages of that false witness violation?

In a nutshell, I think some Christians believe that faith by reason is sufficient but risky (chance of losing faith by reason), others believe it is sufficient (once saved always saves), and others might believe it is questionable (don't know if God accepts it even if they die in that state of mind). There may be some who believe that God definitely rejects faith by reason, but I expect that to be a small minority.

Thoughts?

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: 5010 Consider the Christian principle of salvation by choice. As far as I know it goes like this: If one chooses to subscribe to certain beliefs about Jesus, then in turn Jesus will save them. Does the reason for choosing belief matter? Some examples: straw man - I chose to believe after being told exaggerated versions of alternate beliefs. argument from adverse consequences / appeal to force - I chose to believe because I was told I would suffer eternally in hell otherwise. excluded middle/false dichotomy/etc - I chose to believe in Jesus because of evidence against the existence of Athena burden of proof - I chose to believe because the atheists couldn't disprove Jesus. argument to the future - I chose to believe because of prophesy about the end of the world. argument by emotive language - I was moved to believe by the feelings the speaker evoked. appeal to pity - I chose to believe because Jesus suffered and died for me. argument from authority - I chose to believe because I trust scholars because they studied it more than me. statement of conversion - I chose to believe because someone who believed as I did before was converted so they must have learned something I didn't know appeal to widespread belief/bandwagon/peer pressure/etc - I chose to believe because a lot of people I know do.

God is not a chess player with the white pieces.
God is the sea and we are the fishes.

[Slevin57]

Quote by: 5010 So if I am reading that right, a known method for salvation is choosing to believe by reason of faith, not faith in reason. This seems to match the concept of 'faith by gift of God'. If one continues to believe based on faith, then there is no logic, flawed or valid, that can shake that faith. So would you say that the salvation status is unknown to man when one believes based on flawed logic? It seems to me that if flawed reason leads you to Jesus, then flawed reason can lead you away from Jesus. The foundation of reason is not as firm as the foundation of blind faith. But another question: If one dies while still subscribing by reason, are they saved? Is the uncertainty over whether or not God allows reason-converts, or whether or not reason-converts will still be in the camp at their end? And is there disagreement among the sectors? I've heard some say 'once saved, always saved', but not all seem to follow that belief. Now the shaky ground of flawed reason is not special to Christianity. For example: one who is convinced that we breathe oxygen by peer pressure could later be convinced that we don't by additional peer pressure. Consider someone who researches oxygen and human metabolism, and they then believe we breathe it by valid reason based on their instruments. But instruments or the perception of results can err, so if the same instruments were flawed to the point of indicating we don't breathe oxygen, then they would lose faith. But still, they won't be turned away by peer pressure or other flawed reason. This tells me that even limiting onesself to valid reason is not as strong as blind faith although it is stronger than flawed reason. The above leads me to consider the whole point of a Christian debating. If they successfully convince an unbeliever by a valid point, then they have led them (in their point of view) from the lost ground of unbelief to the shaky ground of faith by reason. (And yes, Zhav, you smirk at that hypothetical by my point isn't whether the former is possible, but whether the latter would result). The same is true if they convince an unbeliever by an invalid point! However, I would expect knowingly using an invalid point would violate the commandment against 'bearing false witness'. But does it matter? Doesn't their faith save them from the wages of that false witness violation? In a nutshell, I think some Christians believe that faith by reason is sufficient but risky (chance of losing faith by reason), others believe it is sufficient (once saved always saves), and others might believe it is questionable (don't know if God accepts it even if they die in that state of mind). There may be some who believe that God definitely rejects faith by reason, but I expect that to be a small minority. Thoughts?

If you truly believe in Jesus, you would not view it as flawed logic. You only view it as flawed logic because you do not believe.

I am not Christian, just defending the statement

[Jack]

For Christianity there are only three qualifications.

Doesn't that depend on which branch of Christianity you follow? Fundamental, Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, they all have extra requirements they expect the potential believer to accept.

[5010]

Quote by: Slevin57 If you truly believe in Jesus, you would not view it as flawed logic. You only view it as flawed logic because you do not believe.

Agreed, and that illuminates another risk in the shaky ground of reason. If by ignorance one accepts a fallacious argument and converts, then one is in danger of losing faith if they later learn why the conclusion doesn't follow. Perhaps this further explains why Christians I've met suggest the 'leap of faith'.

[5010]

Quote by: Isherwood Doesn't that depend on which branch of Christianity you follow? Fundamental, Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, they all have extra requirements they expect the potential believer to accept.

Not only that, but I was reading the Catholic Catechism (English version) once and was surprised to find out that the Church officially recognises that there could be other paths leading to God, and that they teach their particular path because that is the one revealed to them. If you are curious, I might be able to locate the passage.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: 5010 Not only that, but I was reading the Catholic Catechism (English version) once and was surprised to find out that the Church officially recognises that there could be other paths leading to God, and that they teach their particular path because that is the one revealed to them. If you are curious, I might be able to locate the passage.

Please locate this passage, and put it into the whole context, ah . . . because the doctrine of the church reinforced by statements by most popes and Vatican II documents is . . .

EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

This unequivically states, 'There is no salvation outside the church.'

Statements by popes and documents of the church.

The first three statements are made ex cathedra which means that they are infalliable teachings that cannot be changed.

"There is only one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)


"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, in the bull, Unam Sanctam, 1302)


"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches, that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire 'prepared for the devil, and his angels' (Mt. 25:41)., unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is such that the Church's sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739; Pope Eugene IV, in the bull, Cantate Domino, 1441).

"It is a sin to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church."
- Venerable Pope Pius IX

"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes." - St. Louis Maria de Montfort

"We must believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church; hence they who are out of our Church or they who are separated from it, cannot be saved."
- St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Bishop and Doctor of the Church


The church allows possible salvation for those who are sincere souls and die before hearing the message of salvation from the RCC.