Salvific issues?

[Nicole]

I know that "we" throw around terms like heretic, and false teacher and such when someone adheres to a doctrine different than ours - but I wonder, what does the Bible teach about salvific issues? How much doctrine can you get wrong, and still be saved? Is there a difference between the thief on the cross, who was saved with no more doctrine than "You are the Christ" and those who have more knowledge before them, yet pick and choose what they believe?

[Raquel]

As Phil knows, I think what you're proposing is a salvic issue and heartily disagree with it. I see the long term fruit of that belief as a passive apathy that flows directly against a Christ followers ultimate purpose.

I assume You suggest that we don't focus on the eternal simply because you beleive that the eternal already exists and we're just a part of the building blocks that will bring the fullness to pass. I beleive that this is dangerous ground to walk on. I agree that taking care of the underdog is certainly important however the poor will always be with us. Feeding bread to the poor (and to ourselves for that matter) is anticlimactic without the bread of life.

I beleive that the point of the gospel gets lost as soon as humans think that we can get involved in God's business. Building heaven? Building eternity? Who's job is that? Certainly not our own. We wait for the orders of the King, invite as many as possible to come, and then put on our clothes for the wedding feast. Should we even mention that they ought to change before they show up? I don't know about you, but I was found on the streets/hwy/main road (whatever version you read). I know I didn't take part in preparing the feast. I just get to show up and I'm makin' sure that I have the right clothes on. Not outta fear, but outta respect and honor for the One whom invited me.

[Raquel]

P.S. As Rey stated earlier (goodness knows where) if you prove me wrong, I'll change my stance.

[D. Iohan Fausten]

Karl St. said:

God is without beginning or end, which is what eternal means.

"For traditional theism, eternality does not mean time without beginning and endless time. An infinte number of moments is impossible: If an infinite number of moments occured before today, then today would never have come, since it impossible to traverse an infinite number of moments (yet the time up to today has been traversed).

"There is no end of an infinite, but today is the end of all previous moments. Today has arrived; hence, an infinite number of moments could not have occurred before today. Eternality means nontemporality or timelessness."
—Geisler, Systematic Theology (Volume 2)


Note: This doesn't dispute the spirit of the claim above, merely a clarification on terms.

[D. Iohan Fausten]

I think you missed Geisler's point, but I won't bog it down. I see you're a Tillich man. I'm struggling through him (not having all the resources makes that even more difficult). But in a different place if you have some time on the 'ground of being' topic, I'm all ears (eyes?).

[Jack]

I think that most, here, will agree that: God always did exist and always will exist.

[Jack]

Karl; sometimes, people argue about common terms, like: "person" to avoid answering or following the argument (Logical argument).
Am=to be= to exist. God said "I AM" not "I IS". So, there!!! :-) Jack

Karl St. said:

Bishop: I think Tillich and what I understand from what you wrote of Geisler are similar. That could possibly be another discussion sometime. It seems to me we are pretty much on the same page with the idea of eternity. When I get time, most definitely, I'll try and send some info your way. "Ground of Being" - oh boy, what a topic! I assume you have worked through Tillich's Ontological Polarities?

One other thought on eternal. When we talk about eternal it can not be separated from God for it is one of his attributes. Just as we can't talk about holiness without reference to God, neither can we talk about eternal, eternity, without reference to God. Talking about eternity as being something apart from God is not possible. Speaking of God necessitates "eternal" just as speaking of God necessitates "The Holy".

Jack: I'm going to pick on your statement. This is for fun and for developing discussion, absolutely not going against your statement.

I disagree, God does not exist. To bring God down to the level of existence is to make God, well, not God. I believe, as you do as well, God is. Amen? I think he told Moses something to that affect.

Lovingly Karl St.

[D. Iohan Fausten]

Karl St. said:

When I get time, most definitely, I'll try and send some info your way. "Ground of Being" - oh boy, what a topic! I assume you have worked through Tillich's Ontological Polarities?

I appreciate that and eagerly await you having more time. However, if you mean "worked through" as in I've seen it in a book, then yes. But I'd rather plead ignorance and gleen more information than assume that I am up to par with any reasonable intelligence on the matter. Ground zero, no pun intended, is what I will profess on the subject. I got tracked with Geisler and have been munching on that for about a year now.

And with that, I'll bow out here and patiently wait.