I'm convinced Pound Foolish is Jelly.

I would like to add another part of the discussion that I would discuss (since I'm not discussing the current thing about Jesus' name):

What about baptism? Is that the only viable way to enter the church/insert another appropriate question worthy enough to generate discussion?

Not at all. It didn't have to be an either/or question.


So on the flip-side, what about one who's life consistently reflects that of Christ, but he doesn't call himself a Christian? Does God look at the outward appearance (labels), or does he look at the heart?

I think God does look at the heart but as you said this isn't an either or question. Look at 1st Corinthians were Paul asks
This seems to indicate that titles are somewhat important, we can't just go around claiming to be of whoever.

So on the flip-side, what about one who's life consistently reflects that of Christ, but he doesn't call himself a Christian? Does God look at the outward appearance (labels), or does he look at the heart?

I think it goes back to relationship. Behavior is all well and good and can better your fellow man, but when it comes to salvation, spending eternity with God instead of hell, then yes, I think the heart, which only God can really know, is important. Therefore, God would know if one seeks Him in all they do or if they are merely doing good because they thought Jesus was a example without any spiritual component. Now calling oneself a Christian, also does not necessarily mean you are a church attending, name on the rolls, type of Christian. In the last 20 years, I think I have met more bible-believing, scripture-searching, Christ-centered people outside the church (note little "c") than in...........people who do not feel the need to be tied to a building, etc. I live in a VERY secular country (Sweden) and I think I have met two of what I would refer to as REAL believers in 7 years, okay, maybe more, but they are all immigrants. But, I digress.

What would you say about those who have never heard of Christianity? Can they be condemned because of ignorance?

seems to me that is why missionaries are so important.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God;And the firmament shows His handiwork.

Acts 17:26-27 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;


Even if they have never heard of Christianity, God can still reveal Himself to them and give them the opportunity to believe in Him.

----
Oh, and ditto what John Chrysostom said.

So if a man had never learned about Jesus but lived a good life and followed God in his own religion withour knowing it or confessing Jesus as Lord, would he be saved?

It is a highly individual process, and we can't know a man's heart, but basically yes.

what if he was a good Aztec who practiced human sacrifice? "good" is a relative term. What if he is a good muslim who sees it as his duty to kill the infidel? or a good hindu who sincerely Believes in a whole hosts of gods?

Unfortunately, I don't know if that's true within the context of the original languages of the Bible or not. I'll hopefully look into that.

The fact that no limit seems to be imposed on it. The order "Thou shalt not kill" will clearly become irrelevant after our death. Thus, no clarification is needed nor provided. This passage we discussing, however, could conceivably continue after our death. So, if they are trying to say that this will occur only on earth, the passage is misleading.

Worshiping a false god is idolatry, yes. The question here then is, is doing good in the name of a false god idolatry? Is a good act in of itself of the property of any false god?

Hi, Good Doctor. Though i suppose debating is saying "hi" to us.

Not at all. The idea that anyone who follows God in their own way, whatever their religion, believing in Jesus or not, is in fact a Catholic teaching.

"Those who die in God's grace and friendship... live forever with Christ." Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Then why bother with missions?

This quote is widely out of of context, what is missing as indicated by the ellipses?

Also to draw this into a larger debate we've been having for quite awhile. Even saying that is an accurate quote, which I am not, has this been the teaching of the Catholic church since the beginning?

And what did Christ mean when He said that no man comes through the Father except through me? Should He have said, man can come through the Father through Buddha and any of the Hindu gods, or hey worship the earth, it's all good as long as we're friends.

I would imagine because even if it may be possible for people to find Salvation in other ways, the surest and best way would of course be directly through Jesus, so we want to help as many people as possible discover that.

I know this isn't your personal argument but that's a horrible argument. Because God just becomes one way even if it is the best way to Salvation. God is The Way, The Truth, and The Life.

Isn't that what I said? The question was why bother with missions if people can be saved other ways, the answer was because missions educate people about The Way so they don't hit or miss with 'other ways'.

My point is that that argument still say Christ is only the best way, not the only way. But yes you are saying teach the truth

May you please specify ways?

The way the Jesus said I am the way, the truth, and the life means only through Him can we reach God. The Bible gives no other way.

I have heard of a group of Indians that came seaching for the Bible and God to I believe somewhere around Texas. Eventually missionaries went out there, and they got saved, but I do not believe you can simply come to God by believing he exists.

This question is an extremely telling one, and one on which the entire premise of Evangelicalism basically hangs. Your insinuation is that, if we don't send out missionaries to convert people to our religion, then what's the point? I want to premise my response by saying that I am very closely acquainted with several Evangelical missionaries who are doing amazing work in many different parts of the world. I respect and admire them, and I'm grateful that they're making a positive difference in people's lives.

But conversion mentality can, ultimately, be a dangerous one. Evangelicals justify their missional focus by Jesus' call to "make disciples" in Scripture. Unfortunately, their tactic often more closely resembles that of European colonization than that of Jesus himself. Walking around with a mental score card, checking off a point every time an individual prays the "sinner's prayer" is missing the point of discipleship entirely. We say things like...

...which sound nice, but don't actually mean anything unless they can be applied to the particular context of an individual. Jesus' proclamation of being "the way, the truth and the life," is very Eastern. Those who subscribe more readily to Eastern mysticism and philosophy might have an easier time understanding a phrase like that, and applying it to their lives. But most of us live in a Western context, and my fear is that as a result, a beautiful philosophy has often been twisted into rigid fundamentalism. In this context, Jesus waves an American flag and lives somewhere up in the clouds, even though we say, "oh, he's just Spirit." This very Western sensibility has twisted the idea of God into a white guy with a beard who sits elevated in the heavens, smiling or shaking his head as he somehow watches over every human being like Santa Claus. On Sunday he picks out the most conservative churches and attends those ones, all at once because omnipresence. This God is quick to anger, and quick to become a political activist. He's definitely male and also he hates gay people.

Those are all pitfalls that I've seen the Evangelical version of God fall into. Which is why, when mixed together with the Evangelical interpretation of Jesus' call to "make disciples," this idea of missions can actually be dangerous. When we say "Jesus is the only way," we have to know what we actually mean by that. What does Jesus look like? Because more often than not, a Buddhist's God looks a lot more like Jesus than a Christian fundamentalist's God. So is Jesus more than just a name? If he is, then how do we know where to draw all these lines?

I definitely won't claim to know for myself, but I'm pretty sure it has something to do with having "eyes to see and ears to hear."

I again ask. How else would you get to God? God provides no other way. And really Christianity is strict, it is a narrow gate that few find. It was always meant to be strict and not liberal. Jesus never, never preached a gospel in which every one felt happy. You HAD to change. I don't even believe that he hates gay people. I believe that he hates the sin, or Jesus never would have come to Earth. He came 'will we were yet in sin'.
Who is God? He is just and merciful. Which means he judges according to his law. Paul even said the law is good and is over any one who is not in Christ. God judges non-believers by the law.
Anyway, back to the point. Where in the Bible does it say that man can reach God in multiple ways? And how exactly do you get around the fact that the Bible multiple times states (not claims) that Jesus is the only way?