If believing Jesus was supernatural makes you a Christian

I think anyone who claims he follows Christ has the right to call himself a Christian, but I have to do far more than that to call myself s Christian.

 

Yes - I think that is what is actually happening - the social definition.

And, I have serious respect for your more honest and serious definition as applied to yourself.

 

Believing Jesus was a supernatural doesn't gain one the label of "Christian".

 

And therein lies the problem surrounding the doctrine of sola fide.

 

How so?

 

Wrong. People can believe Jesus is supernatural without believing a single other thing about him.

 

I'm not sure that's what Talon was going for. Believing anything, other than God raised him (Jesus) from the dead, thus declaring him Lord of Life, won't get anyone the ticket on salvation's bus.

 

If believing Jesus was supernatural makes you a Christian
SUBTOPIC: Qualities of the Supernatural
⁜→ WillReadmore, et al,

(OPPOSING VIEW)

It is my opinion that this is a valid faith-based position to hold. But, it is a defective logical argument to present.

(COMMENT)

An entity that holds all three God Powers and is considered by the faithful to be the Supreme Being, Ultimate Creator, or First Cause would not create such lesser beings that did not follow the design protocols. We do not know what the design protocols are, or how the programming deals with submissive behaviors. The assumption might be that since humans have the capacity to act in a manner that displeases the Supreme Being, Ultimate Creator, or First Cause, humans were intended to perform in that manner. Otherwise the


Most Respectfully,
R

 

I probably should have said therein lies my problem with the doctrine of sola fide - that one can obtain justification/salvation through faith in a supernatural Christ alone.

Thus, I agree with your statement that "believing Jesus was a supernatural doesn't gain one the label of "Christian"". If I recall correctly, there is a passage in the Bible that says, in essence, good works are required along with faith to obtain justification/salvation, and of course that operates on the assumption that God is extending this act of grace to we mortals.

 

Basically this, but maybe not quite that detailed. Denominations differ some. The basic definition of being christian is the bolded. The belief that he was the sacrifice to allow grace, at least in part, for belief in that sacrifice. Other related religions may view him as special, but do not believe he is a primary key to grace.

 

I understand your point, but have you asked yourself: What was the point of Jesus sacrificing his life if we can obtain justification by our own works? Justification is a gift of God, which Jesus paid for with his blood.

My understanding of the role good works play in our lives is for our benefit in living it while we wait for the return of Christ. It doesn't earn us anything, like brownie points to behave a certain way. The scriptures make it clear that no man can earn God's grace or favor.

 

As I mentioned to Overitall, I probably should have said therein lies my problem with the doctrine of sola fide - that one can obtain justification/salvation through faith in a supernatural Jesus Christ alone - but it's a problem that people have expressed since Desiderius Erasmus challenged Martin Luther's assertion of the doctrine in 1524.

As for whether there is a right or wrong there, I think that is a matter of personal opinion/belief/faith. While I've sided with Erasmus' position on this I recognize that both sides can cite scripture to support their arguments.

True, it's possible we're all supernatural beings and Jesus isn't the Christ that he allegedly claimed to be in the Gospels, but I haven't met many people who believe that. For the most part, people connect the belief that Jesus was supernatural with the belief that he is the Christ, and as I stated in my ever so poorly articulated post, I don't think that faith alone is enough for one to earn justification/salvation, and that belief comes from my reading and interpretation of what Jesus preached in the Gospels. I think he made it quite clear that one must have faith AND one must act to be a Christian.

 

To be clear, I don't believe that one can obtain justification/salvation through faith or works alone, and most of all I don't believe anyone can obtain it without God's grace.

That being said, I think the answer to your question is to set an example, to show people The Way in a manner that anyone and everyone can understand.

I agree with you on the first part, but I wonder about the second. I get that their may be some scriptural basis for that, but I wonder how Jesus paid for something that God gives freely of His own will? On a purely rational level I have a hard to squaring that circle.

Again, God's grace is God's to give, but the argument of Erasmus, et al, which is also based on scripture, is one that concerns the Free Will of God and the Free Will God gave Mankind (vs. predestination). In this case, God judges individuals based on the choices they make (i.e., our moral agency), thus when we act in a manner that pleases God, God chooses to rewards us.

There's also the matter of things like the Ten Commandments and Jesus' preachings and works, which clearly indicate that our actions do matter (and Jesus was emphatic about this). If they didn't matter there never would have been any point in all that.

 

I think this is mostly a misunderstanding. I don't know of any branch of Christianity that believes that works alone could be enough. (Let me know if you do.)

However, in Matthew 25:31-end Jesus is quoted as telling his followers (Christians, I assume) that they must live life in a certain way or they will end up in hell along with Satan.

So, the belief part is the first order requirement. But, one must then walk the walk.


This may be part of the question of what those who have accepted Christ could do that would cause them to be rejected by God.

I know there is a view that "once saved, always saved". But, the Matthew cite above certainly doesn't support that view.

 

I would say believing that is not any more illogical than believing that there is no God and that somehow creation just magically came into existence by itself

 

which is more likely... an all-knowing God popped into existence

or energy popped into existence and evolved with time

 

Setting an example opens the door to witnessing to others about Christ. Our lives are supposed to reflect Christ.

Excellent point. The gift was made possible due to Jesus' sacrifice. The reason it can still be considered a gift is because no one ever "earned" God's grace manifested by the outpouring of holy spirit (which Adam through his sin lost) through their works.

My understanding of it is that we are rewarded for our good works (there is mention of "five crowns" in the scriptures that can be earned) in the life to come. But then what about the rewards of someone who hasn't had time to earn any? I think being given the holy spirit is reward sufficient unto itself because it's eternal life. It can't be lost.

See above. Our works matter because through them we better live our lives and as you pointed out they are a witness of Christ living in us.

 

Believing that everything that exists just sprang forth from nothing..... Definitely makes more sense.

So what did the energy that popped into existence pop out of? There was just nothing and then suddenly magically nothing became everything

 

(-1) + (+1) = 0

spit enough of those apart over infinite amounts of time, and you have a whole lot of something

much less complicated them popping an all-knowing all-powerful God out of nothing that then creates everything else

 

Yes, I don't believe mankind can guess the intent of a god that decided to make a universe, nor the methods used.

We can study how this universe works. But that, too, says nothing about the intent of some proposed supernatural being.

 

I think I get your point.

I'd say that an all-knowing god popping into existence is far more fantastical than just having a universe pop into existence. After all, a god would require stupendous intelligence, the ability to play with hunks of energy far in excess of what our universe represents, ability to exist both inside and outside that universe. Etc. That's a lot more in the way of assumptions.

But, so what?

I think we could make discoveries that would cause huge changes in the way we view this problem. But, there would be just as much room for believing in a god. Long ago, some who had access to the Bible thought this universe was created in 6 days. Today, we know about the big bang, etc., and that doesn't change anything about God. Maybe one can view our universe as we now know it as adding to any understanding of god.

Our next steps in understanding are also not going to reduce god in any way.

 

of course, the question is.... what is a God

we could now create a universe, it would not be accessible by us once created, but would the guy in the lab coat be their God, their creator?

 

A similar question is whether we could be living in a simulation - maybe a more sane version of the Matrix.

Theoretical physicists say no to this idea, but ...

I think any version of god that is relevant to humans would have to go beyond simply creating the universe such that life formed and evolution took place.

 

Absolutely, no way to know for sure

maybe it's a collective illusion of all the people in it - maybe we are God, all of us

 

Yes, we're humans and the questions aren't easy.