Re: [biblicalapologetics] Fwd: questions
- Responding to "jeep_dj5", who posted the following to the biblical
apologetics mailing list:
> Some Questions For The Believer[... deletion ...]
> 1) How would you define "God," and why are you convinced such
> a thing exists?
> 40) Why does history show that every time a fundamentalist religionI have no idea how old you are or how much experience you have had
> has gained political power, tyranny and persecutions have soon
with mailing lists, but I have had much experience with email lists
for many years. I have managed two or three myself.
I think cutting-and-pasting has its place, but often it comes
across as impersonal and careless, even if the item posted has some
bearing on the mailing list subject. No doubt, questions about
theism or fundamentalism are germane to this mailing list.
However, a cut-and-paste question shows no more sensitivity or
personal investment than a cut-and-paste reply. Personally, I *like*
to answer questions, provided that they come from real people. It
gives me a sense of accomplishing something or meeting a real human
need. But I dislike posers and hypocrites, who ask questions they
don't really care about or who take 2 minutes to cut-and-paste and
then expect others to take 20 minutes or 60 minutes to think out a
reply. To me, that's just unfair and unkind.
If you exhibit ten minutes of real thinking and human interaction,
you'll get a much more serious response from people like me. I'll
start off by giving you my real name. Thanks for listening.
Eric Pement - eric.pement@...
- Replying to Robert Bassett:
Thanks for replying. On 19 Jul 2005 at 12:15, you said:
> I do agree with what you say about religious hypocrisy Eric but youI was addressing what I thought was Jeep's more fundamental
> must admit that there has to be one real truth.
question about which religion was true. Since his question mixed in
world religions, Christian denominations, and cults, it was my view
that the best way to frame a response was as I did: the Christian
religion is true, but being part of the "right church" won't save
you. I think this is the basics for further discussion.
> The Godhead must be either the trinity as described by RC and mostTrue, they cannot all be right. And the Godhead might fit some
> Protestants, God and the glorified man Christ as described by JW and
> others or maybe 3 separate beings as described by Mormons. They cannot
> all be right.
different configuration altogether (binitarian, unitarian,
modalistic, panentheistic, etc.). I acknowledge that on a descriptive
level, the law of noncontradiction holds.
My assertion, for Jeep's sake, is that even believing in the
"right" understanding of Godhead is not enough. As I said to him in
my last message:
EP> In the last analysis, Bible knowledge without eternal life
EP> is worthless.
I think that holds for knowledge of true doctrines as well. In my
understanding, a person could conceptually believe in the "right" or
ultimately most correct understanding of theology, christology,
pneumatology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and all the rest, and still
not be "saved." Salvation is not obtained by intellectual assent even
to correct propositions and statement. Salvation is based on a
personal decision of the will to turn from sin and trust in Christ as
your sin-bearer, master, and risen Lord.
There are components of this decision that involve ideas (what is
sin? what does "risen" mean? etc.), but there are additional
components that require will, volition, allegiance, faith, and so on.
> I do agree though that participation in any religion doesnt guaranteeI think so too ... so long as those different faiths don't
> salvation, any many individuals of many different faiths will hear the
> words of the shepherd and heed his voice.
"differ" so greatly that they lose or deny the Jesus and gospel of
Scripture. Thanks for writing.