Re: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Committing necessary evils
- Responding to jeep_dj5, who on 14 Jul 2005 at 2:00, said:
> --- In email@example.com, Eric Pement[ ... ]
> <eric.pement@m...> wrote:
> > What is the proper response? If you answer honestly, the Jews willI think Jesus answered another form of this question in Matt.
> > be sent to a concentration camp and probably killed. If you lie, the
> > Gestapo agent may leave. So what do you do?
> What would you do?
12:10-13, when he was confronted with the charge of breaking the
Sabbath by healing someone on that day. It's worth reading.
If push came to shove, I would break a law against lying in order
to save a human life.
> As for me, I'm not religious. So my answer doesn't matter.Cop-out, Jeepie. Nonreligious people still make decision about how
to behave in tough situations, even if they don't believe in any
God(s). And since turnabout is fair play, you should still answer.
[ ... ]
> > All sin is wrong, but according to the Torah, the penaltiesI advise people not to write checks they're not willing and able
> > for some sins are diminished if there are extenuating or
> > mitigating circumstances.
> So what is your advise Mr. Pement? Christians can go ahead and commit
> sin if necessary, correct?
to pay for. Anyone who wants to "go ahead and commit sin," as you put
it, must be ready to bear the consequences of their actions.
- 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.