Eternal Salvation

[hermeneutika]

What happens after death? Regardless of ethnicity,religion,politics etc etc If there is a God and there is a Heaven to be won and hell to be avoided.....and assuming Heaven is totally desirable above anything, and hell is to be avoided at all costs....Eternity in Heaven or Hell becomes for me the most pressing question ....above even the most trying circumstances we may face down here in finite time. If religion is True above all, then this life is finite, but the afterlife is Eternal.
It would seem to me that most faiths,including atheism, all claim exclusive Truth. eg perhaps the Buddhists claim that only Buddhism is the only way to Nirvana.....or the Christians....or the Jews or the Muslims......or even the atheists.
So perhaps they are all right? Or perhaps none are right? Many paths to God? Or only one path to God?
The Christian Bible can be seen to claim exclusivity to the Christian faith. Only one way to God and that is through the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ.
in science we can examine the truth claims of a hypothesis or proposition by reference to the empirical data.
However there seems to be no methadology available that allows us to test the Truth claims of various faiths. Not even logic or reason seems to be of any use here....philosophy or theology.....
Before i got involved with the Christian faith i was a Existentialist.....ie all is choice....no such thing as no choice.....
So why place ones faith in Islam? or Christianity? Or any other ism? Heck, Mankind has not even solved something as simple as global economics and the global distribution of wealth. We kill our young .....global food shortages.....no education.....so if we cannot solve this worlds problems......and religious faiths seem to increase and not diminish wars.
Man is a hopeless case!!
I dont know about anyone else, but then i have to go with Soren Kierkegaard....Truth is subjective. I need saving. I certainly cannot save myself. For me i find myself attracted to the Person of Jesus the Christ.....dont know why.....it is not a rational or logical thing. I looked at Islam,Judaism,Hinduism,Buddhism,....i even looked into the Sufis.
Maybe when i die i go to Christ.....if you are a Muslim then you go to Allah.....only death will reveal the ultimate Truth. But we have to bet it all before we die.....i bet on Christ......

[Kendall K. Down]

On 04/01/2024 14:31, hermeneutika wrote:

> It would seem to me that most faiths,including atheism, all claim exclusive Truth. eg perhaps the Buddhists claim that only Buddhism is the only way to Nirvana.....or the Christians....or the Jews or the Muslims......or even the atheists.

Christianity is, I think, unique in saying that salvation depends, not
on ethical actions or religious ceremonial, but on one's relationship
with a personal God.

That God is a God of love, Who seeks to bring as many as possible into
friendship with Him. This He does through the influence of the Holy
Spirit (though exactly how that works I could not explain). Although
Christianity is the best and clearest exposition of how to be saved, the
Holy Spirit is not limited to Christians.

That means that a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or whatever, who listens to
the Spirit and follows His guidance, will be saved. I have no doubt that
where possibly the Spirit leads all such to become Christians, but there
may be obstacles of history or geography which prevent that.
Nevertheless, such people will develop "Christian" morals and behaviours
and even modes of worship.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[hermeneutika]

Cheers and every blessing

[John]

On 04/01/2024 20:21, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> That God is a God of love, Who seeks to bring as many as possible into
> friendship with Him. This He does through the influence of the Holy
> Spirit (though exactly how that works I could not explain). Although
> Christianity is the best and clearest exposition of how to be saved, the
> Holy Spirit is not limited to Christians.

> That means that a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or whatever, who listens to
> the Spirit and follows His guidance, will be saved.

Do you have any evidence for that statement? If Jesus is the only name
by which you can be saved, and Christianity was the only true religion,
then surely the Holy Spirit would lead them to Christianity?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/01/2024 19:08, John wrote:

> Do you have any evidence for that statement? If Jesus is the only name
> by which you can be saved, and Christianity was the only true religion,
> then surely the Holy Spirit would lead them to Christianity?

I already stated that the Holy Spirit would do just that, BUT ...

Here is Zulu Mpande, 1100 AD, a native of central Africa. No matter how
closely he follows the Spirit, unless he is granted a special
revelation, how is he going to know the story of Jesus?

(I could have put him in 1100 BC and the same consideration would apply
- and, indeed, would apply even to the Jews. How could they know the
story of Jesus before He even came to earth? Yet if King David could be
saved without knowing the name of Jesus, why not Zulu Mpande?)

Or then take Abdullah Ghassim, whose family was wiped out by an American
(Christian) bomb. With bitterness in his heart he would totally reject
any formal association with Christianity yet under the influence of the
Spirit he develops what we can only describe as "a Christ-like
character". He will never become a Christian, yet he responds to the
Spirit even more comprehensively than many Christians ever will!

Or we might think of Alan Williamson, who was abused by a clergyman and
has rejected any association with church, yet again is being guided and
led by the Holy Spirit.

It has been remarked here on a number of occasions, that while Jesus is
certainly the only way to salvation and anyone who is saved will be
saved through the merits of Jesus' sacrifice, he does not need to know
the details of Jesus' life or even the name of Jesus in order to benefit
from God's gracious provision for salvation.

[John]

On 05/01/2024 20:01, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 05/01/2024 19:08, John wrote:
>
>> Do you have any evidence for that statement? If Jesus is the only name
>> by which you can be saved, and Christianity was the only true
>> religion, then surely the Holy Spirit would lead them to Christianity?
>
> I already stated that the Holy Spirit would do just that, BUT ...
>
> Here is Zulu Mpande, 1100 AD, a native of central Africa. No matter how
> closely he follows the Spirit, unless he is granted a special
> revelation, how is he going to know the story of Jesus?

What would be the spirituality in that era? I'm guessing some sort of
spirit worship? If Zulu Mpande received the Holy Spirit presumably that
would include the gifts and most definitely the fruit. This would be
alien to the others but as Zulu practiced his new found religion would
this lead to others picking up his vibe, and equally receiving the
Spirit? I agree not knowing the name of Jesus is essential to being born
of the Spirit but equally he would be following a true Christian life.

In that sense my statement above stands, Zulu would be led to a more
truer form of Christianity as a result.

> (I could have put him in 1100 BC and the same consideration would apply
> - and, indeed, would apply even to the Jews. How could they know the
> story of Jesus before He even came to earth? Yet if King David could be
> saved without knowing the name of Jesus, why not Zulu Mpande?)

That leads me onto a different topic so I'll leave that aside for now.

>
> Or then take Abdullah Ghassim, whose family was wiped out by an American
> (Christian) bomb. With bitterness in his heart he would totally reject
> any formal association with Christianity yet under the influence of the
> Spirit he develops what we can only describe as "a Christ-like
> character". He will never become a Christian, yet he responds to the
> Spirit even more comprehensively than many Christians ever will!

Which is great, assuming he was a Muslim, would he still be a Muslim? A

> Or we might think of Alan Williamson, who was abused by a clergyman and
> has rejected any association with church, yet again is being guided and
> led by the Holy Spirit.

This guy would already presumably know Jesus, and realise the man who
abused him was not following his religion. I would imagine Alan would
still follow the bible (guided by the Holy Spirit) but reject
"organised" religion. I thik all Christians should do that!!

> It has been remarked here on a number of occasions, that while Jesus is
> certainly the only way to salvation and anyone who is saved will be
> saved through the merits of Jesus' sacrifice, he does not need to know
> the details of Jesus' life or even the name of Jesus in order to benefit
> from God's gracious provision for salvation.

Whilst I kinda agree, and I do think it important that Christians follow
the Holy Spirit in their daily life (accepting there wiil be times of
struggle and failure) I did think you thought the bible as essential in
following Jesus, and berate those who have a different opinion on
whether certain aspects are more important than others.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 06/01/2024 10:19, John wrote:

> In that sense my statement above stands, Zulu would be led to a more
> truer form of Christianity as a result.

I don't know how far he would be led. I'm sure he would be a better
person than his compatriots who reject the Spirit's leading, but he
might still be far from what you or I would consider "Christian".

> Which is great, assuming he was a Muslim, would he still be a Muslim?

I presume so.

> This guy would already presumably know Jesus, and realise the man who
> abused him was not following his religion.  I would imagine Alan would
> still follow the bible (guided by the Holy Spirit) but reject
> "organised" religion.  I thik all Christians should do that!!

I have no idea what is going through his mind, but I am certain that God
knows and will make the necessary allowances.

> Whilst I kinda agree, and I do think it important that Christians follow
> the Holy Spirit in their daily life (accepting there wiil be times of
> struggle and failure) I did think you thought the bible as essential in
> following Jesus, and berate those who have a different opinion on
> whether certain aspects are more important than others.

Yes, where you have free access to the Bible, you should follow it, but
there are many who, for various reasons, do not have free access to the
Bible. I am sure that God's Spirit is working with them just as much as
with anyone else. Whether their response to the Spirit would qualify as
"receiving the gifts", I gravely doubt, but I agree that they would grow
at least some of the fruit.

[John]

On 06/01/2024 20:02, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 06/01/2024 10:19, John wrote:
>
>> In that sense my statement above stands, Zulu would be led to a more
>> truer form of Christianity as a result.
>
> I don't know how far he would be led. I'm sure he would be a better
> person than his compatriots who reject the Spirit's leading, but he
> might still be far from what you or I would consider "Christian".

So in what way would a Christian be any different?

>> Which is great, assuming he was a Muslim, would he still be a Muslim?
>
> I presume so.

So you consider Allah just another name for YHWH then?

>> This guy would already presumably know Jesus, and realise the man who
>> abused him was not following his religion.  I would imagine Alan would
>> still follow the bible (guided by the Holy Spirit) but reject
>> "organised" religion.  I thik all Christians should do that!!
>
> I have no idea what is going through his mind, but I am certain that God
> knows and will make the necessary allowances.
>
>> Whilst I kinda agree, and I do think it important that Christians
>> follow the Holy Spirit in their daily life (accepting there wiil be
>> times of struggle and failure) I did think you thought the bible as
>> essential in following Jesus, and berate those who have a different
>> opinion on whether certain aspects are more important than others.
>
> Yes, where you have free access to the Bible, you should follow it, but
> there are many who, for various reasons, do not have free access to the
> Bible. I am sure that God's Spirit is working with them just as much as
> with anyone else. Whether their response to the Spirit would qualify as
> "receiving the gifts", I gravely doubt, but I agree that they would grow
> at least some of the fruit.

You'll notice that the bible says the fruit of the Spirit rather than
fruits, why would a Holy Spirit filled person who isn't a Christian
receive less than a Holy Spirit filled person who is?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 07/01/2024 18:38, John wrote:

> So in what way would a Christian be any different?

Go to church? Read the Bible? Pray in the name of Jesus?

> So you consider Allah just another name for YHWH then?

"allah" is simply the Arabic form of "eloh", which is Hebrew for "god".

I agree that the character assigned to Allah is rather different from
that we assign to God, but I fail to see that that is a huge problem
given that some Christians have pretty wacky ideas about God and yet
remain Christian.

> You'll notice that the bible says the fruit of the Spirit rather than
> fruits, why would a Holy Spirit filled person who isn't a Christian
> receive less than a Holy Spirit filled person who is?

Do all Christians perfectly manifest all the fruit of the Spirit?

[John]

On 07/01/2024 19:48, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 07/01/2024 18:38, John wrote:
>
>> So in what way would a Christian be any different?
>
> Go to church? Read the Bible? Pray in the name of Jesus?

All of which aren't important. If the Holy Spirit has enlightened
someone so that they follow God to the best of their ability, then
presumably that person is saved?

>> So you consider Allah just another name for YHWH then?
>
> "allah" is simply the Arabic form of "eloh", which is Hebrew for "god".
>
> I agree that the character assigned to Allah is rather different from
> that we assign to God, but I fail to see that that is a huge problem
> given that some Christians have pretty wacky ideas about God and yet
> remain Christian.

Are these wacky Christians still saved? Are Muslims saved if they follow
their religion devoutly?

>> You'll notice that the bible says the fruit of the Spirit rather than
>> fruits, why would a Holy Spirit filled person who isn't a Christian
>> receive less than a Holy Spirit filled person who is?
>
> Do all Christians perfectly manifest all the fruit of the Spirit?

I did say earlier that Christians from time to time will struggle with
aspects of the Fruit, some more than others. In my opinion, if they
truly have the Spirit this will be temporary. If someone told me they
were a Christian, and I didn't see the Fruit of the Spirit at work, I
would disbelieve them.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/01/2024 10:29, John wrote:

> All of which aren't important.

I didn't say that they were. You asked in what ways our hypothetical
person would differ from a typical Christian. I told you.

> If the Holy Spirit has enlightened
> someone so that they follow God to the best of their ability, then
> presumably that person is saved?

I presume so.

> Are these wacky Christians still saved? Are Muslims saved if they follow
> their religion devoutly?

I leave such questions up to God.

> I did say earlier that Christians from time to time will struggle with
> aspects of the Fruit, some more than others.  In my opinion, if they
> truly have the Spirit this will be temporary.  If someone told me they
> were a Christian, and I didn't see the Fruit of the Spirit at work, I
> would disbelieve them.

If I didn't see *some* of the fruit of the Spirit I would share your
disbelief. I think it must be a rare Christian who has *all* the fruit
of the Spirit.

[John]

On 08/01/2024 20:06, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 08/01/2024 10:29, John wrote:
>
>> All of which aren't important.
>
> I didn't say that they were. You asked in what ways our hypothetical
> person would differ from a typical Christian. I told you.

The problem here is you've snipped your original sentence.

When you said "> I don't know how far he would be led. I'm sure he would

be a better person than his compatriots who reject the Spirit's leading,
but he might still be far from what you or I would consider

"Christian"." as if somehow that made the Spirit filled non Christian
less important.

If that wasn't what you were suggesting I apologise.

>> I did say earlier that Christians from time to time will struggle with
>> aspects of the Fruit, some more than others.  In my opinion, if they
>> truly have the Spirit this will be temporary.  If someone told me they
>> were a Christian, and I didn't see the Fruit of the Spirit at work, I
>> would disbelieve them.
>
> If I didn't see *some* of the fruit of the Spirit I would share your
> disbelief. I think it must be a rare Christian who has *all* the fruit
> of the Spirit.

Really? Your definition of a Spirit filled Christian is wider than mine
then.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/01/2024 13:08, John wrote:

> When you said "> I don't know how far he would be led. I'm sure he would
> be a better person than his compatriots who reject the Spirit's leading,
> but he might still be far from what you or I would consider
> "Christian"." as if somehow that made the Spirit filled non Christian
> less important.

I totally fail to understand how you could deduce "less important" from
what I said. Less in line with what we would understand as moral,
perhaps, less in accord with orthodox Christian doctrine, probably, but
why less important?

>> If I didn't see *some* of the fruit of the Spirit I would share your
>> disbelief. I think it must be a rare Christian who has *all* the fruit
>> of the Spirit.

> Really?  Your definition of a Spirit filled Christian is wider than mine
> then.

Have you never encountered a Christian who was very loving but went
overboard (ie less temperate) in some matters? Or one who was gentleness
personified but was plagued by doubt (less faith)?

And so on.

[John]

On 10/01/2024 08:06, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 09/01/2024 13:08, John wrote:
>
>> When you said "> I don't know how far he would be led. I'm sure he
>> would be a better person than his compatriots who reject the Spirit's
>> leading, but he might still be far from what you or I would consider
>> "Christian"." as if somehow that made the Spirit filled non Christian
>> less important.
>
> I totally fail to understand how you could deduce "less important" from
> what I said. Less in line with what we would understand as moral,
> perhaps, less in accord with orthodox Christian doctrine, probably, but
> why less important?

It was how it came across *to me*. Imagine my brain wrongly inserting
the word proper before Christian.. As I did misinterpret it please
accept my sincere apologies.

>>> If I didn't see *some* of the fruit of the Spirit I would share your
>>> disbelief. I think it must be a rare Christian who has *all* the
>>> fruit of the Spirit.
>
>> Really?  Your definition of a Spirit filled Christian is wider than
>> mine then.
>
> Have you never encountered a Christian who was very loving but went
> overboard (ie less temperate) in some matters? Or one who was gentleness
> personified but was plagued by doubt (less faith)?

Of course, and as we both said Christians will at times fail on one or
more of the 9, but are you eriously suggesting that the vast majority of
Spirit filled Christians will actually lack one or more?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/01/2024 11:51, John wrote:

> Of course, and as we both said Christians will at times fail on one or
> more of the 9, but are you eriously suggesting that the vast majority of
> Spirit filled Christians will actually  lack one or more?

Would you prefer the word "fail"? Or struggle, or have not yet achieved
victory. Phrase it how you will, no Christian is perfect, which means
that they are imperfect - and that includes imperfect in the fruit of
the Spirit.