Are You Really a Christian?
know for certain. Half way down the page and on the right
is a little box that asks...
... "Are You Really a Christian?"
Go there and click to listen-- some thirty-nine minutes worth --and find
out for yourself.
Questions to Consider--
Did you know that there is no scriptural command to "ask Jesus come into your heart?" Can a person just decide to become a Christian? John 1:12-13 says...
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
Paul Washer of the HeartCry Missionary Society has this to say...
"The greatest heresy in the American evangelical and protestant church is that if you pray and ask Jesus into your heart he will definitely come in..."
19 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Luke 18:10-13
I'd have to agree with anonymous, here. What sort of anti-Christian nonsense is this? Jesus arms are open to all who are willing. What is this person trying to indicate here?
What faith tradition does this fella come from? Cause I must say, this sounds pretty antithetical to orthodox Christianity. Perhaps this quote is not as idiotic as it sounds if it were in context?
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
-Matthew 7:21-23
A person can't simply choose to be saved. They have to be drawn by the Holy Spirit.
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."
-John 6:44
The only caveat I can find to this is found in Jeremiah 29:13...
"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart."
What exactly does that mean? 'with all your heart'? There is another verse in 2 Timothy 2:25 that suggests "repentance" is something God grants. That is to say, one cannot repent unless it is given him by God.
Dan asks, "What faith tradition does this fella come from?"
I personally, am leery of 'faith traditions'. There are many 'faith traditions' that are simply wrong... The requirement of water baptism to enter heaven not the least among them.
Jesus had this to say:
This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition."
-Mark 7:6-9
The Apostle Paul said,
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."
-Colossians 2:8
Not everyone who says, "Lord, Lord..." shall enter in. Did our Lord not say that? Yes?
Why then do you criticize my attempt to point out the truth of false conversion to anyone who stops by?
I've said this many times before, but to reiterate: This blog is not intended to entertain anyone particular persons or debate. I removed the first two comments because they mocked what I'm trying to offer with this post.
Don't talk to me about 'faith traditions'... most of what I've seen of faith tradition in this nation is as crooked as a politician.
"Let God be true, but every man a liar."
Yes, certainly the Bible makes it clear that not every one who THINKS they are following Jesus really are following Jesus. Wouldn't that be the point of "not every one who calls me 'lord, lord..."?
The passage in context:
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.
By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit.
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.
Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
So by their fruits you will know them.
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, 10 but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?'
Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.'
It seems to me (and I'd suggest this is orthodox Christianity) that the point of this passage is to beware false prophets. Just because you go around making claims that you are speaking and "healing" on behalf of God, does not mean that you are. By their FRUIT you will know them, Jesus tells us. Watch what they DO, don't just listen to what they say.
Still, those who wish to follow Jesus and accept God's gracious gift of heaven Can. This is God's will, the bible tells us. Yes, I suppose the "Spirit must call us," but then, that's what the Spirit is always doing - calling us. If we accept that gift of God and make Jesus our Lord, to put it in traditional religious terms, we are saved. If we reject that gift, if we choose not to make Jesus our Lord, THAT would be what traditional orthodox Christianity would teach us is the path to salvation.
Eric, sometimes I worry that you hang out with some marginalized Pentecostalist-types too much, at least that how it seems to me. Which is not a blanket condemnation of pentecostalists, not at all, but they sure seem to have their fair share of folk who preach some kooky stuff.
Yes, those who ask Jesus to save them, who make Jesus the Lord of their lives, who accept God's gift of heaven ARE saved, or at least until such point as they choose to reject such grace.
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:13, KJV)
Washer opposes the fullness of the gospel, and, as Dan says, is certainly outside of orthodox Christianity if he suggests that Christ ignores anyone who genuinely seeks him.
It seems to me that salvation entails a recognition of the need for salvation -- a recognition of our spiritual bankruptcy before God -- and a renunciation of our old sinful life. After all, Jesus Himself began his public ministry teaching repentance. But I'm not sure that either Eric or his critics here dispute this.
If Eric will indulge my digressing for a bit, I must say that, while I agree with the necessity of recognizing the Lordship of Jesus Christ, I'm not sure of what to make of Dan's emphasizing this.
Dan, you write, quite accurately, that salvation requires us to "make Jesus our Lord," but I think that your writing displays -- at best -- an inconsistent effort to make your beliefs conform to His teachings.
In the Sermon on the Mount that you so frequently praise, Jesus Christ quite clearly affirms the authority and permanence of Scripture to the smallest penstroke, but recently you've quite plainly written that difficult passages of Scripture can be discarded.
Not every verse that smacks of being NOT of God has some explanation as to its meaning and application. When we read that "God says" to kill disrespectful children or that when we invade a country, we are to kill everyone - including the children and babes, BUT to save the virgin girls so we can make them our wives - when we read passages like that, we don't need a Bible verse to straighten that out for us. CLEARLY, our God-given sense of logic and morality shouts out that such behavior is atrocious and wrong.
You criticize inerrantists as "literalists," but I have never seen you offer a figurative interpretation of verses that you find problematic, an interpretation that would keep intact the authority of the verse in question. And, you write about how some passages "seem to" mean something horrifically offensive, but I've never seen you actually offer a plausible alternative view of what the passage really means -- that is, one that takes for granted the passage's ultimately divine origin.
Instead, in what I quote above, you seem to reject the responsibility to offer some plausible interpretation of a particular passage: "we don't need a Bible verse to straighten that out for us."
What's worse is the reason you apparently argue against the inerrant authority of Scripture which our Lord Himself affirmed: it appears to be an act of rebellion in an effort to justify further rebellion. It's part of an effort to redefine the institution of marriage to include gay couples, when Christ was not only clear about the authority of Scripture, He was clear about the composition of marriage.
In Matthew 19, Jesus cited Genesis 2 to explain why mankind was created male and female in the first place: so that a man (male) will leave his family and become one flesh with his wife (female).
Ignoring that, to say nothing of the Bible's consistent assumption that "marriage = husband + wife" rather than merely "spouse + spouse", you dismiss the essential heterosexual nature of marriage as a mere custom or tradition.
Christ affirmed Scripture's authority to the smallest penstroke, and He made clear the heterosexual nature of the institution of marriage by tying it to our creation as a species with two sexes and affirming God's will for marriage as the union of man and wife.
You seem to deny Christ's Lordship when it comes to what He taught about Scripture, and you deny His Lordship regarding what He taught about marriage; it appears that you do deny the former, in part, to justify your denying the latter.
So when I see you write about the Lordship of Jesus Christ, I frankly wonder how serious you are.
Right?
Y'all deny the Lordship of Christ by making this sort of nonsense your god.
Let us stipulate, for the moment, that all those commenting here are Christians, i.e., we accept the Lordship of Jesus Christ as efficacious for our salvation. Yet, having so stipulated this, I think the issue, ironically enough, is what this means for us. While I think Dan' criticism is fair - that whole context thing, you know - I also think that it is, in fact, a bit heretical to simply state that it is enough to "accept Jesus Christ into one's life" and think that is enough. I believe that individual transformation is only the beginning, not the sum total, of the Gospel. I also think it necessary to recognize our "wretchedness" each and every day.
Unless someone can point to somewhere in Scripture or the tradition that makes clear the entire reason for the incarnation of God was to give a few folks a free pass to eternal bliss, I would suggest that we need to take up our crosses and follow, bearing the burden of the message of justice and transcendent love to a broken world. It is a journey that most surely means we will be despised, our lives broken by a world that does not wish to hear it. As John Wesley taught, an unwillingness to bear that burden, to take that message out to the world may just be an indication that we are still, indeed, wretched and lost.
If you can't explain how agreeing with Jesus is denying His Lordship, perhaps you should get back on your meds.
No, not absent. Think about it....
Anyone can call upon the name of the Lord and BE saved.... but that's not to construe that all who call upon the name of the Lord ARE saved. Clearly there is a qualifier in the "calling upon." Surely those who believe they are saved, and aren't, have "called" upon the name of Jesus, but Jesus Himself says they are not saved.
What is the difference between those who call upon the name of the Lord and ARE saved, and those who call upon the name of the Lord and AREN'T saved?
The text you quote says "shall" be saved. That's pretty strong language. But how do you reconcile that with Matthew 7:21-23?
I reconcile it thusly:
Axiom of Interpretation:
1)God cannot lie
2) The truth of one statement cannot negate the truth of another statement
3) If the truths two or more verses appear to be contradictory, the verses must be viewed as possessing dissimilar contexts
So. How is the passage I quoted in Matthew 7 dissimilar from your quote of Romans?
You've read me here and elsewhere enough to know exactly what I think of Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, and others. Even Baptists.
All of the above are caught in the same trap.... traditions of men.
Every one has their own pet doctrines.
But the real Church, isn't made up of denominations.
Your last comment suggests a couple of things. First, that only those men who authored Scripture before Christ confirmed it could have been inspired by God, and thus are worthy of Christ's confirmation. But then, you suggest that no one beyond that point could have been so inspired. At the time of the canonization of NT Scripture into the Bible, apparently you don't believe that those responsible could have been inspired. Still, you've made comments in the past that you don't put much stock in the words of those OT authors or claim that they don't speak to us in any way. Truly, your perspective is most confusing.
MA, what?