Ok, I decided this should be easy to find, so here are but a few of the quotes John 3:16 ESV / 43 helpful votes “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. John 6:47 ESV / 35 helpful votes Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. John 5:24 ESV / 27 helpful votes Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. John 8:24 ESV / 22 helpful votes I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.” Romans 10:9 ESV / 19 helpful votes Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Mark 16:15-16 ESV / 9 helpful votes And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. There are a ton more quotes that speak to this. Looks like crow is right. http://www.openbible.info/topics/believing_in_christ
It all looks like advise on the matter, not a command. Perhaps the advise is even over stated but that doesn't degrade the value of the all the rest of the teachings of Jesus. That is may take anyway.
My point the whole time, and what is not refuted by any of those verses, is that faith in Christ is always presented as an if-then proposition. A choice to be made, and never as an imperative. Go back to the Greek; there is a significant difference in verb tense between a command and a statement of eventuality. Even in Acts 16:31 when Paul informs the Philippian jailer, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household," the form is that of, "if you believe, then you will be saved." If you attempt to claim that there is an imperative faith command in the New Testament, you are speaking ignorantly about that which you do not know. Also, this discussion only really serves to detract from the point that Brian brought forth with his post, which is that "religion" seeks to please God with actions, whereas true Christianity is a desire to glorify God through our actions in order to thank Him for what He has already done.
Look at it the other way. What happens if you do not choose to believe? With eternal damnation on the line, that's a pretty aggressive set up. We're I to follow a religion, I would gravitate more towards one like judaism which only cares about actions and not what's in your heart. I want to live in a community where actions matter more than feelings. I don't think this is some big assault on Christanity to say it's faith and belief based. That's just being honest. Many types of religion including Christanity can produce wonderful people who do care strongly about their actions, and want those actions to be Christlike, but it's just not the key ingredient. Just like many atheists can be respectful to many religious, it's just not the key ingredient ?
To talk about this concept of punishment as some end all argument that Christianity is a fear based concept is pretty foolish if you ask me. Most Christians find salvation through the love they experience. For when they realize that God isn't some old guy that's up in the sky, just waiting for the moment to burn his creation in Hell. The concept of true Love and Sacrafice is obtained and those that believe are set free from the burden of death. And that gift is not asked with strings. Just the understanding and true feeling you are saved, not because you deserve it through your works, but because your God loved you so much that he took all everyone's burden to the cross.
Of course it's not an assault on Christianity to say it's faith-based; it's the truth. What I take issue with is Crow's claim that it's obedience-based, which it's not. And I could see why you, or anyone, would gravitate toward a religion that is works-based; it gives the individual control over the outcome. Humans naturally want to be the ultimate authority over their own lives and destinies. However, the rub here is that there has to be some threshold of "good enough". And then, who decides what that threshold is, and who meets it? With Christianity, those questions are answered: "Good enough" is perfect, and nobody meets it, which is why we need God. We already stand condemned by our very nature, which is why the gift of salvation is offered, if we want it. Faith is a precursor, not a command, because the whole basis of salvation in Christ is acknowledging our own inadequacy and Christ's sufficiency. It's impossible to do that if you don't believe that He existed or that He was who He said He was. As far as living in communities caring about actions vs. feelings, a legitimately Christianity-based community would be based on motives ("Whether you eat, or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.") and humility ("Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests but also to the interests of others."). Self-justification naturally leads to self-centeredness, whereas submission to God leads to others-centeredness. This is the consistent message of the New Testament, from Jesus' identification of the greatest commandments, to Paul's teachings on individual liberty, to James' explanation of true and undefiled religion: put God first, everyone else next, and yourself last. THAT is a community I want to live in.
See I read this entirely differently. I think this is more like "hey this shit is pretty easy! If you just understand what I've done for you, you won't have to worry about what you need to do to get to Heavan" Meaning, I've done everything so you don't have to ever worry about what happens after you died, even if you think you don't deserve it.
I was thinking more of 1st John 3, but I don't really care to get into context discussion so will concede the explicit command thing. If you take off the rose-colored plan of salvation glasses what is logically implicit in stressing the punishment associated with non-belief is more relevant. The "advise" is advise exactly like a gangster would give - "You might be better off doing what I suggest... cuz otherwise I might end up having to punish you for eternity and you don't want that. See I got this Lake of Fire quota to fill..."
The imperative is implicit. As previously noted I wasn't addressing what you think a "true" Christian's motivation should be. I was stating a (Biblical) fact. Without obedience - acting in accordance with God's will, there is no acceptance.
Actually no, the "advice" is more like a caring father would give. Don't step out into moving traffic if you want to live a long and healthy life. Not punishment, just facts.
That's a flaw in your notion of forgiveness. God's forgiveness was offered to us before it can be accepted. We're talking chronology here. God has already provided the way of salvation. He has already offered the gift. You haven't accepted it, but it's there, available to you, despite you having done nothing to earn or deserve it. The contrast is with legalistic religion, in which one earns acceptance via actions. By equating acknowledgment of our need for God with religious rule-following, you are redefining a concept to fit your narrative.
Our nature is rebellion against God. God is only responsible for that in that He didn't create us to be automatons. If you want to blame God for sin, be my guest, but it doesn't negate its existence or the availability of salvation. As far as your word redefinition is concerned, I guess Denny has commanded every member of this forum to have internet access. All hail Denny!
And to go further... When a person finally understands this, knowing that they don't deserve this, they realize how "unconditional the love is". Then they choose to try and be Christlike, because they are so grateful of the experience of true Grace. I can understand those that don't belie and because you don't believe in Christianity is why you don't understand their philosophy
Assuming there's no obedience requirement, I certainly have accepted it. I'll take it right now. Unfortunately "way" is just another code word obfuscating an implicit obedience requirement. Not arguing what is or isn't actually earned. Just stating that acceptance is conditional.
Denny doesn't have any control over whether it is or isn't a requirement to have internet access to participate in the forum. Unless you're arguing that God isn't actually anything close to omnipotent, in which case your perspective would make more sense.
