C.S. Lewis…
31 Jan
This is a rather lengthy quote taken from C.S. Lewis’ book The Last Battle, part of the wildly popular children’s series, The Chronicles of Narnia. The first time I read it as an adult it brought a tear to my eye, and profoundly challenged some of my dearly held theology.
“So I went over much grass and many flowers and among all kinds of wholesome and delectable trees till lo! in a narrow place between two rocks there came to meet me a great Lion. The speed of him was like the ostrich, and his size as an elephant’s; his hair was like pure gold and the brightness of his eyes like gold that is liquid in the furnace. He was more terrible than the Flaming Mountain of Lagour, and in beauty he surpassed all that is in the world even as the rose in bloom surpasses the dust of the desert.Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child? I said, Lord, though knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless they desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.”
Reading this made my heart sing, because it correlates so closely with some of the theology I’m reading recreationally at this very moment.
Do you mind my asking you, Brett, how this challenged you specifically?
I absolutely love that book, and I was equally floored by this particular action. I’m going to read it again soon, in light of this post. Good stuff man.
Hey Kyle,
I don’t mind at all. Here are a few specific thoughts/questions this stirred up.
1. Will good people of other faiths be in heaven?
2. Do the implications of some of my interpretations of certain scriptures (for example, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me.” need to be reavaluated? Not because Jesus isn’t the only way, but because the way you can be following “His way” is different than I thought.
3. Is orthodoxy a way of being in the world, as opposed to holding particular beliefs about the world. For example: the pagan in this story: who’s beliefs were all wrong (He served Tash) but his actions made him a true follower of Aslan (Jesus). Like a way to define a true Christian is, as Jesus said, by their fruits, not necessarily having their theological ducks in a row.
This story really serves as a foundation in many ways for my posts on the gospel and orthodoxy.
I see. I think you and I are reading different things into Lewis’ words.
When I read it, I find the doctrine of God’s providence put into narrative form, and it makes me want to cry and sing simultaneously, so great is the joy it causes to well up within me.
Let me show you what I mean.
Aslan tells the narrator of this passage, “All the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to Me.” This seems contradictory, but let’s set it parallel to another situation:
Were the men who crucified God’s Son 2000 years ago serving God or the devil?
Great question Kyle. I think it depends on what you mean by “serving God.” If you define “serving God” as “doing the things he would want you to do.” Then I would say, they were not serving God they were serving the devil only. However, if you defined “serving God” as “playing a part in God’s narrative” then I would say, they were serving the devil and God.
In which sense did you mean the phrase, “serving God”?
That’s just it. I don’t think you can seperate those two senses.
After all, if I am “playing a part in God’s narrative” the way a character plays a part in a storybook, then I can only ever do what the Author (God) wants me to do. After all, it’s His narrative; He’s writing the book.
John Piper has a phenomenal quote:
“As a banner over every evil that has ever happened, God speaks these words from Genesis 50:20, ‘You meant it for evil. I meant it for good.’ ”
This means there is never a sense in which I can only serve the devil, even when I am deliberately disobeying God. That is how great God is. He supercedes human actions according to His own purpose. This is how we can say that, even in killing Jesus, the Sadducees and High Priest were serving God. God’s son was not ‘victimized’ by wicked men. He was ’sacrificed’ by His Father.
Cool man.
Although I’m not quite understanding how this ties in with the C.S. Lewis passage?
Can you explain how you feel it ties in? Thanks man!
No service which is vile can be done to Aslan, while no service that is not vile can be done to Tash.
Its the same thing.
So this is my understanding of what you are saying. In this passage there is a person who has done evil things (in the same way those who crucified Christ did evil). However, even in the midst of his doing evil, Aslan has been glorified and has received it as “service” done unto Him (in the same way that God received “service” by his torturers). On this basis of glorifying Aslan through his evil deeds, Aslan accepts him as a son and welcomes him into paradise.
Am i understanding you correctly?
Just so you know I feel that the context of this passage is a “judgment day”/ “standing before the throne” type setting. That’s why I said, “so on this basis Aslan accepts him as a son and welcomes him into paradise.”
I would say the basis upon which Aslan accepts him as a son and welcomes him into paradise is his recognition that “it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him.”
I don’t feel that it is his recognition “it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him” that serves as the basis for his acceptance into paradise.
Instead I feel that it is what Aslan explains to him in the next 10 or so sentences: which I’ll sum up in this way, “you didn’t realize it, but you were seeking me all along.”
I guess we are just interpreting this passage differently. I appreciate you clarifying where you are coming from. Thanks man
Okay so now I am a little embarrassed. I was so affected by the book I was reading, I admit I was seeing significance in this C.S. Lewis passage where there is none.
I get easily excited, what can I say?
But Brett, I doubt Lewis ever intended to convey that a person who is following the way of Jesus may be saved without ever acknowledging Him by name.
A slightly unrelated note: This makes me want to bring back crapromedia even more.
Though perhaps with a different name, and a -slightly- more serious approach.
Kyle, you need to be a moderator again if we bring it back.
The end. lol
Kyle,
I disagree with this sentance: “But Brett, I doubt Lewis ever intended to convey that a person who is following the way of Jesus may be saved without ever acknowledging Him by name.”
I think C.S. Lewis did mean to convey that… What is a Christian? Someone who says they follow Jesus or someone who does it? So what about someone of a different faith who follows all the ways of Jesus (basically living with a good, kind heart) but doesn’t follow “Jesus” by name? Or how about a Wiccan who loves greatly and is kind in their heart, but doesn’t follow Jesus by name? Surely they’re following Him by action even if they don’t realise it.
I can’t believe for one second that ONLY “Christians” are going to heaven… I think that there are many many faiths out there full of people longing after their God and wanting to do right… and that is why this passage from the book is so full of hope… I think it’s saying “you don’t have to have all your theology in place… you can get it wrong, but as long as you tried to do right and sought after me, then you’re welcome”
Anyone who says that only Christians are going to heaven, or only Muslims are going to heaven or only Jews are going to heaven, I personally think are wrong.
We are a diverse people and so I think religion just reflects that diversity…. Someone has a bad bad experience with a Christian and they move away from the church and look elsewhere spiritually… does that mean that God’s abandoned them or that all of a sudden their ticket to heaven is null and void? I just can’t see it
Anyway, sorry this was so lengthy
Emeth
:Kyle: No problem man! I was honestly shocked to death by your very first response to this post. Thanks for clarifying. Also, I haven’t forgotten about ichatting with you sometime
We need to set that up.
:Josiah: I completely agree man. Crapromedia has so much potential, but right now it’s like a neglected step child. Also, just an FYI Kyle is one of the faithful moderators that has remained. He’s amazing!
:Emeth: Thanks for leaving your thoughts! I think you asked a very profound question when you wrote, “What is a Christian? Someone who says they follow Jesus or someone who does it?” It made me think of Jesus’ statement, “They will know that you are Christians by your love.”
“But Brett, I doubt Lewis ever intended to convey that a person who is following the way of Jesus may be saved without ever acknowledging Him by name.”
Dude, that’s like the point of the entire story. Emeth goes to heaven, man, without ever acknowledging Aslan by name.
I never read the Last Battle. I tend to read more of Lewis’ apologetics stuff than his fiction. And even then, its been a long time. So maybe the point of the story IS that Emeth goes to heaven without acknowledging Aslan by name, because he was seeking after and serving him all along without ever really knowing it.
Still, I oppose this idea in Christian theology. Can I just pose a question to everyone here?
A good person hears the gospel: that Jesus is the Son of God, paid the penalty of sin by dying a torturous death on the cross, was buried, resurrected, and now sits at the right hand of His Father in heaven.
This good person is then told that the basis upon which God will let them into heaven is whether or not they believe this very message.
The good person refuses to believe this message, yet, according to you all, he/she may still enter heaven on the basis of his/her own inherent ‘goodness’ of character and conduct.
Is that what I’m hearing from you all?
Concerning what C.S. Lewis believed, this is from Mere Christianity:
”
People ask: ‘Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?’ or ‘May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?’
Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it.
Now if once we allow people to start spiritualizing and refining, or as they might say ‘deepening’, the sense of the word CHRISTIAN, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men’s hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going ot be a very useful word.
As for the UNBELIEVERS, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense.
It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word CHRISTIAN will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.
We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name CHRISTIANS was first given at Antioch (Acts 11:26) to ‘the disciples’, to those who ACCEPTED THE TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES…
…When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.
”
Questions, comments, concerns?
The question must be asked then… why are we sharing the Gospel?
If we tell someone the Gospel and they reject it and that means they won’t be accepted into Heaven then why are we telling them? Would it not be better to not tell them and not take the chance that they will be rejected?
And how about people who can’t understand the message? People with disabilities, babies, very young children? Are they unwelcome in Heaven if they were to die?
I can’t believe for a second that any of this is true… and I can’t believe for a second that Jesus, who didn’t turn anyone away, would turn away people of different faiths because they followed “their God” wholeheartedly, fully and with love and got it wrong.
Jesus said the two most important commandments were to love God and love each other as God loves us…
Have you ever read that poem about the man who awakes to see an angel standing at the foot of his bed holding the book of life, and when he asks the angel if his name is in the book the angel replies no… then another night he awakes and the angels there again and he tells the angel to make a note that he loved mankind… and the angel tells him because of this his name is written at the top of the list… forgive me, I can’t remember the name of the poem but I will find out and post it.
Even Jesus says when you fed the hungry and clothed the naked and visited those in prison you clothed me and fed me and visited me. (not perfectly worded I know, but along those lines)…
There’s a lot more to being a Christian than saying “I follow Jesus”… I think you can follow Jesus and not even know it.
That’s just my opinion though ^^
God bless x
Emeth x
I just want to add that the world is not black and white… and VERY VERY few things ARE black and white… most circumstances are grey areas.
Someone close to me says “who is more at fault? The homeless man who steals to eat? Or the society that put him there?”
I don’t believe for a second that God would make a world so full of “unfair circumstances” where we have to make such hard descisions and where quite often it is “grey area” as to what is “right” and then be so hard and cold to say there IS a black and white and then judge us on that.
Poem as promised:
Abou Ben Adhem
Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
And saw, within the moonlight in his room,
Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,
An Angel writing in a book of gold:
Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold,
And to the Presence in the room he said,
“What writest thou?” The Vision raised its head,
And with a look made of all sweet accord
Answered, “The names of those who love the Lord.”
“And is mine one?” said Abou. “Nay, not so,”
Replied the Angel. Abou spoke more low,
But cheerily still; and said, “I pray thee, then,
Write me as one who loves his fellow men.”
The Angel wrote, and vanished. The next night
It came again with a great wakening light,
And showed the names whom love of God had blessed,
And, lo! Ben Adhem’s name led all the rest!
— James Leigh Hunt
Kyle, I wasn’t necessarily endorsing Lewis’s particular view of soteriology (though I obviously take it more seriously than you). I was trying to explicate it to you.
However, I think Lewis’s quote from Mere Christianity, while salient, isn’t the end of the issue. It is not about being “useful” or “practical,” after all. (Besides, using the word “Christian” as Lewis recommends is at least equally useless.) After all, “you shall know them by their love for one another.”
Brittany, I know what you mean, especially as a Calvinist. I can’t, in all honesty say that every person who professes to believe the Gospel has actually been born again.
But that is a different issue entirely than what Brett and Emeth are raising.
Emeth, may I ask you a question?
If one earnestly loves and seeks after the one true God, yet simply has the name wrong, why is this a small matter to you? Is it not a little like a boy confusing the name of his father with that of another man, or a wife crying the name of a different man than her husband’s, in the moment of the nuptial embrace?
The name is EVERYTHING. Salvation is in the NAME of the one who DID THE WORK. And that’s Jesus.
But whoever denies me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
- Jesus, Matthew 10:33
Emeth, I don’t know who convinced you that Jesus never turned people away, but it is simply a lie. He was always trying to get rid of the people who were only half-committed to Him. Thus, we have the “hard sayings” of Jesus.
Kyle: Your question, “Is that what I’m hearing from you all?”
My answer: “Yes!”
Concerning the C.S. Lewis quote from Mere Christianity. Although there may be other quotes from the writings of Lewis that would contradict his story of the Calormene in The Last Battle, I don’t think this quote from Mere Christianity does that. Honestly, it seems to me that he affirms the story. He admits that the idea of someone being a “christian” without believing all the doctrine “is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive.” However, he goes on to say that he feels we shouldn’t apply to them the term “Christian” because it begins to confuse the meaning of the word in the popular vernacular.
This to me is Lewis’ chief argument in this section. He’s not trying to talk about who is going to heaven, or hell, or the definition of a true Christian in the deepest sense of the word. But is instead making the argument that we shouldn’t try to redefine the term “christian” in it’s popular use. He basically says, “hey, you know what this just ends of confusing people so just let the term “Christian” = “those who accepted the apostles teaching.”
However, just to reiterate he makes it very clear that he is not talking about the term “Christian” in the deepest sense of the word. He states, “It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men’s hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense.”
To apply Lewis’ explanation in “Mere Christianity” to the story in “The Last Battle” Emeth (in the book
is not and should not, for clarities sake, be called a Christian in the popular meaning of the word. However, I think Lewis would agree (because Aslan affirms) that in the deepest sense of the word the Emeth is more Christian than many who claim the title.
Emeth: I love that poem. I also thought your insight that we live in a world of grays, as opposed to clear black and whites is quite true. Your example of the homeless man is a great picture of that tension: our world is very complicated.
So based on all of our own inherent goodness of character and conduct, God will allow us into heaven.
How good is good enough? I mean, if I don’t go fight AIDS in Africa, will I only get in by the skin of my teeth?
If the only message you have to preach is for people to ‘be good and God will reward you’, then please don’t pretend to be preaching the Gospel. Do you even realize how unbiblical this is?
Nobody measures up! None are righteous! All have sinned! The only hope, as you so eloquently put it, is “the J-train”.
Hello Everyone
I’ve been following this thread for the last couple of days just seeing how it as progressed. First I have to agree with Kyle concerning what Emeth said about people from all faiths going heaven. This is a “gray” area so bear with me.
The issue here isn’t a set of doctrines… primarily. Or the “good stuff” we do… primarily. Nor is it by what religious name we call ourselves. It’s a matter of what God (god) do we love, serve, worship, honor, obey, or trust. In John 5:22 Jesus is talking to the Samaritan woman at the well and tells her that she worships what she does not know, for salvation was exclusive, but a time is coming when true worshipers will worship in spirit (immaterial part of self) and truth (in accordance with reality). Truth here being the same word Jesus uses about Himself when He states I am the way, the truth, and the life.
Our salvation was never about what we did but was and is still now about faith in the one true God. From Abel on down. That is the majority of Paul’s teaching on Jesus, we are not saved by our commitment to the law (including the great two love commandments) but we are saved by the grace of God through faith in the atoning sacrifice He made on the cross which thus empowers us to obey the law (especially the great two love commandments).
The one who says hey I hear what your saying about Jesus but I can follow His teachings but reject Him is missing the point. Or the one blatantly exalts another God in the place of Christ but does great things in the world has missed the point. Because the root of their stiff-arming Christ is unbelief.
Unbelief can occur from a lot of things like hypocritical members of a church, nominal Christians who don’t know God but push their own beliefs in the name of Christ, etc… and that is where it gets gray…
Oh and Emeth the reason why we share the Gospel is because 1) it is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe, 2) Jesus told us to, 3) and its Good News! The God of all Creation comes to earth as His creation to redeem them from their disobedience. To make them into His image. To free us from the shackles of sin. Not because He had to but because He loves us that much!? And in turn entrusts those whom he has redeemed to carry this glorious message on and to love just as sacrificially. If someone rejects that… well I just don’t know man…
I know this was long but it was on my heart.
Grace and Peace.
My favourite book!
This is a great debate, but I think there’s a potential danger of running off at tangents with the various (albeit salient) points that are made.
Put simply, Aslan tells the Calormene that only good thoughts and actions come from Him, and only bad from Tash.
To take the crucifixion as an example, the soldiers doing the actually nailing etc, were merely doing their jobs and cannot be held accountable for their politically motivated boss (Pilate).
He in turn was warned by his wife that her dream demanded no intervention – I have to assume the dream was God inspired even if she didn’t know it.
The real villains were Annas and Caiaphas because they sought to hold onto (corrupt) power, serving only their lust for power – definitely UNgodly.
I tend to think (merely my opinion here) that there are also minor villains, those that allowed the “law” to be so misused and gave Annas and Caiaphas free rein without raising objection.
God knew this would happen, despite His love for us all, including the bad guys.
One final point, Kyle, I have to disagree with your comment about Jesus “trying to get rid of people all the time”. I don’t believe He ever did that, He merely pointed out that their way was the wrong way and He was quite forceful about it, but still kept the door open (so to speak) in case they changed their ways.
Kyle you didn’t really address my response to the Mere Christianity quote.
Hey guys!
A few thoughts come to mind concerning “But Brett, I doubt Lewis ever intended to convey that a person who is following the way of Jesus may be saved without ever acknowledging Him by name.”
I think it’s very interesting that when Moses asked THE LORD in whose name he should speak to Pharaoh, HIS reply was, I AM sent you. I believe Jesus is The Way, The Truth, and The Life. However, based upon how HE manifested Himself to man in the OT, I have a hard time believing that if a man worships and honors the “True Creator of the heavens and the earth. The one from whom, and in whom all things exist,” and realizes he is at fault compared with his splendor, that he won’t be accepted into paradise. Did the thief hanging next to Jesus on the cross actually know HIS name was “Jesus”? Probably. But Jesus doesn’t say, “Well since you know my Jewish name (which will be changed and translated a 1,000,000 different ways in the generations to come), and believe you need my grace and favor, you’ll be in paradise with ME this very day.”
AND, in Romans 1, Paul makes it very clear that man has been found guilty of 2 things, and 2 things only: not glorifying Him, nor having gratitude. I do not presume Jesus’ death to have been in vain. Nor simply providing 1 way out of 100 to get to heaven. However, based on what I’ve written, I cannot believe that unless a man knows the exact details of how GOD’s SON died, and knows they called HIM Jesus (which of course that’s english, and they didn’t) he will not enter paradise. Nor do I believe I will be greeted by 7 virgins upon entering
GHF: welcome to the convo! You make some very good points. I agree that we go off on tangents alot
Billy: thanks for chiming in! you have some great perspective. I completely agree that we are accepted by God on the basis of his grace.
I know it’s off tangent but thought it a nice add to the convo…
During Soul in the City a good 5years back we had a week of sermons based around God and who He is…. It was based around the “I Am” quote and it was pointed out the “I Am” is the same as “To Be” and “To Be” can be translated into merely “Be” which when God refers to us as “Beloved” has a whole new meaning
I know it’s nowt to do with this discussion, just a lovely reminder for me everytime I hear “Beloved” and I wanted to share it
xxx
Prelude: I know this is long, but I am addressing multiple people. Sorry.
Brett:
You said (roughly) that Lewis is preserving the definition of the term ‘Christian’ (one who accepts the apostles’ teaching) for clarity’s sake alone, and not passing judgment on who is a ‘true’ Christian, right?
This may be true of that particular passage, but my point all along has been that one simply is not a ‘true’ Christian if they don’t accept the apostle’s teaching, and I think ‘Jack’ agreed, or he wouldn’t have gone to the trouble of outlining in the remainder of the book what a ‘true’ Christian is supposed to believe. The two ’senses’ of the word are inseperable. You remove one sense, and you do damage to the whole of what a Christian is.
So, in regards to judging who is close to the spirit of Christ, we should abstain when we are confronted with people who profess to believe in the apostles’ teaching, but if someone lives a stellar life yet blatantly rejects the apostles’ teaching, it is safe to assume their spirit isn’t as close to Christ as their actions indicate. All their good deeds are as those of the Pharisees: praying loudly in the public square, lengthening the tassels on a robe, etc. Consider the fourth paragraph of Mr. Rose’s post where he writes:
“The one who says, ‘Hey I hear what you’re saying about Jesus, but I can follow His teachings but reject Him,’ is missing the point. Or the one who blatantly exalts another God in the place of Christ but does great things in the world has missed the point. Because the root of their stiff-arming Christ is unbelief.”
I have a new question for you Brett. Could you explain to me how you believe we are accepted by God on the basis of His grace and yet simultaneously accepted on the basis of our good character?
GHF:
You can’t really exonerate the centurions for just doing their jobs and put the full blame on Pilate. He was doing the exact same thing, only his boss is the Caesar of Rome. None of them had the courage to do the right thing. And I stand by my statement that Jesus “was always trying to get rid of the people who were only half-committed to Him”. You feed a few thousand people and raise a few corpses, you’re going to get some followers with impure motives.
Josh:
I see what you’re saying, and I have a few things to say which may clarify my stance and may not.
I believe Socrates is in heaven today even though he lived 400 years before Christ and was not a Jew. Obviously, he didn’t know Jesus’ name, or even the name of YHWH, but if you read his dialogue with Euthyphro, and the Apology (which is his trial and subsequent execution, very similar to Jesus) the conclusions he came to are astounding. I consider the man to be a Christian before Christianity began.
Yet I do not believe an earnest Muslim today, rejecting Christ, will go to heaven because they meet your criteria above. Namely, a belief in the “true creator of the heavens and the earth, the one from whom, and in whom all things exist,” and a realization that “he is at fault compared with His splendor.” According to you, all the Muslim has wrong is the particular name, and this is unimportant. Here I would invoke my earlier argument that the NAME means everything. It is utterly ridiculous to think a child can love its father and yet call its father by the name of another man. This principle is demonstrated all throughout the Old Testament when God repeatedly combats his people’s idolatry by saying, “I am YHWH, your God.” It is His NAME He is always reminding them of. Not Baal, not Dagon, not Allah. Faith must be in the God of the Bible, period. Call Jesus according to whatever language you speak, but its the same guy/God.
That clear as mud? Did I miss anybody?
Kyle,
I have no desire that we argue over this as a means of division, but I really must implore you to read those scriptures again. Of course there would be those with impure and even selfish motives, but Jesus never “tried to get rid of them” – if that’s what He’d wanted, he is JESUS, He could have done it easily!
I stand by my assertion that He left the door open to ALL. Else what would be the point of His dying for ALL?
The greatest gift God gave us was the gift if free will. He is not a dictator, He calls us and dearly wants us to follow, but he allows us to reject, ignore and hide, yet still loves us.
As for the name, Socrates didn’t know Jesus, yet you believe (and I don’t doubt it’s true) he is in Heaven. Many people don’t know Jesus as christians do, yet revere Him as a major prophet, like the muslims do. They call upon His name as being holy, just in the same way they call upon Mohammed.
If we get wrapped up on the minutae of theological debate, we’re in grave danger of missing the bigger picture, which is that God loves us all, and allows for our mistakes in order that we can join Him when the time comes.
“According to you, all the Muslim has wrong is the particular name, and this is unimportant. Here I would invoke my earlier argument that the NAME means everything. It is utterly ridiculous to think a child can love its father and yet call its father by the name of another man. This principle is demonstrated all throughout the Old Testament when God repeatedly combats his people’s idolatry by saying, “I am YHWH, your God.” It is His NAME He is always reminding them of.”
I find this ironic because His name means everything and yet His names are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO vast! He isn’t “named” as such… He is “I AM”……. He is everything
PLUS, God is man, woman, God is in everything and in everyone… and yet we continue to use “He” and “Father” all the time
There are many people out there that would have huge dificulty in worshipping “Father God”… I don’t think the name does matter as such… I don’t think it matters WHAT you call God, I think it matters the condition of your heart when you’re calling Gods name….
If I decided to pray to God and call Him something that was prescious to me would that make a difference? Just as Muslims pray to “Allah” that just means God anyway…
Using your analogy of a child not knowing the name of their father… well…. children normally call their father “dad”, “daddy”, “pa”, “father”…. not by their name…. but all of those words are precious words to a dad and just because they use a different word, it’s still got the same love behind it….
Emeth x
I think I’m dropping out. There’s just too much to work with here.
Haha! Me too. This is nearly fourty comments long: outrageous. I think we have opened every can of worms possible. Great stuff all