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 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.

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?

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

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