Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

re Note 1157.0 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER:

> if one lived a thoroughly sinful life and then accepted the
> saviour in the last five minutes of life on the death bed,
> wouldn't that be like cheating a little?
  
        andreas,

        We're all cheating on Jesus from time to time, both before
        conversion and after.  If God regarded our sins, none could
        be saved, but he doesn't.

        Bob

you'd make a good diplomat, bob!




andreas.

    Not at all cheating!  For one thing, it is the Spirit of God which
    draws you to Him.  Secondly, salvation at an early age or at a late age
    in light of eternity makes no difference.  If one is the first on a
    life raft or the last, the important thing is that they survived.
    
    Now one might cheat themselves of rewards or a fulfilled life of
    serving Jesus on earth.  That is the sad part...being an unused vessel
    for God!  
    
    Bob is correct, we still cheat from time to time!
    
    -Jack

>    Not at all cheating!  For one thing, it is the Spirit of God which
>    draws you to Him.  

jack, weren't you close to suggesting just a minute ago that mother
theresa ought to cease the moment and convert hindus on their death 
bed? that sounds more like forcing a conversion down someone's throat
in order to add one more to the flock rather than being drawn to the
spirit!



andreas.

    No, it is actually being obedient to the Great Commission which is to
    preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations.
    
    -Jack

      Hi Andreas,
    
        Salvation is only received by faith.  Faith is the channel through
        which the grace of God is appropriated in the heart.  It is the
        only way that the grace of God is allowed to begin to cleanse the
        heart.  It is sin which condemns and God accounts one as perfectly
        righteous when one first exercizes faith all the while sin is still
        present in the heart to some extent and should the person see God
        unveiled (His love), he would be destroyed.  (I won't get into the
        basis of how such a person stands justified.
    
        But, faith is the means through which God is permitted to begin 
        to make us well.  Making is well equates to really and actually
        removing selfishness from the heart.
    
        With this backdrop, to answer your question...
    
        1) God is unconditional love.  Our condemnation is sin and if we
           choose sin to Him, we have tied our hands.
           God does not hold grudges.
    
        2) Having faith equates to having some purity of motivation.  There
           is something there in the heart which totally hates the idea
           that 'holding off' on conversion is a good thing.
    
        						Tony

      Correction: We have tied HIS hands (not ours).
    
    

    What if the person on their death bed asks, "How can I receive Jesus?"
    Then what do you do, share the Gospel and be obedient to Jesus Christ, or 
    deny them out of respect for their religion and allow them to face
    eternal damnation?
    
    Mike

re .5


jack, i think you might be misunderstanding the great commission here.
at least that's what i think.

take the example of jesus, who never wrote down anything and who used
scripture against those who continuously quoted scripture, jesus seemed
to have *lived* what he taught. by all accounts, his words would have 
been meaningless had they not been constantly backed by actions.

bottom line: actions speak more than words.

i gather mother theresa is taking a similar approach and that makes here
a lot more credible than many a priest. 

you simply cannot make converts by preaching.




andreas.

.9> What if the person on their death bed asks, "How can I receive Jesus?"
.9> Then what do you do


mike, if the person's wish is to be baptised then i'd call a priest!

if the person wished to be baptised and there was no priest to be called,
then i'd baptise the person myself (i ought to be competent having been 
baptised and confirmed as protestant).

if the person merely asks "How can I receive Jesus?" 
then i'd respond, "dont worry son, you already have."



andreas.

 ZZZ   then i'd respond, "dont worry son, you already have."
    
    I believe that the phrase, "Whoever shall call upon the name of the
    Lord shall be saved.", has validity to it.  Calling upon the name of
    the Lord requires a decision of faith on one's part.  
    
    Very similar might be, "Congrats Andreas, you have just won this car. 
    Here is the key!"  You did in fact win the car but you will never
    benefit from the fruits of your prize until you take the key.  
    
    -Jack

thanks for the car jack!

:-)

    Re: .10
    
    Yes, Jesus did feed the five thousand and yes it is vital to the
    testimony one gives.  Later on those same people were rebuked by Jesus
    because of their lack of faith.  They only stayed with him because of
    the loaves.
    
    Satisfaction from hunger and homeless is an integral part of
    witnessing.  Sharing the good news is in the long run more important
    but yes, nobody can respond when they are comatose from hunger.
    
    -Jack

hi tony,


i think i can follow most of your reply apart from

.6>  There is something there in the heart which totally hates the idea
.6>  that 'holding off' on conversion is a good thing.

are your saying here that because 'having faith' is so great you simply 
must pass it on?

that's a really nice idea.

but don't you think that then conversion happens automatically? 
i mean take someone bubbling with contentment and happiness in faith, 
then that's kind of catching, no?

i am just against stuffing faith down people's ears and then saying
that that's following the great commission.



andreas.    

     
    > if the person merely asks "How can I receive Jesus?"
    > then i'd respond, "dont worry son, you already have."
    
    I agree. 

re Note 1157.16 by APACHE::MYERS:
     
>     > if the person merely asks "How can I receive Jesus?"
>     > then i'd respond, "dont worry son, you already have."
>     
>     I agree. 
  
        While I'd agree that first and foremost somebody who asks that
        question is looking for reassurance, they are probably also
        looking for information (of the types that supports that
        reassurance).

        Bob

.9

>    What if the person on their death bed asks, "How can I receive Jesus?"
>    Then what do you do, share the Gospel and be obedient to Jesus Christ, or 
>    deny them out of respect for their religion and allow them to face
>    eternal damnation?

Ahh! An entirely different question.  I would give that person whatever I
could, as time and other constraints allow.

Shalom,
Richard

    >thanks for the car jack!
    
    I'd never thank anyone for a car jack.

>if the person merely asks "How can I receive Jesus?" 
>then i'd respond, "dont worry son, you already have."
    
    BZZT!  Wrong answer, but thanks for playing.

pun intended mike, i'll now take a hike.



c u tuesday!

andreas.

    
    RE .17

    What I was agreeing with is the person who asks to "receive" Jesus,
    particularly one who is near death, need do nothing more. They are
    "saved," they have Jesus, there is no incantation they must recite. 
    
    I wasn't saying I wouldn't go on to share my understanding of the
    Gospel; to further share the love of Christ as best I could.

    Eric                          

    Incantation or prayer.  What is the difference?
    
    One could do so in the quietness of their heart but it does say that we
    need to confess with thy mouth and believe God raised him from the
    death...for with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
    
    -Jack

    	re basenote:
    
    	This has already been answered by the parables of the lost sheep,
    	the prodigal son, and the vineyard workers who all get the same
    	pay.

    <<< Note 1157.4 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>

>jack, weren't you close to suggesting just a minute ago that mother
>theresa ought to cease the moment and convert hindus on their death 
>bed? that sounds more like forcing a conversion down someone's throat
>in order to add one more to the flock rather than being drawn to the
>spirit!

    	Conversions can never be forced, you are correct Andreas.  They
    	can only come from within.  Somewhere else you said that
    	conversions can never come from preaching.  If that preaching is
    	a force-it-down-the-throat preaching, you are more likely to be
    	correct.  Maybe we're getting hung up on the meaning of preach,
    	but I contend that the message (any message) most likely will
    	not be heard heard if it is not told (preached).
    
    	But back to your quoted statement above, any "conversion" that
    	is a result of it being forced upon the recipient is most likely
    	not a legitimate conversion.

    	<<< Note 1157.9 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

>    What if the person on their death bed asks, "How can I receive Jesus?"
>    Then what do you do, share the Gospel and be obedient to Jesus Christ, or 
>    deny them out of respect for their religion and allow them to face
>    eternal damnation?
    
    	Mike, I'm getting a bit annoyed at your insinuations here.  I have
    	no doubt that your statement here is in reference to your previous
    	claim that Mother Theresa refuses to share the Gospel with those
    	whom she helps.  I've expressed concerns about the accuracy of the
    	interpretation of the source that this apparently came from, as
    	well as the source itself.  Until you can provide better evidence
    	of your claim, I'll take your continued insinuations as ignorance,
    	if not deliberate slander.

    	It may very well be that Mother Theresa has the common sense to 
    	know that some of her patients are the proverbial rocky soil at
    	the time she ministers to them.  They are unconscious, or too
    	ill to be able to hear the Gospel.  Perhaps she discussed this
    	in an interview somewhere, and now the story is twisted to what
    	you are propagating about here.  If I were ministering to Jewish 
    	indigent, I would not feed them or treat them in a non-kosher
    	way, eventhough you and I know that our Bible says to eat whatever
    	is put in front of you.  I would respect their beliefs for the time
    	being, and that would in no way diminish my ministry.

    	Now you ask the question quoted above, "what if they ask, 'how can
    	I receive Jesus.'"  I contend that if one of her patients asked
    	this (and I suspect that multitudes do) then they had to have come
    	to know about Jesus through her unconditional works with them.  If
    	they know to ask, can you really believe that she hasn't been
    	sharing the Gospel with them all along?  If the patient asks such
    	a question, then it is the patient who is stepping outside his
    	previous faith asking her to preach!  Even if she has some
    	unwritten vow not to preach the Gospel out of respect their
    	religion, she has now been invited by the patient to set aside 
    	that vow.  Suggesting that she would still remain mute at that
    	point is patently unfair, if not outright defamatory.

    Joe, I didn't write the source in my notes, but I'll have it for you by
    Monday.

Why is this such a time sensitive (death sensitive) issue?  I mean it's being 
posed like life's a game that's played until the death buzzer goes off at 
which time your score it tallied and your fate sealed.  If an atheist dies,
and starts wandering around the afterlife somewhere, sees Jesus and says 
"Woops, I was wrong. Is it too late to convert"?  Do you get some of this
unconditional love we've been hearing about or do you get a "Sorry Bub, 
you've already cashed in".  

I know that most don't believe in psychics, but until some of their
insights can be explained, I have to give then "some" consideration.  And
the best of them claim that, from what they could ~see~, existence (in this
life or the next) is a learning process and that the learning doesn't stop
with the signing of your death certificate.  Of course that sort of thing
cannot be corroborated or tested, at least not in this life.  They've got a
lot more to say about the afterlife (if anyone's interested).

-dave

>Why is this such a time sensitive (death sensitive) issue?  I mean it's being 
>posed like life's a game that's played until the death buzzer goes off at 
>which time your score it tallied and your fate sealed.  If an atheist dies,
>and starts wandering around the afterlife somewhere, sees Jesus and says 
>"Woops, I was wrong. Is it too late to convert"?  Do you get some of this
>unconditional love we've been hearing about or do you get a "Sorry Bub, 
>you've already cashed in".  
    
Luke 16:31  
    And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither
    will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

    Dave:
    
    Two things.  The first being the time line.  Unfortunately, Jesus
    himself spoke many times on this issue.  "But to those who do not
    believe is everlasting punishment but to those who believe springs life
    eternal."  The interesting thing here is that the two words,
    Everlasting, and eternal derive from the exact same greek word.  Why
    the translators of the King James did this is beyond me.  However,
    etrnal is eternal, not temporal.  It is very clear that Jesus does
    establish a timeline.
    
    Re: Psychics.  There are many frauds out there but let's focus on the
    genuine article.  I for one do not give little creedance to psychics. 
    I believe there are people born with that ability.  However, I also
    believe they are referred to in the Old Testament as spiritists and
    mediums.  According to the law of Moses which came from God himself,
    anybody who practiced in divination, or acted as a medium was to be put
    to death.  God considered this practice an abomination.
    
    Which really confuses me when I see certain churches promoting such
    practices.
    
    -Jack

    
    Jack,
    
    I'm curious - what do you see the difference as being, between a
    prophet and a psychic?
    
    Cindy

    Easy.  I believe a prophet fortells just as a psychic does.  I believe
    a prophets revelation comes directly from God though.  In the Bible,
    you will find the Lord speaks directly to many of the prophets.  A
    psychics revelation is unknown to me but I will say that a psychic is
    what I call a "False Prophet".  One who relies on their own
    generalities and intuitions in order to provide an answer.  In other
    words, they are not right 100% of the time.
    
    -Jack

    
    Are you personally capable of telling the difference, Jack?
    
    Cindy

    The only way one can tell the difference is through trial and error.
    Supposedly, Jeanne Dixon predicted Kennedy's demise in Dallas but since
    she can only brag of being right 80% of the time, this would make her a
    false prophet.
    
    -Jack

    
    So that means that if I tell you I'm psychic, you won't burn me at the
    stake?  (;^)
    
    Seriously though, I am one of those people with a 'gift' to be able to
    know what is to happen, more times than not.  It's not something I work
    at, but rather the insight just comes to me, and I acknowledge it.  It's 
    been kind of a strange life for me, because for the longest time I 
    thought everybody was like me, but then I discovered (oops!) that it's 
    not the case. 
    
    I also feel that there is prophecy, and that we consciously have the
    ability to change it for a better outcome.  Does it make the first one
    wrong?  No.  For example, there is a Mayan prophecy that says if we as
    humankind continue on the path that we are on, then it's very likely
    that in the year 2013, there will be 'heat-bearing containers' in the
    sky, and the distruction of the world as we know it.  Interpretation 
    of this means an all-out nuclear war.  However it's based on the caveat 
    that it will happen IF we do not change our current ways.  If we do, 
    then we can avert this possible future.
    
    One interesting prophecy in the Bible that one might want to look up is
    that the Russian word for 'wormwood' is 'Chernobyl'.  Think this
    reference is in Revelation somewhere.
    
    Well, this is probably an entire other topic for discussion...
    
    Cindy

    Yes, I was amazed to learn that just a few months ago...about Wormwood
    that is.
    
    I do believe discernment is a gift and is to be used.  The danger I see
    with Psychics is the patrons look to these people as gods and seem to
    base very important decisions on their say without really using their
    own hearts and intellect in making sound decisions.
    
    -Jack

    I believe you can know who is a prophet and who is a psychic without
    trial and error.  The Holy Spirit in the believer will often provide
    discernment during prayer. 
    
    Re: Wormwood
    
    It's in Revelation, but Chernobyl doesn't apply to eschatology.
    
    Mike

    
    > It's in Revelation, but Chernobyl doesn't apply to eschatology.

    How very prophetic... or is that psychic.

    In order for it to be eschatological, we would have to have enough
    nuclear power plants to operate a third of the world and call them all
    Chernobyl. 
    
    However the coincidence is very earrie!!

    What does Chernobyl mean in English?  

    "Stay Away"

    Re36                                                    
    
    >The danger I see with Psychics is the patrons look to these people 
    >as gods and seem to base very important decisions on their say without 
    >really using their own hearts and intellect in making sound decisions.
    
    Yes, that's always a possibility, and I agree with you.
    
    However, the same could be said about some of the Church officials, such
    as the Pope, for example, or even one's local minister/priest.  
    
    Cindy

re .25 

>    	but I contend that the message (any message) most likely will
>    	not be heard heard if it is not told (preached).

i agree. the only question now is *how* to preach.


re .26

>  	                                         If the patient asks such
>   	a question, then it is the patient who is stepping outside his
>   	previous faith asking her to preach!  Even if she has some
>   	unwritten vow not to preach the Gospel out of respect their
>   	religion, she has now been invited by the patient to set aside 
>   	that vow.  


joe, precisely. isn't the way which you describe above, the only way
that one can preach (teach). that is, by being ASKED to do so.




andreas.

    re .41
    
    Cindy,
    
    precisely the problem when a religion turns all the words of its
    prophets and apostles into the "word of God."
    
    In listening to all prophesy one must not abandon their own hearts and
    intellect.  One must have some rational way to test the spirit.
    
                                      Patricia

 ZZ   In listening to all prophesy one must not abandon their own hearts
 ZZ   and intellect.  One must have some rational way to test the spirit.
    
    I would be interested in a concrete example of this happening. 
    Particularly here if possible.  I see this quite frankly as a lame
    excuse for not taking a step of faith or a lack of belief.
    
 ZZ     One must have some rational way to test the spirit.
    
    I'm especially interested in your qualification of this.  You have been
    a big proponent of listening to that still small voice.  This is not
    always rational, especially when one uses their intellect.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    the rational part of it is that if that still small voice told be to
    jumped off of a tall building, I would question the voice.  If that
    still small voice told me to help someone in need, I would do it.
    
    The still small voice has led me to a study of the Bible, to Andover
    Newton, and to some very inspiring and challenging instructors.  This
    had lead me to a knowledge of the Bible, and understanding of the Bible
    and an interpretation of the Bible based on God's love revealed through
    the folklore, the Prophets and through Jesus.  I test the still small
    voice as it is consistent with a rational interpretation of the Bible. 
    There need be no contradiction between heart, mind, and spirit!
    
    
                                  Patricia

    Re .30,.32
    
    Jack:
 
    >>"But to those who do not
    >>believe is everlasting punishment but to those who believe springs life
    >>eternal." 
    ...
    >>It is very clear that Jesus does
    >>establish a timeline.             
    
    Not very clear to me.  I'm having great difficulty recognizing the
    passage as a correct English sentence, nevermind find anything in there
    which clearly indicates the point of death as a time where
    actions/beliefs are tallied (as it were) as a preface to judgement
    and/or disposition.  The passage is very vague.  Are there any other 
    passages that shed light on this?
    
    Stepping back a bit, if God created everything and time exists, then God
    created time... right?  To us, time seems like a pretty constant thing
    although Einstein theorized that notion to be wrong and countless 
    experiments have been performed to support (prove) his genius.  In other 
    words, even for us mortals, time has been found to be a variable.  What 
    limitations or operating conditions did God impose on time in an 
    afterlife?  I don't know.  I don't even know for sure there's an
    afterlife.  But if ancient writtings are making reference to an
    afterlife using terms of time, what do they "really" mean?
    
    With regard to psychics, I suppose some "fortell" and/or "guide" people
    to make decisions in life, etc... .  But my concept of a psychics is
    someone who's sensitive to the spirits (if you will) of those who have
    died. Sounds incredible, I know, but the emperical evidence would lend
    some credibility to this.  Regardless, these psychics don't fortell
    anything.  They sort of relay messages from the dead to the living (a
    medium?).  (BTW the ability and accuracy of some psychics to do  this is
    what lends them credence IMO).  Communications from "the other side"
    (as one psychic calls it) seemed to indicate to the psychic that
    everyone is always striving for the light and that life here on earth
    is like a classroom which can help some get closer to the light.  The
    learning process does not stop after you die.  And learning how to get
    to the light is everyon's goal.  Hell? Apparently some are very far
    from the light, sort of in a perplexing quagmire.  They're confussed
    and disoriented and are having great difficulty learning how to get out
    of their situation.  But it was said that they can and do get out
    eventually and incrementally achieve higher and higher states, each
    closer to the light.  Of course, all of this is hearsay from psychics.
    But many different psychics corroborate each other in this.  And some
    near death experiencers also have similar "stories".  Nowhere in these
    accounts were people pigeonholed by religion or belief systems.  There 
    seemed to be many paths to the light and everyone was searching for
    his/her own way.  And there was nothing to indicate that communicating 
    between the living and the dead was bad, wrong, evil or restricted by
    the power(s) that be.
    
    
    -dave

    That is an interesting concept.  You realize of course Jesus spoke
    nothing even remotely resembling what psychics have corroberated on.
    He was quite clear about eternal matters.
    
    Re: Time.  Yes, I am at a loss on that one.  Time is a measurement used
    as a reference for us mortals.
    
    -Jack

    Hi Jack:
    
    >> He was quite clear about eternal matters.
    
    From what I can recall, there was mention of an eternal bliss with God
    if you were richeous and/or a believer in Jesus as spiritual saviour. 
    And (from one of your replies) there was mention of a sort of hell or
    "eternal torment".  But as far as being "quite clear" I have to disagree.
    A clear description would have been detailed insofar as "what", "where"
    and "when" heaven is (in terms understandable to us).  Is there a
    heiarchy in heaven? in hell?   Do spirits exist?  Angels?  Do they have 
    bodies of sorts?  What do they "look" like?  Is there a devil?  How many?  
    What's their relationship with each other?  With God?  With man?  Is there 
    a purgatory?  Tell me all about that.  Etc...  IMO, Jesus did not
    clearly describe the afterlife.  All he did was make a few vague comments 
    about it from which we inferred it's existence.
    
    Now, the diciples, Paul, Dante and others down the ages might have
    embelished (fabricated?) a more detailed description, but how much of
    "that" can be believed?
    
    
    -dave