Posted on 12/16/2005 11:31:42 AM PST by UnklGene
There's a definitional difference between the two words. "To accept Christ" suggests that I'm passing judgment on the Lord Of The Universe: to accept or not to accept (holding my chin in my hand, weighing the pros and cons of allowing Him into my life)? "To believe in Christ" is to trust Him to save, based on His redemptive work on the cross.
Yes?
It wasn't my intention to condemn people who are "on the road" to Christianity yet have not yet arrived. It is rather concern for such people that is behind the argument. I personally can't think of a greater tragedy than those who never cross the Jordan river, but rather sit on the opposite bank and are content with their view of the Promised Land. For how sad is it to look upon the fruits of salvation but never taste them?
Your point, however, is helpful to me. I do think that my language on this subject can (as Lewis' does) get a bit jaded, perhaps matching perceived condescension with condescension. Thanks to your comment, in the future when I employ this logic, I will determine to do so with gentleness and caring, so as to draw the listener further onward, rather than forcing their hand, and possibly turning them away.
Thanks for the response.
Well, have to agree with you there. The best parts of most good books are something you can never get onto the screen because they're things you can't see at all.
Did you know that there was an opera adaptation of Perelandra? It was composed by Donald Swann (the guy who set some of Tolkien's poetry to music) back in the 1960's, but I don't know if it's ever been given a stage performance. I don't think it's ever even been recorded. And, who knows--it might be awful.
I'd not be too sure. Certainly God did not lead men into 'the delusion of idols', nor to spin tales of incestuous or violent 'deities', but those aren't what Lewis called 'Good Dreams'.
I'm guessing you're a protestant and don't have the relevant passage in your Scriptures, but for those of us who use the complete Christian canon, there is a passage that speaks of God assigning a guardian angel to each nation. The inclusion of the myth of Baldur the Beautiful among the myths of the Vikings certainly made the acceptance of 'The White Christ' easier. I find it quite easy to believe that the angel of the Norse managed to get a little hint of the truth in alongside all the demonic delusions of my pagan forebearers.
Christ's coming fulfills not just the prophecies of the Old Covenant, but all that was good or true in mankind's foolish strivings for transcendence before His coming. (Try reading the Tao Te Ching, remembering that the Tao occupied the same place in Chinese thought that the Logos occupied in Greek thought, and thinking of the Tao as a person--there is only one in history who fits, and the fit is almost as good as that between Christ as He revealed himself and the text of the suffering servant passages of Isaiah.)
Read The Place of the Lion or All Hallows' Eve and you'll see what I mean.
I like Williams, but he makes me uncomfortable. Lewis never does.
Protestant Belief system: Accept jesus as your personal savior pray to him and he inturn is your intercessor to God above.
We've been round this barn before, but I'll take a stab at it!
The priest does not forgive your sins. God does. The priest is simply God's agent, and God's forgiveness is efficacious even through a sinful man. The reason Catholics have the sacrament of confession/reconciliation is that Jesus established it. He expressly gave that power to his Apostles in John 20:22-23:
22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
That power was transmitted to the Apostles' successors through ordination (what Catholics call the "Apostolic Succession.")
As a practical matter, aside from the Scriptural authority of a successor of the Apostles to forgive sin, auricular confession is more effective for the individual. It causes me, at regular intervals, to give serious consideration to the sins I have committed, to list them, and to present them with a contrite heart to God. This, and the required resolution NOT to continue to commit those sins, causes me to make a real effort to amend my life.
I used to be an Episcopalian, and I can tell you that it is all too easy to pray to Jesus in a general way for forgiveness of sins, whether privately or in the General Confession during the service, and just write it off as a general absolution without giving any thought to improving the situation.
I don't think I'm the only one in that situation.
Carlyle's acid rejoinder was, "By Gad - she'd better!"
I've always seen it as accepting Christ's grace and His lordship in your life.
Belief merely indicates that He exists. Even Satan believes in Christ. Satan knows all about Christ, yet is eternally damned.
"Accepting Christ" does not imply passing judgement on God. It's more like accepting a gift from someone--you're not passing judgement on them.
In this,Jesus is saying that you must accept him,not just believe in him.You can't "believe" someone to enter your home,but you can "accept" them into your home.By accepting him,you also accept his teachings and convictions.
As I mentioned earlier--even Satan believes in Christ and know what He will do. But the English "accepting Christ" is the saving belief that the bible is talking about.
Canons are like what Jesus condemned. They substitute the traditions of men for the law of God.
I'm not a protest-ant; I'm a believer in The Word.
Both the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed (which is recited at every Mass)states the belief in God, and Jesus Christ, etc., I would think this covers the "born again" requirements, or have I lost it?
I became a believer at a very young age - when I was in college I never had "doubts" per se - but questioned things. Mere Christianity solidified things I'd been taught, as well as things I "found" on my own. It was a book I read that made my heart pound a little harder because it re-enforced what I'd come to believe on my own.
I enjoyed Francis Schaeffer as well - however I found Lewis to be an easier read. :)
:>)
The canon in the sense I used the word refers to the list of books considered Scripture. It's rather difficult to believe in the Word without knowing which texts attest to Him faithfully.
Of course, perhaps you have grace like St. Mary of Egypt after her repentence and know the content of the Scriptures without having read them, in which case, indeed canons of Scripture are not useful to you.
It is also recited in many protestant churches. I think being "born again" is great, especially if someone is sincere.
I am not sure about the "not losing your salvation once you are 'born again'." I still think you can permanently separate yourself from God through sin at any time during your life. That is why repentance and forgiveness is so important. You don't just ask for it once in your life and your done. At least I don't. I have to constantly ask for forgiveness(that is done at Mass also as well as through confession).
What are your thoughts?
I certainly agree. We are fallen beings, constantly being attracted to sin, minor and major (venial and mortal), throughout our lives, hence the Catholic Church's requirement of repentance and forgiveness (the Sacrament of Confession, or Reconciliation, in particular to address this state).
I think to believe you cannot lose your salvation once you are "born again" is naive; unless they mean that they are on the right road to salvation, I'll consider that, but to be automatically and securely saved, no way. We all know people in our lives, regardless of denomination, who've travelled the rocky road to the narrow gate; I'm no judge and can't read their hearts, but some I thought were so sure they were going to heaven regardless of certain major indiscretions they'd seemed to forgotten, that they might be fooling themselves.
Of course, we'll all find out given the great equalizer (death) waits for everyone?
I think the Muslims see a third option-- that he was a holy man/prophet of Allah, but not the main one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.