Replies

"Isn't saying someone is not a Christian mean that person is condemned, or do you go by the idea that there's a way to be saved other than through Him?" Being without Christ is to be condemned by your own tresspasses and sins, for eternal fellowship with a Holy God requires the one fellowshipping to be holy else God doesn't remain Holy. The condemnation is self-derived, not issued by those in Christ. See, it is hard for you to hear this, isn't it.

"... do you go by the idea that there's a way to be saved other than through Him?" The Almighty accomplished something in Christ that is unique, and 'no man cometh unto the Father but by Him', for He is the Way, the Truth, and the Light, the doorway into fellowship with the Creator of the Universe. If any other means in were possible, His death on the cross would be but vane glory, an addendum.

Which leads to the answer to your other query: 'where does it say the Cross works forward in time and backward in time?' The Bible states that none come to the Father but by Christ and Him crucified. Since we are told the patriarchs will be in Heaven also (and they lived before Jesus's day), what else meaning would you derive except the Cross reaches forward and backward in time?

By focusing on the semantics of "Condemned" and pointing out that it is a sinner who condemns himself, you have once again avoided the question that was the basis of my inquiry (surprisingly, since I thought there would be a good answer to it, actually!) (And yes, I realize that "condemned" is more than semantics, since it implies WHO is to blame, but it's off-topic. Besides, I'd have to throw in a "but for" clause...*) It's not all hard to hear the words you say, though...since I believe that there is no condemnation anyway.

Since we are told the patriarchs will be in Heaven also (and they lived before Jesus's day), what else meaning would you derive except the Cross reaches forward and backward in time?

Ooops...goof in your logic....

Obviously, you haven't seen how things from the Old Testament are treated differently in the New Testament. God acts very capriciously, very arbitrarily. Why could He have not simply saved the Patriarchs and not others during the OT times? Do the New Testament points about circumcision mean that the OT folks were not circumcised because it must obviously "reach backward in time"? The Patriarchal escape clause doesn't prove anything universal.

Remember, there are all kinds of contradictions. Is blasphemy forgivable or not? Depends on where you look. How about those lovely times when God "hardens the heart" of some? Who gets credit of condemnation there?

*"but for God creating us" we couldn't be sent to hell. By any human ethical system, it's unethical to put someone into a situation without their consent, then hold them responsible for the consequences of the choices they must make. That is, I didn't ask for this life, and if I have to do certain things to be "Saved" from hell...that's no better than a rapist saying, "give me what I want or I'll kill you" and then claiming it was consensual because the victim acquiesed. It's like Algore's "don't worry about my confiscatory tax plan, because you can get your money back through tax credits, if you do what we want! Totally unethical. But God can play by His own rules and be a thug if He wants, I know. I just don't think that a loving God would do that...so I don't believe the scenario laid out by Paul is real.