Is Ignorance Bliss?

[Matthias]

We both know that :). You were the one who brought the Beatles. I am just piggybacking on the name of the song to remind us all about the primacy of love. The primacy of love is solidly founded in the New Testament, as I have shown above.

You should know why I brought it up. The gospel is more than just the primacy of love.

Society often calls "love" things that are not "love" in God's eyes.
A man who rejects the Holy Spirit will call "justice", "wisdom" or "love", things that are actually "vengeance", "foolishness" and "egotism".

It’s not just society. It‘s religion. It’s a spiritual battle. It strikes at the very heart of who the one and only true God is.

We may discuss in other thread what love is, what love implies, how love appears and grows, etc.
There are clear descriptions of love in the Bible, so that nobody gets confused.

Going back to the main topic of the thread, my proposition is that preaching the Gospel implies increasing the chances of the person who listens to us to live a new life. A new life based in loving more and better. That's the life of Christ.
Some doctrines have a direct impact on that. For example, believing that we need to be born again and that God love us and can effective forgive our sins and change our ways.
Some other doctrines do not have a direct impact on that.

"We need Christ" means we need the Message of Christ.
"We need Christ" means we need to the spirit of Christ in our lives.
"We need Christ" does not mean we need to believe or reject his preexistence, deity, miraculous birth, substitutionary atonement, and a dozen of doctrines about Christ.

You‘re presenting an anti-New Testament message.

What you say is “just a belief,” and not necessary for salvation, the New Testament says is the belief and necessary for salvation. As you’ve seen, I will stand strongly against your message / presentation.

One of us is following “another Jesus”. I’m preaching against yours. You’re trying to persuade me that yours is mine. The circumstance proves the point.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

”All you need is love” -> a message from the occult world, not from the Bible.

He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him.

Did the Beatles write that?
Did the powers of the occult world write that?
No. The inspired author of 1 John 2:10 wrote it.

The person who lives in the light is not the person who is able to explain why he accept of rejects the Trinity or the baptism of children, or the substitutionary atonement or the rapture of the church. The person who lives in the light is the person who loves his brother.

God is love (1 John 4:8). If God is with us, what else could we need?

 

[Matthias]

Which Jesus? The only one who

• summarized all known Scriptures as Love God and love your neighbor (Mat 22:37-40)

This isn’t right. He was speaking about the Law, not all known Scriptures.

• took this commandment as his commandment: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another." (John 13:34) and established it as the distinctive feature of his disciples "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” (13:35)

He is talking about his disciples, not the disciples of others.

This is the only Jesus I am talking about.

If we were speaking about the Jesus, we would be in agreement.

Perhaps a false Jesus is a Jesus that demands from the repented sinner to pass a quiz on Theology about his deity, preexistence, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection and inerrancy of the Bible as pre-requisites to be forgiven and transformed.
That is a false Jesus.

Jesus isn’t devoid of theology, nor is he amenable to all theologies. His theology can’t be separated from him, nor can it be expanded. If / when that happens - and it does - that is where “another Jesus” is found.

Sola Scriptura is a paradox, because there is no evidence whatsoever that the Bible set temporal limits to God's revelation, or to its own canon.
Whoever were the Reformers who proposed Sola Scriptura, they could not have derived such belief from the Scripture.
Certainly, I am open to discuss and be corrected in another thread on this topic.

 

[Matthias]

He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him.

Did the Beatles write that?
Did the powers of the occult world write that?
No. The inspired author of 1 John 2:10 wrote it.

That’s right.

The person who lives in the light is not the person who is able to explain why he accept of rejects the Trinity or the baptism of children, or the substitutionary atonement or the rapture of the church. The person who lives in the light is the person who loves his brother.

The New Testament letters aren’t written to all of mankind. They are written specifically, and only, to Christians.

If someone wants them to be written to them, they must become Christian.

The invitation is made. It may be accepted or declined. Both have consequences.

God is love (1 John 4:8). If God is with us, what else could we need?

That’s right.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

The gospel is more than just the primacy of love.

Sure it is. The gospel is about 1000 other things.... all of them worthless without love.
Those 1000 other things make sense when lead us to love.... to God.

The mission of Jesus Christ makes sense only because of God loved the world (John 3:16)
Religion makes sense only because we are enabled by God's grace to love our brother. (James 1:27)
We could go on and on. Crucifixion makes sense only because we are crucified along with Jesus to our past life (a life without love). Resurrection makes sense only because we have been brought to a new life ( a life in love). The Second Coming makes sense only because we can live the life of the Kingdom of God.

Every single doctrine of the Old Testament or New Testament makes sense only if it changes the way we live.
Every single reference to "faith in Christ" or "belief in Christ" refers to this. Not to an intellectual undertaking.

 

[Matthias]

Sure it is. The gospel is about 1000 other things.... all of them worthless without love.
Those 1000 other things make sense when lead us to love.... to God.

That should be sufficient to put an end to an “All you need is love is the gospel” argument.

The mission of Jesus Christ makes sense only because of God loved the world (John 3:16)
Religion makes sense only because we are enabled by God's grace to love our brother. (James 1:27)
Crucifixion makes sense only because we are crucified along with Jesus to our past life (a life without love). Resurrection makes sense only because we have been brought to a new life ( a life in love). The Second Coming makes sense only because we can live the life of the Kingdom of God.

Every single doctrine of the Old Testament or New Testament makes sense only if it changes the way we live.
Every single reference to "faith in Christ" or "belief in Christ" refers to this. Not to an intellectual undertaking.

 

[Augustin56]

Some religious groups believe that God forgives people who are not aware of certain "doctrinal truths" (as conceived by such religious groups), but starts making them accountable when they become aware. If they reject "doctrinal truth" once aware, they are damned to eternal destruction or eternal torture.

My question here to all of you is: Why would those religious groups preach the "doctrinal truth", if the risk is that people who were going to be forgiven due to their unawareness, will be now at risk of being condemned?

There are two types of ignorance in play here.

1. Invincible ignorance, whereby someone is ignorant of something (a doctrinal teaching, Jesus, etc.) through NO fault of their own. In other words, there is no way they could possibly have known. In this case, God, because He is infinitely just, will not hold them to what they didn't know. They are not culpable.

2. Culable ignorance, whereby the person could have known, had God's grace to pursue the knowledge, but as an act if their will, chose to remain ignorant,. In this case, God will hold them culpable.


These two principles are more complicated in real life than this, due to other factors (capability, intelligence level, etc.), but I think that in general, they are valid.

 

[Matthias]

She refused to be drawn back by the fiddler’s persuasion @Pancho Frijoles. She abandoned her faith tradition.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

That’s right.



The New Testament letters aren’t written to all of mankind. They are written specifically, and only, to Christians.

"Specifically to Christians", yes. You are right...
Moreover, they were written to specific communities with specific circumstances.

Your statement will be key when we review what Paul wrote about substitutionary atonement and justification by faith. So, I invite you to keep it for a rainy day, which is coming.​

Now, about being "only to Christians", let's think: Were the Psalms written only to Jews? If so, why Christians profit spiritually from them?
Just as Christians can profit from Psalms, Baha'is can profit from the New Testament.

If we consider a book inspired by God, it is our duty to get the essential message of the book and embed it into our lives.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

There are two types of ignorance in play here.

1. Invincible ignorance, whereby someone is ignorant of something (a doctrinal teaching, Jesus, etc.) through NO fault of their own. In other words, there is no way they could possibly have known. In this case, God, because He is infinitely just, will not hold them to what they didn't know. They are not culpable.

2. Culable ignorance, whereby the person could have known, had God's grace to pursue the knowledge, but as an act if their will, chose to remain ignorant,. In this case, God will hold them culpable.


These two principles are more complicated in real life than this, due to other factors (capability, intelligence level, etc.), but I think that in general, they are valid.

Hi, Augustin 56

Thanks for your contribution and for taking us back to the main issue of the thread!
As you indicate, the difference between these two types of ignorance is more complicated in real life.

Can you think in any example of culable ignorance that you have found in real life?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

She refused to be drawn back by the fiddler’s persuasion @Pancho Frijoles. She abandoned her faith tradition.

One of the big pending tasks in my life as a lover of music is to watch this musical, my friend.
I don't know the plot as to understand Chava's motivation and that of his father.
If you can briefly explain, please do it. Otherwise I will make a point of watching the film during weekend

Thank you very much!

 

[Matthias]

"Specifically to Christians", yes. You are right...

Then they are not written to non-Christians. The non-Christian is reading someone else’s mail.

Moreover, they were written to specific communities with specific circumstances.

Your statement will be key when we review what Paul wrote about substitutionary atonement and justification by faith. So, I invite you to keep it for a rainy day, which is coming.​

Now, about being "only to Christians", let's think: Were the Psalms written only to Jews?

Yes.

If so, why Christians profit spiritually from them?

The earliest Christians are Jews who believe that a fellow Jew is the Messiah.

Just as Christians can profit from Psalms, Baha'is can profit from the New Testament.

Baha’i is drawn by the Psalms and the New Testament, just as everyone is. By all means, read our mail. To truly benefit from it everyone must become Christian. This is too far for you.

If we consider a book inspired by God, it is our duty to get the essential message of the book and embed it into our lives.

The only book that is inspired by the one and only true God is the Bible. You stand against that, I stand for that. You want to be an insider but you won’t enter the house.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

That should be sufficient to put an end to an “All you need is love is the gospel” argument.

On the contrary. My argument hinges on the word "need".

Because of your background in Protestantism, you are inclined to believe that, if X is true, then X is needed for salvation.
That's not the case. That's not what the Bible teaches.

We need to know God and His Messenger to get eternal life.
We do not need to know 1000 things about God and His Messenger to get eternal life.

 

[Matthias]

One of the big pending tasks in my life as a lover of music is to watch this musical, my friend.
I don't know the plot as to understand Chava's motivation and that of his father.

Chava is a daughter of Judaism. She marries outside of the faith. She is lured away by love. The fiddler tries in vain to draw her back. The father doesn’t understand how this could have happened and blames himself.

If you can briefly explain, please do it. Otherwise I will make a point of watching the film during weekend

Thank you very much!

There’s more to the story. I don’t want to spoil it for you.

 

[Matthias]

On the contrary. My argument hinges on the word "need".

Then the argument isn’t settled.

”The gospel is: all you need is love.” - you

”The gospel is not: all you need is love.” - me

There is a brotherhood of man between us but there is no brotherhood in the faith between us.

Because of your background in Protestantism, you are inclined to believe that, if X is true, then X is needed for salvation.
That's not the case. That's not what the Bible teaches.

So the Baha’i tells the Christian that the Christian doesn’t understand what the Bible teaches, the Baha’i does.

The New Testament tells the Christian what is needed.

We need to know God and His Messenger to get eternal life.

Mohammad, to name only one of the messengers whom you’ve asked me to accept, isn’t the messenger of my God.

We do not need to know 1000 things about God and His Messenger to get eternal life.

The words of Jesus are spirit and life. He is the final messenger sent by the one God.

 

[Matthias]

View attachment 46912

This isn’t the Messiah’s faith. This isn’t the Messiah’s theology. This isn’t the Messiah’s way. This is an abomination.

A day is coming when the Messiah will remove it and those who preach and practice it from the face of the earth.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

The earliest Christians are Jews who believe that a fellow Jew is the Messiah.

Modern Christians, though, do not identify themselves as Jews, but profit spiritually from Hebrew Scriptures.

Baha’i is drawn by the Psalms and the New Testament, just as everyone is. By all means, read our mail. To truly benefit from it everyone must become Christian. This is too far for you.

Certainly, learning about the context in which the apostolic letters were written is important, as it is learning the context in which the Psalms were written... but a modern Christian doesn't need to become Jew to benefit from Psalms.

The only book that is inspired by the one and only true God is the Bible. You stand against that, I stand for that. You want to be an insider but you won’t enter the house.

To enter the house, Matthias, I've done what the prodigal son did. I was like dead, and then remembered my Father. When I saw the house from afar, our Father was there waiting for me, and took me inside. You've been always next to the Father, loyal to Him. Perhaps that's why you can't still see me as a member of the family... but you will... and we will eat some tacos at the party!

Well, Matthias and friends all, I'll call it a day.
My the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob be with you all tonight.

 

[Matthias]

Modern Christians, though, do not identify themselves as Jews ….

I’m a 1st century Christian living in modern times.

... but profit spiritually from Hebrew Scriptures.

See again the parable of the talents and recall what the master will do to those wicked servants. The wicked servant should have profited from Hebrew Scriptures but didn’t. A warning in the 1st century that remains a warning in modern times.

Certainly, learning about the context in which the apostolic letters were written is important, as it is learning the context in which the Psalms were written... but a modern Christian doesn't need to become Jew to benefit from Psalms.

This is your Baha’i perspective. My perspective is the New Testament Jewish perspective. A person must become a Jew spiritually, inwardly, to reap the full benefit from Psalms.

To enter the house, Matthias, I've done what the prodigal son did. I was like dead, and then remembered my Father. When I saw the house from afar, our Father was there waiting for me, and took me inside.

That is your story and you should be allowed to tell it.

You've been always next to the Father, loyal to Him.

I wish that were true, but it’s not. I would be lying to you, to myself, to others, and even to the one God himself if I were to tell you otherwise.

Perhaps that's why you can't still see me as a member of the family... but you will...

If the time comes when I see you as a member of the family then the time will have come when you converted to Christianity.

... and we will eat some tacos at the party!

I like tacos!

Well, Matthias and friends all, I'll call it a day.

I’ve got more work to do before I’ll be calling it a day. Rest well.

My the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob be with you all tonight.

Thank you. The Messiah’s God and Father is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He is with me at all times.

 

[Wrangler]

Sola Scriptura is a paradox

No, Sola Scriptura is a reaction to the over-reach and abuse of the Roman Catholic Church. In context, the term is used to diss RCC's claim of authority.

To diss this, the RCC invokes the pejorative term "private" interpretation AS IF relying on our own conscience is less safe than defering to an external authority AS IF it is not us as individuals who have to one day stand alone and naked before our God.

While I love to discuss and debate Scripture, it is evident to me that many replace exegesis with eisegesis to support their manmade doctrines.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

No, Sola Scriptura is a reaction to the over-reach and abuse of the Roman Catholic Church. In context, the term is used to diss RCC's claim of authority.

I agree, Wrangler. The more I look into so-called heresies, the more I realize they were either reactions to abuses, or the result of not having a good reason to abandon an idea that the new convert brought from his previous religion/culture. Sometimes those "heresies" ended up enriching the understanding of the "orthodox" people, and blending in, so that centuries later, they were not easily distinguishable from the original thought.

To me, the heresies that deserve being fought are those who deviate people from God, in practice. Meaning, those who lead to evil works.
I have reasons to believe the apostles supported this attitude towards heresies.

***

For centuries, the masses of illiterate Christians believed what their bishops told them to believe.
Sure, in the first couple of centuries, people from Jewish background, literate and in knowledge of the Tanakh, would consult the Tanakh to validate an idea. By the same token, and educated elite from Greek-Roman background, in knowledge of the philosophers, would test the new ideas against Plato and Aristotle (and try to find a point of agreement, so that their brains could digest everything).
But for a small artisan in Crete, who knew only the necessary maths to calculate his income and expenses, it all was around believing the bishop or preacher in turn. Even worse, to believe what landlord or the customer with better reputation in town thought. No way to think in Sola Scriptura.

***

When I present my rationale to disagree with a religious idea, Wrangler and @Matthias, I'm not looking for your endorsement to an idea you don't (or won't) believe. I'm looking for the recognition of the other (in this case me, but could be any Mormon, Catholic, Jehovah Witness, Muslim or Baha'i) as a person who needs God's mercy just as you, and who can indeed enjoy (somehow, if you like) the transformative power of God's grace, within his religious framework.