Couple of Questions

[Silmarien]

Does anyone have any experience converting as an adult? Particularly after having once been hostile towards the religion? I'm all over the place theologically right now.

I could believe in the Resurrection (non-bodily, at least)--I like the argument that the disciples had to have experienced something to go to such lengths after the fact, but I've also seen the counterarguments so it's a bit of a coin toss. That's a jump I could make, but I've realized that I'm still very divided--on an aesthetic and moral level, I love the religion, but my atheist years were spent going after Christian theology in philosophy classes, so there's a fair amount of intellectual hostility there that I never actually defused. It's getting better, but I'm probably going to have to do a lot of theological reading. C.S. Lewis first, though.

Would anyone have any advice for this sort of situation? I've moved close enough to the religion now that not being able to believe (or not believing enough) is a bit stressful, but it's a long way back from hostile atheism, especially if you're not entirely convinced that this isn't just some mad flight of fancy (I'm prone to such things).

Also, I'll have to discuss it with the priest eventually, but at what point is it appropriate to take communion? It'd feel blasphemous to do so right now, since I don't identify as Christian, but I'm not sure when that changes. Episcopal, so the actual requirements are lax.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Haha, I've been doing precisely that for about a month and a half now! No miracles, but I don't think I've been entirely ignored either. But then I backslide again. I felt like I was getting some actual instruction yesterday, and then all the walls went back up without warning. Perhaps specifically because of that.

Really? It brings you to unsought-for tears of anguish? I do mean from the bottom of your heart.

 

[Silmarien]

That means that like me and tens of thousands of others, You will work to see as many of them as is possible saved. And every time one of them passes without conversion, it hurts. But if you convert, you might be the only Bible they will ever know, would you dny them the chance to be saved?

Well, I'm certainly going to have a ton of apologetics to recommend to people! I think that's more important than the Bible, because the problem with liberal secularism isn't that we don't know Scripture--it's that we view everything related to Christianity in the worst popular light. That needs to be addressed first. No attempt to convert me would have ever worked, but contact with some very devout, very intellectual Christians who didn't even try was probably crucial.

Does anyone know anything about Alister McGrath? I'm enjoying the Anglicans and an ex-atheist scientist sounds really interesting.

Really? It brings you to unsought-for tears of anguish? I do mean from the bottom of your heart.

Absolutely. Not recently (though I did almost cry during Sunday's confession prayer for no apparent reason), but going from completely rejecting Christianity to thinking there was probably something serious behind it was intense.

I think the problem is that I still haven't quite repented my disbelief. Which sounds simple, but is really anything but. When most of your sins are intellectual, untangling them is a bit of a mess. I get frustrated, but it's really a fantastic journey.

 

[eddif]

Well, I'm certainly going to have a ton of apologetics to recommend to people! I think that's more important than the Bible, because the problem with liberal secularism isn't that we don't know Scripture--it's that we view everything related to Christianity in the worst popular light. That needs to be addressed first. No attempt to convert me would have ever worked, but contact with some very devout, very intellectual Christians who didn't even try was probably crucial.

Does anyone know anything about Alister McGrath? I'm enjoying the Anglicans and an ex-atheist scientist sounds really interesting.



Absolutely. Not recently (though I did almost cry during Sunday's confession prayer for no apparent reason), but going from completely rejecting Christianity to thinking there was probably something serious behind it was intense.

I think the problem is that I still haven't quite repented my disbelief. Which sounds simple, but is really anything but. When most of your sins are intellectual, untangling them is a bit of a mess. I get frustrated, but it's really a fantastic journey.

Hebrews 8:10 KJV
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Combine that with the parable of the sower. The sower is Jesus.
The seed is the word.
The ground is men's hearts.

Plus maybe a little Revelation 3:20
Where he knocks at the door.

All of a sudden you are on a slippery creek bank.

Old Testament is based on what people did, but New Testament is real close to what God will do. There is balence here somewhere. Our cerebellum is the tree on either side of the river. If you lose your balance and slip into the creek.

If you are leaving us, we will ..........

eddif

 

[th1b.taylor]

No attempt to convert me would have ever worked, but contact with some very devout, very intellectual Christians who didn't even try was probably crucial.

There are Christians, Christ Followers , recognized by God the Father, not very many, and then there are Christians, their names are on the BMembership Registry and some of them appear very devout because they are there every time the doors swing open... but they do not walk with God, they pretend.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I think the problem is that I still haven't quite repented my disbelief. Which sounds simple, but is really anything but. When most of your sins are intellectual, untangling them is a bit of a mess. I get frustrated, but it's really a fantastic journey.

The issue is you're trying instead of seeking God, the only person tat can convert you.

 

[OzSpen]

I believe I, earlier, told you to challenge God, from the bottom of your heart.

Bill,

To be able to challenge God, one has to know which God he/she is challenging. Is he/she the God of theism, deism, trinitarianism, unitarianism, etc. Is a generic prayer OK such as: 'God, I don't know who you are, but please show me your nature and attributes'.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

What if that's part of the problem? What if the idea of eternity itself is terrifying? What if Annihilationism doesn't sound that bad? What if damnation means that literally everyone you know is in trouble?

I've got some serious issues, and the liberal bias is really the least of it. Struggling a bit with the concept of eternity as well.

He's certainly welcome to (and maybe He already is), but unless and until He makes it obvious, I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to be doing. You can't magically not struggle with doubt.

Yeah, but religion has nothing to do with any of those things. If the human mind isn't sufficient to fully understand something, or human language to express it, why would you treat the Bible the same way you would a shopping list?

As for mysticism, I'm not really interested in the modern consumer version. It's shallow and inauthentic, but I would hope that the medieval saints knew what they were doing. I really don't understand the hostility, though. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind" seems to encompass at least a bit of mystical dabbling.

No, it's a strawman version of existentialism (both the secular and religious versions). Anyone who thinks Kierkegaard was trying to make Christianity compatible with existentialism knows nothing about Kierkegaard, since he was the father of the whole movement. The atheists ran away with it afterwards, but there was no need to reconcile anything at the beginning. Kierkegaard doesn't talk about a leap of faith but a leap to faith--the argument isn't that faith is devoid of intellect so much as that the religious experience is in a different sphere entirely. I don't think I've seen it said that true faith transcends God's commandments, unless they're referring to "thou shalt not kill" and the sacrifice of Isaac. Kierkegaard did view that as trust in God superceding ethics. Can't blame existentialism for what shows up in Scripture. A lot of the other points are true enough, but oversimplified.

I appreciate Christian existentialism for embracing the idea that rationalism only gets you so far, because I've never seen a philosophical argument that couldn't be torn apart. And I don't think I'm ever going to be able to accept evidence as completely conclusive. There are a handful of things that make me lean more towards "yes" than "no," and I hope to find more, but the problem is Luke 16:31. I don't have an agenda, but if you've spent your life rationalizing away everything, it's hard to make yourself stop.

Nope. Not sure why I'd be worshipping Ahura Mazda, but the bodily Resurrection and the concept of damnation are not things that I reject as unbelievable. My liberal leanings don't make me incapable of understanding what traditional Christianity is about, nor do they mean I'm comfortable with the extremes of Progressive Christianity. I'm actually not.

Haha, I've been doing precisely that for about a month and a half now! No miracles, but I don't think I've been entirely ignored either. But then I backslide again. I felt like I was getting some actual instruction yesterday, and then all the walls went back up without warning. Perhaps specifically because of that.

Silmarien,

As my final post to you, I'd like to pick up on a few of your emphases in this response:

• The idea of eternity is terrifying (that’s a big one for you). This is an example where you are kicking against the pricks - against God's revelation to you eternally. This is what I'm talking about: 'He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end' (Eccl. 3:11 NIV). You may not understand this revelation of eternity, but you need to recognize eternity is right there in your innermost being. I urge you not to resist the wooing of the Holy Spirit in revealing what is there already. An understanding of it is in everyone's heart - eternity.

• Annihilation doesn’t sound bad, you wrote. Of course zapping people out of existence at death sounds better than eternal torment in hell/Hades. However, what's the truth? You'll read about it in Scripture and not in your or my presuppositions.

• Damnation means everyone is in trouble according to your view. This is not so. Biblical facts determine that only unbelievers experience damnation. See: Matthew 25:46 NIV; John 3:36 ESV. I'm sticking with Scripture and not Silmarien's or my presuppositions.

• You can’t magically not struggle with doubt is what you stated. Agreed. Thomas doubted, but when evidence is provided to counter the doubt, doubt should subside to the point of being pacified or removed. Why don't you meditate on Psalm 77:11-15 (NRSV) to help you with your doubt?

• Why would you take the Bible at face value? Because it's a book of history and should be interpreted like any other historical book. Try taking the bombing of Pearl Harbor or Richard Nixon's presidency at other than face value! For the same reason, we take Jesus' death and resurrection at face value. We read the OT and NT and take them at face value because they are predominantly history (except for the poetry of the Psalms and some other sections and the wisdom literature).

• ‘"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind" seems to encompass at least a bit of mystical dabbling’. I think you've missed the meaning. It means loving the Lord with your entire being. I hope you and I are more than mystical beings involved in mystical activities.

• The religious experience is in a different sphere to intellect is your perspective. That's one view. I suggest to you that Christianity involves communicating from your inner being with God and that includes the mind.

• You balk at Luke 16:31 (ESV), ‘He said to him, “If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead”’. That's the human propensity to doubt the historical and supernatural in Christian experience.

• You stated: ‘I don't have an agenda, but if you've spent your life rationalizing away everything, it's hard to make yourself stop’. There’s a paradox in that statement. You really do have an agenda and that is to rationalize away ‘everything’.

• ‘Not sure why I'd be worshipping Ahura Mazda [a god of Zoroastrianism], but the bodily Resurrection and the concept of damnation are not things that I reject as unbelievable’. I found that statement confusing, that you are worshipping a god of Zoroastrianism but you are open to teaching on the bodily resurrection and damnation. Are you wanting to worship a God/god of syncretism?

Thank you for engaging with me in this challenging discussion. I pray that the Lord will guide you into all truth.

'But in fact, it is best for you that I go away, because if I don’t, the Advocate [Paraclete] won’t come. If I do go away, then I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world of its sin, and of God’s righteousness, and of the coming judgment' (John 16:7-8 NLT).​

Blessings,
Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Does anyone know anything about Alister McGrath? I'm enjoying the Anglicans and an ex-atheist scientist sounds really interesting.

Silmarien,

I've only just noticed your inquiry about Alister McGrath. I've read quite a bit of McGrath's material. He's highly recommended; is a former atheist, and now an evangelical theologian who teaches at Oxford University.

I have read these books and have them in my library:

Alister McGrath 1990. The Sunnier Side of Doubt (Academie/Zondervan)
Alister McGrath 1992. Making Sense of the Cross (IVP).
Alister McGrath 1992. Bridge-Building (IVP).
Michael Green & Alister McGrath 1995. How Shall We Reach Them? (Word Publishing)
Alister McGrath 1995. Explaining Your Faith (IVP)
Alister McGrath 1996. A Passion for Truth (Apollos/IVP)
Alister McGrath 1997. To Know and To Serve: A Biography of James I Packer (Hodder & Stoughton)
Alister McGrath & Joanna Collicutt McGrath [his wife] 2007. The Dawkins Delusion (IVP)

Most of these publications are in Britain, so you will need to check out the USA publishers or get them from Book Depository in the UK (free postage worldwide).

I wish you happy hunting in McGrath. The first one mentioned above is aimed especially at your stated need: The Sunnier Side of Doubt.

Why don't you read another Brit, John Stott, on The Cross of Christ (2006 SPCK)?

I wish you good reading!

Oz

 

[Silmarien]

• Damnation means everyone is in trouble according to your view. This is not so. Biblical facts determine that only unbelievers experience damnation. See: Matthew 25:46 NIV; John 3:36 ESV. I'm sticking with Scripture and not Silmarien's or my presuppositions.

Everyone I know is in trouble, I said. That's mostly agnostics and atheists. Though I don't see how either of those quotes actually implies eternal damnation for unbelievers! The Matthew passage is pretty explicitly works, not faith, and even the John one doesn't really cover people who don't believe but somehow end up obeying the moral law anyway. Is there anywhere where unbelievers are explicitly damned (and not just denied eternal life)? A lot of the more colorful language seems to apply to false Christians rather than non-Christians.

• Why would you take the Bible at face value? Because it's a book of history and should be interpreted like any other historical book. Try taking the bombing of Pearl Harbor or Richard Nixon's presidency at other than face value! For the same reason, we take Jesus' death and resurrection at face value. We read the OT and NT and take them at face value because they are predominantly history (except for the poetry of the Psalms and some other sections and the wisdom literature).

Therein lies the problem: I don't take historical accounts at face value. For instance, it's impossible to know for sure if Nero was as terrible as history has made him out to be or if it was his populism that set his peers against him. History isn't accurate and never has been.

I did just read the book that N.T. Wright and Marcus Borg coauthored, which was fantastic in general, and Wright did have some good answers to the historicity issue. It's not enough for me to say "this absolutely happened exactly as recorded," but I'm willing to assume it's as reliable as anything else from 2000 years ago. Maybe more so, since I'm not really worried that the general portrayal doesn't match up to reality the way I am with figures like the aforementioned Nero.

• You balk at Luke 16:31 (ESV), ‘He said to him, “If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead”’. That's the human propensity to doubt the historical and supernatural in Christian experience.

I read that as meaning that if someone is determined not to believe, you can shove the truth right in their face and they're still going to refuse to see it. Which is where I was for quite some time--having a religious dream as an atheist just strengthened me in my disbelief.

So the problem wasn't evidence so much as being willing to accept that evidence. N.T. Wright has been great for that, since he presents a centrist vision that makes sense to me. I don't necessarily believe it, but I could, and that's just as important right now.

• You stated: ‘I don't have an agenda, but if you've spent your life rationalizing away everything, it's hard to make yourself stop’. There’s a paradox in that statement. You really do have an agenda and that is to rationalize away ‘everything’.

Agenda implies intentional motive. It's by definition not an agenda if you're trying not to do it!

• ‘Not sure why I'd be worshipping Ahura Mazda [a god of Zoroastrianism], but the bodily Resurrection and the concept of damnation are not things that I reject as unbelievable’. I found that statement confusing, that you are worshipping a god of Zoroastrianism but you are open to teaching on the bodily resurrection and damnation. Are you wanting to worship a God/god of syncretism?

I meant that I wasn't Zoroastrian. I've come to believe in the Christian God in at least a vague sense--i.e. that God was revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. Given that I do suspect some divine intervention involved in the survival of Christianity, I'll probably eventually believe a good deal more, but I've never actually worshipped before and have no idea what I'm doing.

I've only just noticed your inquiry about Alister McGrath. I've read quite a bit of McGrath's material. He's highly recommended; is a former atheist, and now an evangelical theologian who teaches at Oxford University.

He's evangelical? Anglicans can be evangelical? I thought only certain Protestant groups were considered evangelical! I did read The Dawkin Delusion and liked him, so I'll need to hunt down some more stuff , but I think I'll shift to getting through Scripture for now. I just ordered the Reina Valera Spanish translation--the best way to avoid any lingering hostility towards the Bible is switching to a different language where there was never any hostility in the first place.

 

[OzSpen]

He's [Alister McGrath] evangelical? Anglicans can be evangelical? I thought only certain Protestant groups were considered evangelical!

The entire Sydney, Australia, diocese of the Anglican church is evangelical. The Melbourne diocese is a mixture of evangelical and liberal. Ridley College is the evangelical Anglican College in Melbourne.

However, here in Queensland, the Anglican Church is dominated by liberalism, yet 15 minutes from where I live is an evangelical Anglican Church (North Pine Anglican, Petrie Qld).

In Australia, the Uniting Church is predominantly liberal but there are lights here and there of evangelical proclamation and worship.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Agenda implies intentional motive. It's by definition not an agenda if you're trying not to do it!

That's not how the Oxford dictionaries online (2017. s v agenda) reads in its 3rd definition: 'The underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group.
"Miller has his own agenda and it has nothing to do with football"/

 

[OzSpen]

Therein lies the problem: I don't take historical accounts at face value. For instance, it's impossible to know for sure if Nero was as terrible as history has made him out to be or if it was his populism that set his peers against him. History isn't accurate and never has been.

You don't seem to understand that any knowledge gained from history does not come with 100% surety. It is proof beyond reasonable doubt as the evidence is pursued.

However, that does not contradict taking historical accounts at face value. We take them at face value but there cannot be certainty. In fact, the same applies to what happened to me in Westfield shopping mall (North Lakes, Qld) around lunch today when I purchased some groceries and had lunch there. I can tell you what I encountered, but you don't know for sure that that is what happened.

There is very little in life that comes with absolute certainty. However, that doesn't prevent us from pursuing the evidence wherever it leads.

From the historical evidence we have available about Nero, we have enough information to know that he was no angel and did some atrocious things - as reported by others. However, the accuracy of what happened around Nero's life depends on the dependability of eyewitnesses.

Nevertheless, that does not prevent us from reaching some reasonable decisions about people in history. Are you prepared to discard all that happened around the life of President Dwight D Eisenhower (1890-1969)? Were you alive during his presidency, 1953-1961? Can we accept the information from that time at face value? Do we have enough reliable eyewitnesses to inform us accurately?

Or are we left in a mire of incomprehensible nothingness for the 34th president of the USA?

Oz

 

[eddif]

Silmarien
You would ask questions that start wars.
John 3:17 KJV
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

To answer how a person is lost just crosses all sorts of lines that cause many folks grief.

If you read doctrinal side notes exclusively, rather than side notes checked out by scripture, you / we / I / they will never come to truth.

Acts 17:10 KJV
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Every poster should be checked out with scripture. Led by the Holy Spirit, you need no man to teach you (I am in trouble now).

The word? What word? The secrets of your heart?
I Corinthians 14:25 KJV
And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

If the folks on this web site can not get to the core of who you are, then we have failed. I can not get there all the time. I fail and it grieves me. Every once in awhile you will read a thread where most posters all get to the real issues.

eddif

 

[OzSpen]

Everyone I know is in trouble, I said. That's mostly agnostics and atheists. Though I don't see how either of those quotes actually implies eternal damnation for unbelievers! The Matthew passage is pretty explicitly works, not faith, and even the John one doesn't really cover people who don't believe but somehow end up obeying the moral law anyway. Is there anywhere where unbelievers are explicitly damned (and not just denied eternal life)? A lot of the more colorful language seems to apply to false Christians rather than non-Christians.

Silmarien,

If you pursued a contextual understanding of Matt 25:46, you would see that it refers to the final judgment (Matt 25:31-46) and the nations will be judged (v. 32). Those on Jesus' right will inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world (v 24). Those on his left will be told, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels' (v 41).

Yes, there is a demonstration of genuine faith vs fake faith (those sheep on his right vs those on his left) through the works they do. However, this is a similar message to that of James 2 where genuine faith will be accompanied by works. It is not the works that save, but the faith that is demonstrated by works which confirms that it is genuine faith.

The contrast of those on the left going to eternal punishment (i.e. damnation) and those on the right going into eternal life, is a sure example that Jesus is talking about the final judgment of the nations. The damned go to eternal punishment and the redeemed to eternal life (Matt 25:46).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Every poster should be checked out with scripture. Led by the Holy Spirit, you need no man to teach you (I am in trouble now).

eddif,

If that were the case, there would be absolutely no need for the Lord to give the gift of teachers to the church (see Rom 12:7-8; 1 Cor 12:28-29; Eph 4:11-12).

All of us need God's gift of teachers to teach us. Why? 'To equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ' (Eph 4:12).

Your statement, therefore, is false that we 'need no man to teach you'.

Oz

 

[eddif]

I John 2:27 KJV
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

I know it is a special case.

eddif

 

[OzSpen]

I John 2:27 KJV
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

I know it is a special case.

eddif

The context of 2:26 states that it refers to a special situation where people were 'trying to deceive you'. The fact remains that this does not contradict the verses I gave. There is an exceptional circumstance in 1 John 2.

The controversy comes when we discuss what 'the anointing' is.

Oz

 

[th1b.taylor]

Everyone I know is in trouble, I said. That's mostly agnostics and atheists. Though I don't see how either of those quotes actually implies eternal damnation for unbelievers! The Matthew passage is pretty explicitly works, not faith, and even the John one doesn't really cover people who don't believe but somehow end up obeying the moral law anyway. Is there anywhere where unbelievers are explicitly damned (and not just denied eternal life)? A lot of the more colorful language seems to apply to false Christians rather than non-Christians.

Silmarian,
If you can read the passage in Matt. 25:46 it clearly specifies eternal damnation.

edited

 

[WIP]

Reminder: This forum is not for debate. If you wish to debate a topic, you need to start a thread in the appropriate forum.

 

[Silmarien]

The entire Sydney, Australia, diocese of the Anglican church is evangelical. The Melbourne diocese is a mixture of evangelical and liberal. Ridley College is the evangelical Anglican College in Melbourne.

However, here in Queensland, the Anglican Church is dominated by liberalism, yet 15 minutes from where I live is an evangelical Anglican Church (North Pine Anglican, Petrie Qld).

In Australia, the Uniting Church is predominantly liberal but there are lights here and there of evangelical proclamation and worship.

Oz

Huh. I thought "evangelical" meant something more than "conservative" and that Mainline conservatives weren't evangelicals. Are they synonymous? Obviously conservative Catholics and Orthodox aren't evangelicals unless I have really got everything wrong.

That's not how the Oxford dictionaries online (2017. s v agenda) reads in its 3rd definition: 'The underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group.
"Miller has his own agenda and it has nothing to do with football"/

It's precisely the same definition! Underlying intentions and motives are intentional motives. I don't think bad habits qualify.

You don't seem to understand that any knowledge gained from history does not come with 100% surety. It is proof beyond reasonable doubt as the evidence is pursued.

I very much understand that--you were the one who seemed to be insisting otherwise! I would agree that this doesn't mean tossing everything out, but there is a lot of room between "mire of nothingness" and taking things at face value without asking any questions. I actually do accept the Resurrection, but I'm still aware that there are theories out there positing that the whole thing was mass hysteria. I don't believe that, but it's certainly a stance that exists, and I don't really consider it an unreasonable position.

The problem now is that there's a huge difference between accepting one event and trusting that the eyewitnesses had a 100% correct theological understanding of what had happened. Even with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, disagreement and conflict goes all the way back to Peter and Paul, so I expect to be taking "through a glass, darkly" very, very seriously.

Out of curiosity, you accept that there's no surety in historical accounts but you're also an inerrantist. Do you see Scripture as an exception or do you fully accept its authority despite not believing that absolute certainty is possible? Or a different approach entirely?

Silmarien
You would ask questions that start wars.

It's what I do best!

If the folks on this web site can not get to the core of who you are, then we have failed. I can not get there all the time. I fail and it grieves me. Every once in awhile you will read a thread where most posters all get to the real issues.

You actually already have gotten to me! I'm sure it'll take a while for things to start solidifying, but I'm not going to bolt and run. The issue of salvation is more a curiosity than anything else--my soteriology is pure Eastern Orthodox so damnation looks completely different to me.

Silmarien,

If you pursued a contextual understanding of Matt 25:46, you would see that it refers to the final judgment (Matt 25:31-46) and the nations will be judged (v. 32). Those on Jesus' right will inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world (v 24). Those on his left will be told, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels' (v 41).

Yes, there is a demonstration of genuine faith vs fake faith (those sheep on his right vs those on his left) through the works they do. However, this is a similar message to that of James 2 where genuine faith will be accompanied by works. It is not the works that save, but the faith that is demonstrated by works which confirms that it is genuine faith.

The contrast of those on the left going to eternal punishment (i.e. damnation) and those on the right going into eternal life, is a sure example that Jesus is talking about the final judgment of the nations. The damned go to eternal punishment and the redeemed to eternal life (Matt 25:46).

Oz

Is there anything in the Synoptics that explicitly condemns people to eternal damnation for disbelief? I've only read it once so far so I can't say for certain, but all of the eternal punishment language I remember involve wickedness, not lack of faith. Doubt and disbelief seem to be treated with exasperation, not condemnation, when not accompanied by bigger issues, so I don't understand why people combine the fiery language of the Synoptics with the exclusionary message of the Gospel of John. It seems like the strongest biblical argument based on a literal reading would be annihilation/separation for nonbelievers and much bigger problems for false believers. Even John 3:16-18 doesn't specify what is involved in condemnation aside from presumably not being granted eternal life. Am I missing something?

On a related note, is liberation theology worth looking into? Particularly the Latin American variety? I hear mixed opinions about it, but I doubt it's any more extreme than some secular writing I've been exposed to.