Thoughts on Buddhism

[Carnavon]

I'll be the first to agree with you that "Christianity" appears to be about grace first and foremost. The only problem is that the scriptures themselves are grossly self-contradicting on that very point.

You say, "The Christian perspective is exactly this : Thankful that God in his mercy, and not because of my "goodness (superiority?)" looked kindly upon me and saved me as I am no better than anyone else."

But that's a contradiction right there. Ultimately neither God nor Jesus decides to 'save' anyone. It must be their choice to "repent their sins", and ask for forgiveness, and to accept Jesus as their LORD.

That is of course something debated in Christian circles – those that believe in “predestination” and the “Arminian” school of thought. Of course we must repent and ask for forgiveness, but it is eventually God’s counsel that stands.

In my view the Arminian position (as you seem to reflect here) is a view that gives preference to what we think God should do versus what the Bible clearly teaches – especially Romans- and also wanting to be in control.
Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

But also
Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
Joh 6:45 It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,
Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved—
Psa 33:12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage!

The question then remains: how can God hold me responsible and damn me to eternal hell whilst it was his decision? That is not an easy question to answer, but Paul addresses the issue (v 19,20).
From my perspective, I daily have an option to follow Jesus. I know that I deserve eternal damnation but I trust only on the finished work of Jesus. We all trust in something. Many people trust in the assumption that there is no hell, and this life is all there is to it. I trust in Jesus Christ and his work on the cross – as an atonement for sin.
Jesus' claims are either that of an outright liar, a lunatic or he was speaking the truth (I think it was CS Lewis that said that). Historical facts contradict that he was either of the first two mentioned.
The trustworthiness of the Bible (as far as can be verified) add to my confidence.

So in a very real sense they must 'earn' this grace via their own choice to repent their sins, ask for forgiveness, and make a commitment to obey Jesus as their LORD.

So they can indeed lay claim to a special "goodness (superiority)", over those who refuse to chose goodness over evil (i.e. over sin).

But the whole story is grossly riddled with contradictions concerning this very ideal.

Even Jesus supposedly asked of the Father, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

This is an oxymoron in many ways.

First off, it suggests that people who are doing bad things "know not what they do". And that this is sufficient reason for bestowing them with forgiveness and grace.

Well, if that's true then all non-believers would automatically be eligible for this kind of "Jesus Grace" because, if they don't even believe in the religion and 'sin', then clearly "they know not what they do".

So a mere disbelief in the religion, and a disbelieve that Jesus was the son of God, would be an automatic pardon based on Jesus' own request to the Father that people be forgiven if "they know not what they do".

The second oxymoron is to ask, "Why should Jesus even need to suggest this to a supposedly all-wise God?" Shouldn't the Father already be wise enough on his own to recognize that people who "know not what they do" should be pardoned if righteousness is to have any meaning at all?

Why should Jesus need to suggest to God-the-Father what should be considered to be 'righteous judgment'? Was the Father not already wise and righteous to begin with?

~~~~

I mean, seriously. If a person honestly sees no reason to believe in the ancient Hebrew tales, then even if those tales were true, that non-believer would qualify as "knowing not what they are doing" with respect to rejecting "God's word", because they honestly see no reason to believe in it.

Therefore people who don't believe in the religion would necessarily need to be automatically saved through the "Grace of Jesus", because Jesus himself proclaims that people who "Know not what they do" should be forgiven.

So the whole religion breaks down right there. Especially the idea that a person would need to do anything "special" on their own free will choice (like accepting Jesus as their LORD and savior) in order to earn the "Grace" of forgiveness, etc.

The whole religion is just a Pandora's box of one contradiction after another.

The whole argument is based on the interpretation that ignorance (or indeed rejection) of the law is reason for God to “turn a blind eye” and extend His grace to all. This is contrary to the whole Bible (see judgment).

The question is then how to interpret the words of Jesus and even Steven . From a purely personal perspective, one would pray for the soul of people that you come across, even if you knew that many of them will not be saved. It is a condition of the heart to express this love towards another even if it is not determined what will be the end result. In this remark, Jesus not only did what He said we should do (pray for our enemies), but confirms that those that “see” would not have acted as they did.

One could also ask: What were they ignorant of? That He was innocent? No they knew that. Even Pilate recognised that. That they were killing Jesus? No, that they knew that is obvious. So what were they ignorant of? It seems to me they were ignorant of the Gospel of salvation though belief in Jesus Christ as Lord.

Consider for instance the song by John Newton, in which he says “I once was blind but now I see”. This is exactly the position – we are all blind and ignorant until through the work of the Holy Spirit we are “made to see”. So we cannot claim ignorance or rebellion as justification for God’s grace. (Neither can we claim our goodness, works etc)

One also has to consider that Jesus’ prayer was answered as 3000 came to Christ on the day of Pentecost as an act of mercy and not because they were ignorant.