Is Ignorance Bliss?

[Pancho Frijoles]

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.

But what does "converted to Christianity" mean for you?
Suppose I come back one year later to this Forum, and tell you I got converted into Roman Catholicism, or Quakerism, or to Jehovah's Witnesses. What if I come to share the same doctrinal understanding of @Wrangler? Would I be a Christian and sit as a member of the family you belong to?

 

[Matthias]

But what do "converted to Christianity" would mean for you?

Renouncing all faiths and practices which fall outside of the Messiah’s 1st century form of Christianity.

Suppose I come back one year later to this Forum, and tell you I got converted into Roman Catholicism, or Quakerism, or to Jehovah's Witnesses.

You would be a Christian, but outside of the Messiah’s 1st century form of Christianity.

What if I come to share the same doctrinal understanding of @Wrangler? Would I be a Christian?

Yes.

“Christianity” historically is a broad spectrum.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Renouncing all faiths and practices which fall outside of the Messiah’s 1st century form of Christianity.



You would be a Christian, but outside of the Messiah’s 1st century form of Christianity.



Yes.

“Christianity” historically is a broad spectrum.

Good morning Matthias

I didn't understand your answer. This is what I understood or probably misunderstood:

In your first sentence you seem to think that only those faiths and practices that fall within the Messiah's 1st century form of Christianity would qualify, in your view, as Christianity.
But then, in your second sentence, you believe I would be considered by you Christian even if I was a Mormon or JW.

Could you please clarify?
The context of my question, just to remember, is the participation in the Father's party after the prodigal son comes back repented.
So, more than an academic approach to the subject, I would like to know your personal feelings and views about who to consider sitting with you at the same "table of the wedding of the Lamb", to use Jesus metaphor.

 

[Matthias]

Good morning Matthias

I didn't understand your answer. This is what I understood or probably misunderstood:

In your first sentence you seem to think that only those faiths and practices that fall within the Messiah's 1st century form of Christianity would qualify, in your view, as Christianity.
But then, in your second sentence, you believe I would be considered by you Christian even if I was a Mormon or JW.

Could you please clarify?
The context of my question, just to remember, is the participation in the Father's party after the prodigal son comes back repented.

In a scripture, Acts 20:29-30.

In a word, apostasy.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

In a scripture, Acts 20:29-30.

In a word, apostasy.

Then, do you think that a Catholic must renounce to, say, baptizing babies, or believing that the host becomes the body of Christ, in order to get admitted to the House of the Father for the party?
Here I just want to understand your position in the matter.

 

[Matthias]

Then, do you think that a Catholic must renounce to, say, baptizing babies, or believing that the host becomes the body of Christ, in order to get admitted to the House of the Father for the party?
Here I just want to understand your position in the matter.

I don’t think Catholics give two holy hoots or a shout of glory hallelujah about what I think they (or anyone else) should do. From their perspective, I’m not a Christian. Christians aren’t seeking advice from non-Christians about such matters.

I’m a primitive, 1st century Christian, living in the 21st century.

The vast majority of Christians aren’t. Even the Christian denomination which licensed me is in decline, slowly moving away from it’s historical Christian roots. They are compromising, brought on by the desire to grow in numbers. As with the Catholics, they don’t give two holy hoots or a shout of glory hallelujah about what I think they should do. (I have spoken with them about it.)

It may have gone unnoticed by you but I don’t encourage anyone to join the Christian denomination that licensed me. If someone asked, I would advise them not to, though there are a few congregations which have remained solid. I encourage everyone to join themselves with the Messiah’s 1st century form of Christianity.

 

[Wrangler]

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.

Bingo!

I've heard a sign of intelligence is to be able to entertain an idea without embracing it.

Too many react to an idea that if it is not their's, it is wrong. Earlier today, I had a meeting where I talked about certain decisions that need to be made. Each decision point had various options. Each option had pros and cons. Each option.

One of my strengths as a facilitator is to be able to present options - and their pro's and cons - without bias. Then, I state my bias and why I have that bias. Example: Do you cut a piece of wood on the large side or small side? (By cutting it on the larger size, you can always shave off a little more. Once you go too small, it may no longer work in the application.)

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.

A pastor I deeply respect, Steve Cioccolanti, gave a great caution in even invoking the term heresy. He says that term should be reserved for matters that are a salvation issue, something that would prevent someone from obtaining salvation. Too often, denominations have a long laundry list of beliefs and if you reject ANY of them, you are deemed a heretic.

Are you a Christin heretic? No. You are a Christian apostate. I don't know why some (like me and @Matthias) are called and others (like you) are not. Some time ago, I asked if you ever had a supernatural experience. I believe you said no. In today's devotional reading study note I re-read that a person with experience is never at the mercy of someone with an argument. Having an encounter with the living God - on more than one occasion - I cannot succumb to any argument to the contrary. In Biblical terms, the expression for folks like you is "You don't have eyes to see or ears to hear." I was sealed by the Holy Spirit while an enemy of Christ, who thought much like you. Again, I don't know why some are called and others not but I can tell you are a good man, a thoughtful and considerate man and want the best for you. Amen.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

A pastor I deeply respect, Steve Cioccolanti, gave a great caution in even invoking the term heresy. He says that term should be reserved for matters that are a salvation issue, something that would prevent someone from obtaining salvation. Too often, denominations have a long laundry list of beliefs and if you reject ANY of them, you are deemed a heretic.

I agree totally with that pastor. Actually, I think the vast majority of Christians would agree with him.
The issue is which "doctrines" get selected into the list of those "preventing someone from obtaining salvation".
This is where hot debates start.
I met a lady who believed that Christians upholding the scientific views on the evolution of the species, and not the 6-day creation account of Genesis, could not be saved because they were considering God a liar. They would burn in hell forever.

Take the case of Evangelicals' view on Mormons. Mormons do believe in the deity of Jesus, in his substitutionary atonement, in his bodily resurrection, in his Second Coming... and still, they are regarded as heretics because of their other beliefs.
So, it seems it is not only about what you should believe, but also about what you shouldn't believe, even if the wrong doctrines do not prevent you to believe in the right ones!

Are you a Christin heretic? No. You are a Christian apostate. I don't know why some (like me and @Matthias) are called and others (like you) are not.

Perhaps because I am still new to the forum and most people haven't read what I wrote about my past.
In any case, you may find interesting that, for some "fundamentalist" evangelicals, I cannot be called technically an apostate. This is because I was Catholic, then Seventh Day Adventist, then Mormon.
Since none of those groups are considered to be truly "Christian" in their view, technically I was never a Christian and therefore never an apostate !

I do believe I was an apostate when I became an atheist and lived for about 25 years without "fear of God".
Bahá'u'lláh took me back to Christ. So, although I do not consider myself Christian from a formal, academic point of view, I consider myself a Christian in a deeper sense: I love, honor and follow Christ.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I’m a primitive, 1st century Christian, living in the 21st century.

I do believe you are. Please trust me if I say I am very happy you are.

My questioning is more about what you think the others are. Where they stand and where they will stand. Why would you care to "encourage them to become 1st century Christians".

First century Christianism was not only about enjoying individual salvation, but about spreading the word as "Good News". Wasn't it?

For Christ, every soul is important, even if the soul represents a tiny proportion of the flock.
As in the parable, the Good Shepherd doesn't settle with having 99 sheep safe. He goes out for the missing one, and has success in bringing that single sheep back.

I may be wrong, but I don't think you should see Jesus as being satisfied with having you and few dozens more at the party.

 

[Augustin56]

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?

Hey, Pancho!

I could only provide you with (numerous) examples where someone may be culpably ignorant, since we cannot read minds or souls of individuals. That's God's job. But the principle certainly applies, I believe. One common example is college students who have the opportunity and grace to grow deeper in their knowledge of and practice of their faith while they're in college, but because they are more excited by things of the world (partying, etc.), decide to follow the world for now, thinking they really just don't have time for God, etc. They can wait until they get old to deal with all that. And, yet, every day, someone their age or younger dies suddenly, without warning.

 

[Augustin56]

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.

It's not the Catholic Church that came up with the term "private" revelation. It is referred to in Scripture. Read 2 Peter 1:20-21, where St. Peter warns against personal interperetation of Scripture.

Jesus didn't write a book to spread His truths, thinking that anyone could read it and personally interpret it without error. In fact, until the latest 100 years or so, the vast, vast majority of humanity was illiterate. A "Bible-reading" approach would have excluded the vast majority of humanity from Christianity.

Jesus founded a Church (one Church), which has been here from the beginning, and which He promised that the "gates of hell" would never "prevail" over, i.e., that it would never formally teach doctrinal error. The Orthodox splintered off in 1054 A.D., but retained Apostolic Succession, and, therefore, all seven Sacraments. Protestantism didn't begin until the 16th century, and has been splintereing ever since into literally tens of thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting denominations. That could not possibly be the grounding for the fullness of truth that Jesus gave mankind.

 

[Behold]

Protestantism didn't begin until the 16th century, and has been splintereing ever since into literally tens of thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting denominations.

"rote catholic propaganda", is in every word you just posted.

The fact is, that "Traditions of men" which are the writings of the Church Fathers you esteem...., are truthfully held in much higher esteem than the Bible.
This is why when Catholics go on a rant about "what we've always believed, and always taught", they forget that 90% of that didn't come from a Bible, it came from "church fathers", who "decided" what you believe..

An example of Catholic nonsense is the entire "devotion to Mary", as this is 100% CATHOLIC ONLY, "teaching", from the START.

How do you know?
Its because no verse in the "canonized" BIBLE, ever written by an Apostle..... even hints at any devotion to anyone other then JESUS.
Yet the "cult of the Virgin" is consumed with "mary mania".... to the Core., @Augustin56 ... and you would have to lie to say....>>"well not really".

 

[Jericho]

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?

I've heard this argument before. A large degree depends on how God judges those who have died in ignorance, which is largely obscure. There's only two things God can judge someone on who died in ignorance: how much they knew and how they responded to it.

Paul teaches that God is revealed in nature (Romans 1:20), and each of us has a God-given conscious (Rom 2:14–15). We all have an innate sense of right and wrong, so it will take more than ignorance to be saved. The question is, what did they do in this life with what was revealed to them? That will no doubt have a bearing on their eternal destination.

There may be grace in some circumstances—babies and children who have died, for instance. But grace only covers so much, and I would hate to bank my eternity on ignorance. There's only one sure way to be saved, and ignorance isn't it.

 

[Matthias]

I do believe you are. Please trust me if I say I am very happy you are.

I do. But I also know that you would be just as happy if I were a Nicene Christian, a Mormon, a JW, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, etc.

My questioning is more about what you think the others are. Where they stand and where they will stand. Why would you care to "encourage them to become 1st century Christians".

All good questions.

First century Christianism was not only about enjoying individual salvation, but about spreading the word as "Good News". Wasn't it?

Absolutely.

For Christ, every soul is important, even if the soul represents a tiny proportion of the flock.

The flock isn’t found outside of the Messiah’s faith. To become part of his flock a person must become of his faith.

As in the parable, the Good Shepherd doesn't settle with having 99 sheep safe. He goes out for the missing one, and has success in bringing that single sheep back.

The missing one is one who is already in the flock, not one who is outside of the flock.

I may be wrong, but I don't think you should see Jesus as being satisfied with having you and few dozens more at the party.

I don’t see Jesus as being satisfied with having me and a few dozen more at the party. That you think that I do, or even that I might, is valuable feedback. It tells me that you still haven’t fully grasped my position. In other words, I still have work to do making it clear to you. That’s on me, not you.

 

[Matthias]

I’m confident that you‘ve heard me say that: (1) I am saved, (2) I am being saved and (3) I will be saved @Pancho Frijoles.

I’m certain about (1) and (2). I’m also certain about (3), but conditionally.

(3) is the case where the shepherd goes out looking for the missing one, to bring him or her back into the flock.

(3) hasn’t happened to me, but I’ve seen (3) happen to others. If it can happen to others, it can happen to me. The sheep have to persevere to the end. (See again my favorite parable, the parable of sower.) Some of the sheep wander and are retrieved. Some of the sheep don’t persevere to the end.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I do. But I also know that you would be just as happy if I were a Nicene Christian, a Mormon, a JW, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, etc.

No, in this case I meant it for theological reasons. Any Christian who tells me that he is a Christian of the first century living in the XXI century would immediately attract my attention and admiration. That means they really want to be as faithful as possible to the original teachings of Jesus. In fact, that triggered my interest in sharing with you my position on substitutionary atonement, as the Christian Ebionites didn't believe on it, and still considered themselves followers of Christ, resisting the opposition from "mainstream Western Christians", who were being prepared to adopt the Nicaean creed.

You are brave enough to stand in a theological position about the nature of Christ that defies the views of the majority of your Christian acquaintances.

***

Our understanding of what first-century Christians believed and practiced is limited. Do you agree with me on that?
Hopefully we can still await more discoveries from historians, linguists, archaeologists, that will cast more light.

For what I know from my readings, the most likely thing is that first century Christians held a variety of beliefs and practices.... and while they engaged sometimes in bitter disputes, in general they coexisted in peace. So, during persecution by Rome, I guess we could have found martyrs among those who considered Jesus God, a demi-god, or a prophet. In the Colosseum arena we would have found Christians of strong, moderate or null gnostic leanings.

I mention this because by identifying yourself as a first century Christian, you may want to adopt the attitude Paul and other apostles held to the variety of beliefs they were facing. Most of the times, they were patient teachers, and spent no time in refuting errors on theological grounds, but on moral grounds. I can show you the evidence on the New Testament, if you are interested.

 

[Matthias]

“Be sober and alert. Your enemy the devil, like a roaring lion, is on the prowl looking for someone to devour.”

(1 Peter 5:8, NET)

@Pancho Frijoles I know you’ll recall our recent conversation about who the New Testament writers are writing to. Peter isn’t writing to you. He is writing to Christians; he is writing to the sheep in Messiah’s flock.

The warning is for the sheep. It’s taken for granted that the devil is devouring those who aren’t in the flock. The gospel is an invitation for people to become the sheep of the shepherd. The devil doesn’t give up, doesn’t stop looking for someone to devour. The devil would like nothing more than to devour one of the Messiah’s sheep - and he has.

 

[Matthias]

No, in this case I meant it for theological reasons. Any Christian who tells me that he is a Christian of the first century living in the XXI century would immediately attract my attention and admiration. That means they really want to be as faithful as possible to the original teachings of Jesus. In fact, that triggered my interest in sharing with you my position on substitutionary atonement, as the Christian Ebionites didn't believe on it, and still considered themselves followers of Christ, resisting the opposition from "mainstream Western Christians", who were being prepared to adopt the Nicaean creed.

You are brave enough to stand in a theological position about the nature of Christ that defies the views of the majority of your Christian acquaintances.

It comes at a cost.

***

Our understanding of what first-century Christians believed and practiced is limited. Do you agree with me on that?

No. Everything that is essential to understanding, believing and practicing is known.

Hopefully we can still await more discoveries from historians, linguists, archaeologies, that will cast more light.

For what I know from my readings, the most likely thing is that first century Christians held a variety of beliefs and practices.... and while they engaged sometimes in bitter disputes, in general they coexisted in peace. So, during persecution by Rome, I guess we could have found martyrs among those who considered Jesus God, a demi-god, or a prophet. In the Colosseum arena we would have found Christians of strong, moderate or null gnostic leanings.

I mention this because by identifying yourself as a first century Christian, you may want to adopt the attitude Paul and other apostles held to the variety of beliefs they were facing. Most of the times, they were patient teachers, and spent no time in refuting erroneous on theological grounds, but on moral grounds. I can show you the evidence on the New Testament, if you are interested.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

@Pancho Frijoles I know you’ll recall our recent conversation about who the New Testament writers are writing to. Peter isn’t writing to you. He is writing to Christians; he is writing to the sheep in Messiah’s flock.

You've been clear about your position.

I have not been that clear. So let me try now:
I don't see The Bible as an alien book. It see it as part of my religion.
I see it as part of my religion just as Christians see the Tanakh as part of their religion.
I see the Baha'i Faith as a continuation of Islam, which I see as a continuation of early Christianism, mainly Ebionite, which I see as a continuation of Judaism.

David was not thinking neither in you nor in me when he composed his Psalms.
Peter was not thinking neither in you nor in me when he wrote his letters.
The fact that you formally identify yourself as "First Century Christian" cannot make you a subject in David or Peter's mind anymore.
They have died. It is now up to us (you, me, even an atheist interested in the topic) to let God talk through them and through our brains so that we find the "hidden treasure" for our modern lives.

 

[Matthias]

You've been clear about your position.

I have not been that clear. So let me try now:
I don't see The Bible as an alien book. It see it as part of my religion.
I see it as part of my religion just as Christians see the Tanakh as part of their religion.
I see the Baha'i Faith as a continuation of Islam, which I see as a continuation of early Christianism, mainly Ebionite, which I see as a continuation of Judaism.

David was not thinking neither in you nor in me when he composed his Psalms.
Peter was not thinking neither in you nor in me when he wrote his letters.
The fact that you formally identify yourself as "First Century Christian" cannot make you a subject in David or Peter's mind anymore.
They have died. It is now up to us (you, me, even an atheist interested in the topic) to let God talk through them and through our brains so that we find the "hidden treasure" for our modern lives.

It’s the mind behind David and Peter - not David and Peter - who had me in mind when they wrote.

These writings are for the body of Messiah, his disciples, the Church, Christians.

As a non-Christian you’re trying to have the writings addressed to those who are outside of the body.

As an under-shepherd of Messiah, it is my duty to protect the body.