/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Because that wouldn't work, there's only one God and his church needs to be specific and central. If God revealed himself to all nations at once, a lot of them would screw things up and create heresies. God's plan is very specific and it led to the virgin Mary who gave birth to the son of God, and from there Jesus handed the keys to Peter and told his disciples to spread his church throughout the entire world, so that everyone can be brought into this singularity of salvation

>>707984

This is something I struggle with as well

>>707987

There's already a ton of Christian heresies out there though. Even with this plan, billions will be lost. And besides, why are heresies so much worse than false religions? If all the religions of the world were heresies of the same faith, people could look to scripture and historical precedent to find the truth. Instead, some people say "Jesus" and some people say "Buddha" and there isn't a hard definitive way to prove who is right

Now don't get me wrong, I am a Christian as I do believe the resurrection of Christ to be a real event. But I struggle with my faith, and this issue in particular really gets to me.

It wasn't that he merely chose one nation.. but it was a starting point to undo the work of the fallen. 1) Satan corrupted man's inclination towards good and 2) the fallen angels taught entire nations of men all manner of wickedness and secrets they never should have known. So sin was twofold: Both in nature and in culture. Abraham was from Sumer, but God chose this one man to create a breakaway civilization. It wasn't that he was creating "nationalism". God said "Through you all will be blessed". That blessing would be Christ. And it was Christ himself who said "Preach the Good News to all nations." It's ultimately for everyone. God just chose to enact it this way first.

>>708009

Here's something else.. you can take it or leave it.

Deuteronomy 32:8,9

8When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the sons of God.

9For the LORD'S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

^ That bit at the end of verse 8 "sons of God" is from the oldest (Dead Sea Scrolls) manuscripts as well as the Septuagint. The Masoretic text somehow has a copy difference and says "sons of Israel". But the implications of the Septuagint version say a lot. It says the nations were under the domain of the sons of God i.e. the angels. Or more specifically - The FALLEN angels from Genesis 6. The world was corrupted by their work. But God took one nation for himself to purify the earth - that's in verse 9: Jacob (Israel). And then he gave them the Law and commanded them to stay away from these other nations. This would be slow work that led up to the Messiah, who would eventually make a covenant with all mankind.

>>707991

The problem you are having is that you are assuming God to be as limited as yourself and I. We cannot begin to understand Him. As such, proper judgement of His workings is wholly impossible. For whatever reason, that was how He went about salvation of the world. That is unfortunately all that we can say, at least until the Resurrection (should we be saved).

>>707984

He didn’t. Read Romans 1. God is already revealed to the whole world and nobody has an excuse.

11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” d 13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” e

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,

and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” f

16It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” g 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden

>>708099

I think you read that wrong. In my interpretation, the point was that every human on earth was born with a degree of understanding of God's nature, which exists in form of conscience. One may or may not know the full truth of who God is, but there's no excuse for anyone not to follow their conscience.

>>708009

>Abraham was from Sumer

Reality?

>>>707984

>Why would God choose to reveal himself to only one nation? If the goal is for people to know God, why didn't he make covenants with peoples all over the world so everyone would have an equal chance to know him?

Because the initial covenant and the OT was a preamble, a prefiguration of the final covenant and the coming of Christ. Christ could only be born in one nation and live as one man and get crucified once.

The whole redemption story revolves around the crucifixion, this couldn't take place in multiple regions at different times. It had to have a precise and unique historical occurrence.

People already have an intrinsic knowledge of God and morality built into them, and as long as they nurture this instead of suppressing it, they should be just fine. God is merciful and righteous, he doesn't judge people based on criteria they are ignorant of and never heard of, that makes no sense. Even Paul said that pagans have a law written in their conscience they get measured by.

So there's nothing to worry about. All those pagans and non-christians you see are actually ignorant of Christ, even if they "sort of" heard about him in their culture. Very few adamantly reject him after learning about him properly. It's usually due to misinformation and propaganda.

1 John 3:9-10 - New King James Version (NKJV)

The Imperative of Love

<9> Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. <10> In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

Also, read the parable of the wheat and tares.

>>708113

Yes..from "Ur". And extrabiblical tradition states that his father was a priest in their religion and manufactured idols. A young Abram destroyed these idols and caused a ruckus…

Those are folktales at least, but Ur was definitely Sumerian.

>>708102

yours sounds like what could be termed a 'soft' reading (i.e. just referring to conscience), but I know Sproul, so presumably other (small 'o') orthodox heavyweights have a 'hard' reading of that passage (i.e. conscience + [knowledge of] creator). What I was pondering when referring to similar ideas in this post >>706975 that I put it in the effort of thinking about and writing and no one has responded instead only posting silly cat replies :_(

>equal

Maybe God doesn't think equality is the be all end all of the world.

>>708119

>The whole redemption story revolves around the crucifixion,

fine

>this couldn't take place in multiple regions at different times.

why not?

>It had to have a precise and unique historical occurrence.

Says who? Why couldn't God have incarnated in India, China, South America and the Artic? This >>708041 seems to be the only appropriate answer tbh

What if He did, but they nonetheless preferred to worship their idols and forgot about it?

>why couldn't God have done X

>why couldn't God have done Y

>why couldn't God have done Z

Why didn't God make pigs able to fly?

Why didn't God make plants pink instead of green?

Why didn't God make six billion genders?

Why didn't God make 2 + 2 = 5?

Speaking as a game dev who often makes arbitrary decisions about the game I created, you sound absolutely ridiculous to me when you ask questions like that.

>>708904

Well unlike floods it doesn't seem there have been many messiah stories.

Maybe because predestines some unto salvation.

>>708980

The voluntariness behind "the hiddenness of God" and "the search for the Kingdom" depend not only on man's personal qualities (intellect and will) but on distinctly human ones like a good heart**, trust, openness, etc., which in and of themselves stem from man's social nature. In fact, very interesting effects follow from this, like these few:

>A seeking process definitely forces/encourages us to be more 'open' to possibilities. When you have to go looking (esp. when the Target might not be clear in itself) for information wherever you can find it, you definitely have to be more alert, scanning, and open, than when you are simply 'waiting' on someone else to approach you and confront you with compelling arguments/evidences

>A seeking process might encourage more humility of person and spirit. The "I do not know yet" or "I cannot see it yet" or "I might need someone else's help on this" positions are positions of definite humility.

>A seeking process would certainly involve a 'growth' element, since each step of learning would have to incorporate, assimilate, and/or integrate each previous step into the character.

>A seeking process would certainly require patience, and would develop patience as the process continued. Waiting for God to answer questions, reveal aspects of His character, place us in situations in which we had flashes of insight into our own selves and natures, giving Him "the benefit of the doubt" in situations of long-quiet, would develop patience in our hearts–of significant value to our selves, our families, and our communities. And this might help curb our tendency to slander God ("He's not listening–He doesn't care"), as well as to slander others.

>A seeking process would encourage the development of loyalty. As we experienced 'small findings' along the search, our confidence in God's willingness to "meet us" in our search would grow. And, as we came to appreciate His heart more, our loyalty to Him would grow. We would increasingly meet 'disturbing data' with a confidence that God would somehow show us "how it fit" or "how it made sense", since He had helped us through similar problems in the past. Loyalty to others–a belief in their goodness–is a key element of love (I Cor 13) and a core value of New Future life.

http://christianthinktank.com/2many2.html (the rest to be found under item #4 on the list)

And finally, the above seems to be the correct explanation because we can see this dynamic also in the actions of Our Lord:

10* Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" 11 And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12* For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14* With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says: 'You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. 15 For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.'

>>708981

*http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/04/gods-wounds.html

** The good-hearted soul starts with "believing the best" about the other person. He seeks to trust the individual and hopes that his words are true and constructive. He needs a positive reason to begin doubting–not just some general skepticism towards people in general. He needs a strong pattern of clues (not just one) before he decides that the other person is a deceiver, deluded, or just simply misinformed. Sometimes we do have to make this conclusion, but it must be made reluctantly and after all efforts at "making sense of their story" have proved fruitless.

The skeptical heart (as opposed to the skeptical mind) is the opposite–it starts with mistrust of fellow human beings (except itself, for some strange reason) and requires positive reasons to begin trusting a fellow's testimony. This, of course, is the theory–in practice it accepts tons of data from teachers, fellow skeptics, etc., often without proof of any kind. The skeptical heart gives up too easily, when difficulties in a system emerge. It is quick to shout 'inconsistency' without being gracious enough to give the other person an opportunity to demonstrate consistency or give an answer. Positions are too often evaluated on the basis of superficial evaluations and snap judgments.

Why should we try to give others the "benefit of the doubt"? Why should we seek to start out by trusting someone? Why should we give them a hearing when they try to explain difficulties in their system? Simply because that is how we want others to treat us… The Golden Rule is treasured everywhere, and Jesus' version is the most aggressive in the world–"Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6.31) If we want others to give us the benefit of the doubt, we should do the same. If we want others to judge our positions fairly and generously, then we should do so–Jesus' words in Matt 7.2 are very sobering: For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.. http://christianthinktank.com/justlook.html

This is a weird read of Romans 1