Wired Mesh

please, aaron, tell us what it means to be saved and how you know it to be true...

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, Bill, but I'll assume not:

To be saved is to be redeemed by the blood of Christ, by his atoning death and resurrection. This redemption is applied to the individual by the work of the Holy Spirit regenerating his/her person, bringing repentence for sin and faith in Jesus as the Son of God. I belive that both Catholics and Protestants, despite severe deviations from Scripture in both camps, can and do include tons of people who have been so regenerated, who do trust Jesus as the Messiah.

How do I know if a person who says he is saved, really is saved? I don't. You don't. Marvin Olasky doesn't. God does, but he isn't telling. All we can do this side of Jordan is take a person's confession at face value, unless his or her actions have been declared by the church as rebellious against Christ. (This of course grows immediately more complicated when the church in question is the Roman Catholic one, which has sadly proved unwilling to enforce much disipline in the 20th century.) There is also the Scriptural statement that we are to judge men by their fruit, balanced by the scriptural injuction against claiming that we have no sin. That's a hard balance, I think, and it requires both boldness and humility.

So I am offended by the flippant dismissal of a person's confessed belief, especially to make a political point, even if the person's faith is made suspect by some of his actions. But you didn't ask about that, so I won't rant about it any further...

>To be saved is to be redeemed by the blood of Christ, by his atoning death and resurrection. This redemption is applied to the individual by the work of the Holy Spirit regenerating his/her person, bringing repentence for sin and faith in Jesus as the Son of God. I belive that both Catholics and Protestants, despite severe deviations from Scripture in both camps, can and do include tons of people who have been so regenerated, who do trust Jesus as the Messiah.

But what is man to DO to achieve salvation? And how do you know? (Go with me here...)

I'll try. Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, and you shall be saved. I know that because that's what the Bible says. I know that the Bible is true as a matter of trust of an authoritative, divine source. (That's where it starts to get complicated, and where I start talking about human selfishness and the need for the Other, and sound like a bad Walker Percy knockoff. So I won't.)

I walked the sawdust trail, and then done got slain in da spirut

Bill, Mesh being the bizarre fusion of a charismatic & presbyterian, cholked full of affection for Roman Catholic sensibleness about theological issues, recognizes a deep seated tension 'tween man's choices and God's control of all things.

Therefor, it is true that one must have faith in Jesus Christ to be saved, but its also true that God gave and made such faith come to past.

So, thinking that (and for many other reasons), Mesh (and I) are a bit more sympathetic to the RC folks that the usual evangelical camp is, largely due to our belief that the evangelical camp isn't very thoughtful in both its theological and political posturizing. Ya, its an arrogance thing...or something.

Poing being, you're arguing with folks with an argument we made ourselves way back when. And I'm guessing Mesh wont wanna march down that road again, probably because he detests theological arguments.

But anyways, the Reformation, the break with Rome, it was a necessary thing, but a necessary evil. Like the Luther movie said "you didn't really think there wouldn't be a cost, did you?"

While Baptists, of the Southern variety at least, are those most often guilty of suckling at the teat of Republican pandering Bush's denominational affiliation is actually Methodist. Interestingly enough, for a denomination whose national influence has become increasingly marginalized over the last 10 to 15 years (read nose diving attendance numbers on your average Sunday morning), the same can be said for VP Dick Cheney as well as Democratic VP running mate John Edwards.

Oops, you're right. I had conveniently forgotten that point. Interestingly, the vast majority of Chattanooga politicians are Methodists as well, even though the town is a hotbed of Presbyterianism...

For what it's worth: I'm not sure any candidate will get my vote, but I will say that Olasky must not realize Kerry is an easier sell because his past doesn't involve alcohol, cocaine, screwing around in college, cutting corners in National Guard service or proudly proclaiming that you don't read the newspaper.

Sorry we didn't get to meet when I was in Chattanooga.

Josiah-

In terms of your above post, define what you mean when you use the word "thoughtful."

Don't question Josiah! Question me! I'm cooler!

But seriously, Bill, did I answer your questions in a way that made sense? Our dialogue just seemed to stop there, after I defined what one must do to be saved. I had figured there were more questions coming... If you'd rather chat over a Coke, that's even better.

Bill, I'd charactarize the modern evangelical church, as represented in alot of megachurches, CCM, and a big bunch of the pentacostles, charismatics, and fundamentalist baptists as 1. ahistorical (no sense of their history, inparticular the church) 2. ungracious/unloving in their engagement of culture & interaction with people and 3. moralistic or simplistic in their view of the Gospel, which feeds into 1 & 2

Now, I say that a. believing the Bible is the inherrent, infallible Word of God b. am voting for George W. Bush and c. kinda thinking most liberals are wackjobs. So like, don't just chuck me into the camp of "one more stupid liberal" or anything like that, when on a given issue, we'd probably agree and I might agree with a given evangelical Christians stance on an issue.

Most of my complaints these days boil down to method and tone.

Oh Josiah--

I am doing no lumping. Just asking questions to elicit responses, so that I don't have to write them myself.

By no means an argument, thought my earlier debate tactics do probably lend a reader to think that I am, indeed, arguing.

Of course, you are painting with as broad a brush as possible with your characterisations of evangelicals -- in the same way Mesh was bugged by Olasky's characterisations of the RC's.

I would wholeheartedly agree with your last two paragraphs.

I own said documentary, and there are some glaring commonalities between what the German govt. did that allowed that incident to happen, and what we are doing -- and what some people want us to do -- here, in our country, in 2004.

And what did the Munch terrorist (the ONLY surviving one) say at the end of that film? That he was PROUD of what he had done there...Even now, after 30+ years...

You can't reason with evil. If the 1972 Olympics aren't the quintessential example of that, I don't know what it is...

I think we are GOING to see a much broader campaign in the Middle East, and that Iraq and Afghanistan are but small parts of it.

so, much as the preceding comments are interesting and engaging, i have nothing to add. i only want to ask you, mesh, if there's a way that i can hear your movie reviews all the way up here in philadelphialand. i want to know what you said about garden state (and future films).