Ann Coulter: America Would be Better if All were Christian
Ann Coulter, 2007
Photo: Kevin Winter / Getty Images
Recently insisting in an interview on CNBC's The Big Idea, hosted Donny Deutsch, that America would be better if everyone were Christian, Ann Coulter is sure to offend many people again. Some say that's her goal — she's only looking to outrage and offend, not offer serious policy ideas. If we take a step back and look more closely, however, we'll find that what she's saying is just an orthodox, traditional Christian idea.
"If you had your way ... and your dreams, which are genuine, came true ... what would this country look like?"
Coulter responded, "It would look like New York City during the [2004] Republican National Convention. In fact, that's what I think heaven is going to look like." She described the convention as follows: "People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America."
Deutsch then asked, "It would be better if we were all Christian?" to which Coulter responded, "Yes."
Later in the discussion, Deutsch said to her: "[Y]ou said we should throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians," and Coulter again replied, "Yes."
When pressed by Deutsch regarding whether she wanted to be like "the head of Iran" and "wipe Israel off the Earth," Coulter stated: "No, we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. ... That's what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws."
Source: Media Matters
Deutsch sounds a bit upset here, but what could he have possibly expected from Ann Coulter? Is it possible that he thought Coulter might spout off some ecumenical platitudes about how people all really worship the same god and that all religions are just different paths to the same truth? Such vague nonsense is a more liberal perspective and it's precisely religious and political liberalism which Ann Coulter has always rejected as having the least legitimacy in America. She just got done telling Deutsch that her ideal America is one where everyone is conservative, so why wouldn't she express a very conservative and orthodox stance on the supremacy of Christianity?
After a commercial break, Deutsch said that "Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment," and asked her, "So you don't think that was offensive?"
Coulter responded: "No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to live up to all the laws. What Christians believe -- this is just a statement of what the New Testament is -- is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament."
Coulter later said: "We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all."
I thought that Christians thought of themselves as "not perfect, just forgiven"? Perhaps Ann Coulter was just getting confused here... again. She was definitely confused when she insisted that an America that was all conservative Christian would be one where women would be "happier," races would "get along better" and there would be "more tolerance." Just a look at the differences between the more secular and liberal north versus the more conservative south reveals that the situation is better in the north — and then the differences between a more religious America and more secular Europe are even stronger.
There is simply no evidence that more conservatism and more Christianity would make anything any better; what evidence does exist — and it must be admitted that it's more correlative than clearly causative — suggests that just the opposite is the case. Ann Coulter's position is thus not one that has anything whatsoever to do with hard evidence; at best it's a faith-based position that's founded on wishful thinking. It's possible that she's just delusional. She's definitely confused when it comes to little things like facts.
Unable to admit that Ann Coulter said anything that might justifiably upset or offend others, conservatives seem to be seeking someone — anyone — else to blame.
"My response is this," Horowitz writes, "What else would a Christian hope for? That's the message of the New Testament: Jesus came to fulfill, complete, perfect the Law. If you're a Christian, that's what you believe."
The controversy began when Media Matters, a pro-Democrat lobby headed by David Brock, noted Coulter's appearance on CNBC's "The Big Idea" with host Donny Deutsch. Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton recently claimed credit for helping to launch Media Matters.
Source: World Net Daily
At least David Horowitz acknowledges that what Ann Coulter should only be expected from an orthodox Christian. Notice, though, how World Net Daily lays the blame for the "controversy" on others daring to report about Coulter's words. Terry K. at ConWeb explains that World Net Daily is basically channelling Stephen Colbert:
Or, as Stephen Colbert put it: "Hatemongers like Media Matters take innocent statements like mine, Rush Limbaugh's, John Gibson's, and Bill O'Reilly's and make them offensive by posting them on the Internet, allowing the general public to hear words that were meant for people who already agree with us. Hey, Media Matters, you want to end offensive speech? Then stop recording it for people who would be offended." ...
WND appears to have no problem with what she said. In today's reader poll asking, "What are your thoughts on Ann Coulter's comments about Jews becoming Christians?" two responses lead by a landslide: "Ann had the courage to speak the truth – God bless her!" and "The attacks against her show how hostile American culture has become toward the Christian evangelical outlook."
The poll also serves up another possible response: "Ann underestimated the extreme sensitivity of Jews – she could have explained herself a little better." Yeah, when one's religion has been the target of a couple of millenia of eliminationist rhetoric -- which, in essence, is what Coulter is spouting -- as well as outright genocide, it does make one unreasonably sensitive.
Like I said, this is standard, orthodox, traditional Christianity here — for all her problems with facts, evidence, and reasoning, what's she's saying is completely consistent with traditional Christian theology. It's distressing that so many people would offer such answers to such a poll, but it's also to be expected. That's arguably a large part of the problem, isn't it?
I wonder when we'll be hearing from Theo Hobson that traditional, orthodox Christianity is really a "militant" religious ideology? Oh, I forgot, that sort of label is only meant as invective against unpopular groups like atheists and should never be applied in a consistent, intellectually honest manner to one's own religious brethren.
Comments
1- What’s with her switching from “perfected Jew” to “perfected Christian”?
2- In the spirit of the Stephen Roberts quote, I just want to perfect Christians. I don’t see what’s offensive about that
.
Ann Coulter…how did this woman get famous?
“Terry K. at ConWeb explains that World Net Daily is basically channelling Stephen Colbert”.
You do know that Colbert isn’t serious, right? He plays a self-named character on his show who is a spoof of Bill o’Riely (that’s why he often calls him “Papa Bear”). Whatever he says on the show, you can probably assume that he is making fun of people who believe what he said and that he actually believes the opposite.
“Ann Coulter…how did this woman get famous?”
By saying outrageous things.
Yes, I know. That’s what makes WND’s use of the argument so ironic. They are channeling a parody of themselves. If there was ever a sign that parodying the Right may be impossible…
I watched the end of the segment on CNBC the other night.
First, I was taken aback by Coutler’s remark about her ideal world like that of the RNC at New York City in 2004. I guess she did not mind how the local police trampled over people’s rights that week, arresting local residents for walking to the local deli to buy some milk. Others were held for over 24 hours with no access to a lawyer. There were many lawsuits from these arrests and abuse of police power. I guess none of this mattered to Coulter.
To me, my ideal country is one where nobody listens to Ann Coulter, nobody buys her books, nobody puts her on the airwaves.
I’m writing a book. The title will be: How to talk to Ann Coulter,[If you must}
I don’t for a second think that she minded this. Seriously.
I completely disagree. I think more people should listen to her — listen, but also think carefully about what she says and what the consequences of her ideas are. Then, they should always think about how this is the most positive face of conservatism that American conservatives have. Ann Coulter and Conservatism should be wedded in people’s minds.
Oh, I’m such a giddy optimist sometimes. I should stop, really.
I think more people should listen to her — listen, but also think carefully about what she says and what the consequences of her ideas are. Then, they should always think about how this is the most positive face of conservatism that American conservatives have. Ann Coulter and Conservatism should be wedded in people’s minds.
I agree, Austin. I think it’s frustrating when conservatives use code words to say what they really mean. Coulter, on the other hand, is just stupid enough to lay it out there.
>>There is simply no evidence that more … Christianity would make anything any better; what evidence does exist — and it must be admitted that it’s more correlative than clearly causative — suggests that just the opposite is the case.
That really isn’t the case. Google the effects of the Great Awakening on England. Most scholars agree that it keep Great Britian from experiencing a revolution like France experience. Read its effects and the effects of the 2nd Evangelical Awakening on the United States. On both occasions, jails had to be closed because the crime rate had dropped so low. Were there pockets of extreme emotionalism and conflicts between Christian groups during these two periods. O yes, much social good and
societal transformation took place. This all scholars agree upon.
You might also be able to Google and find out some of the changes for the good in the Roman empire because of Christianity in the 2nd -3rd centuries.
Most of the readers of this blog will be quite familiar with the abuses and horrible things done in the name of Christianity during the Middle Ages and beyond, but few will be aware of how much good has been done all over the world.
Please post some links to the evidence to show that the less Christian the better society will be.
Although many Christians and non-Christians like to link Christianity with American conservative political philosophy I think it is a false union and Christianity has been contaminated by it. The reality is that some conservative positions may be more anti-Christian than Christian and some liberal position may be more close to a position that Jesus might take that liberals or conservatives realize. Consequently I’m not sure that Ann Coulter makes the best spokesperson for Jesus Christ and the faith that bears His Name.
It says something that you have to go back several hundred years to find any evidence that might suggest that an increase in conservative Christianity could make things better.
I suppose if you prefer the social and political situation of England of several hundred years ago, that’s sufficient. Or maybe you’d prefer the social and political situation of ancient Rome.
Most people don’t, however, and so the relevant question is whether more or less conservative Christianity in modern, technologically advanced, liberal democracies make things better or worse. The comparison is thus between conservative Christianity on the one hand and the sorts of political, social, and cultural ideologies, institutions, and social structures on the other hand.
Since the only comparisons you could come up with are between conservative Christianity and systems which no one wants anyway, you’re admitting that you can’t make Christianity look good except with a rigged test.
>>>It says something that you have to go back several hundred years to find any evidence that might suggest that an increase in conservative Christianity could make things better.
>>It says something that you have to go back several hundred years to find any evidence that might suggest that an increase in conservative Christianity could make things better.
I’ll try again
>>It says something that you have to go back several hundred years to find any evidence that might suggest that an increase in conservative Christianity could make things better.
I was responding to what seem to be a blanket statement about the negative or the lack of positive effects of Christianity on society. There is plenty of historical evidence spanning back hundreds of years that draws an entirely opposite conclusion. People should be interested in the past because what has happened in the past may indeed be a good indication of the positive effect that Christianity can have on a society and the prevailing culture. As to more recent history I still believe there is ample evidence that shows the positive influence of Christianity on societies around the world.
A side note: I mentioned in an earlier post Ian Bradley’s book “A Call to Seriousness” chronicles the effect of Evangelical Christianity on Victorian England…the book rightly shows that many if not most of the social programs which characterize Britain to this day came through the Evangelical societies and politicians of Victorian England. It is a good read for any interested in documented research.
What we have going on today in some spheres may have less to say about true Christianity and its effects than what it has to say concerning what happens when Christianity becomes something that is Christian in name only and is then mixed with power and politics.
What you and I and perhaps all who read your blog completely agree with is that much evil has been done in the name of Christianity examples of which span the centuries….things which I believe Jesus Christ would disavow more than perhaps we would. Let us all understand that not all who claim to know Christ are known by Christ. And sadly sometimes even those who are known by Him screw up badly and taint the faith that bears His Name.
No, you weren’t. The quoted statement turned on the verb “would” — future hypothetical, current circumstances. It’s not a statement about all past historical situations nor a general statement about the possible effects of Christianity in all possible situations.
Quite irrelevant. The facts I referred to have nothing to do with “evil” committed “in the name of Christianity,” but simply the comparative states of health of societies that are more or less religious, more or less Christian. Whether Christianiity was good or bad in Victorian England is irrelevant unless one wants to reproduce the conditions of Victorian England and live in them. I don’t, and I don’t see you arguing for that.
Given the current circumstances and conditions in current industrialized, liberal, democratic societies, all the available evidence indicates that greater secularism and less religion/Christianity correlate very strongly with healthier, happier, more productive societies. What the situation was like in Victorian England just doesn’t matter for decisions we have to make today about the societies we live in.
>>Given the current circumstances and conditions in current industrialized, liberal, democratic societies, all the available evidence indicates that greater secularism and less religion/Christianity correlate very strongly with healthier, happier, more productive societies. What the situation was like in Victorian England just doesn’t matter for decisions we have to make today about the societies we live in.
To what liberal democracies are you referring?
And
Which of these have not been influenced to a great degree by Christianity in their past?
Europe, for the most part.
Irrelevant, since the question is whether an increase in conservative Christianity now would make improvements. Please, could you try to stick to the actual context instead of wandering astray into irrelevant areas? I realize that you might hope that returning to the past will provide ammunition for your belief that Christianity would make things better, but we aren’t living in the past. Welll, I’m not at least.
Whether Christianity did or did not help anyone a thousand years ago doesn’t tell us whether it will improve or harm society today because social circumstances have changed so dramatically. For that, we have to look at contemporary data about contemporary societies — in particular, the sort of societies we are likely to and/or would like to live in. A religious or political ideology that might have been a great leap forward in the 5th century isn’t necessarily one that is very helpful in the 21st.
But if you have to have an answer to your question, it would be Japan.
“I guess she did not mind how the local police trampled over people’s rights that week, arresting local residents for walking to the local deli to buy some milk. Others were held for over 24 hours with no access to a lawyer. There were many lawsuits from these arrests and abuse of police power. I guess none of this mattered to Coulter”.
Well, what do you expect? Ann Coulter is a bully and a bad person.
“Consequently I’m not sure that Ann Coulter makes the best spokesperson for Jesus Christ and the faith that bears His Name”.
Not sure? I’m pretty sure there couldn’t be a worse spokesperson for anything!
“What we have going on today in some spheres may have less to say about true Christianity and its effects than what it has to say concerning what happens when Christianity becomes something that is Christian in name only and is then mixed with power and politics”.
And what makes one form of Christianity “true Christianity” and another form “Christianity in name only”? Could it be that you are deliberately defining Christianity to exclude the forms you don’t like?
LOL Austin, you are a giddy optimist sometimes.
I should elaborate on my earlier point. To me, Coulter is poison to the political debate. All she succeeds in doing is polarize everyone. I would not want her speaking on my behalf even if I AGREED with her (the remote but not zero chance of that LOL). I would rather have someone like George Will or even Bob Novak in the political debate because they are hardly the polarizing figures Coulter is. I respect those two speakers even if I disagree with them (which is less often than Coulter).
Too many people crave the vile talk of Coulter, which is why she sells so many books. I don’t want her silenced in my ideal world, I just want nobody to listen to her or care what she says.
>> since the question is whether an increase in conservative Christianity now would make improvements. Please, could you try to stick to the actual context instead of wandering astray into irrelevant areas? ……..A religious or political ideology that might have been a great leap forward in the 5th century isn’t necessarily one that is very helpful in the 21st.
We are all products of the past….our parents and our community’s and our nation’s therefore we should not underestimate its power or influence on the present.
As far as I know, there are no liberal democracies which have not been greatly influenced by Christianity. Even Japan is a case in point because it was given its constitution which defines its form of government by the United States.
Back to your point about “conservative Christianity” - that is a term which should be defined to make sure we are both operating with the same definition. That this is necessary is evidenced on another post where you and several others were working from one definition of “theory” and another poster seemed to be working from a different definition. That difference may have been one of the reasons why the discussion seemed to be so frustrating and going no where.
What is often defined as “conservative Christianity” may in reality be a pseudo-Christianity blended with a certain political ideology. If one looks at the past, the political ideology may not be in the mix and the result may be a purer form of Christianity which has had a positive impact on society and I believe will have on the present if not so tied to “conservative politics”.
411314, You are right, Ann Coulter is not a good spokesperson for Christianity
>>And what makes one form of Christianity “true Christianity” and another form “Christianity in name only”? Could it be that you are deliberately defining Christianity to exclude the forms you don’t like?
Good questions. I’d suppose that most professing Christians believe that their form of Christianity is closer to true Christianity than other forms and that is why they hold to their form. I hope that my acceptance and rejection of some forms (of the behavior of Christianity) are not based upon my “likes and dislikes”, but rather upon what the original source of the doctrines of Christianity – the Bible.
Austin goes to great length to explain what atheists believe or don’t believe. He also explains that there are many other things that atheists disagree on and that theists take exception with that really have nothing to do with atheism. The same goes with biblical Christianity. There are core beliefs and lack of beliefs that are central to Christianity and are trans-cultural and trans-time. And there are many, many more things which not essential to Christianity on which Christians differ. I believe that what many revolt against is not so much essential Christianity, but rather how some Christians or professing Christians live out the non-essentials.
True, but irrelevant to the issue at hand. Since you cannot address the issue without reference to irrelevant points, it must be concluded that you cannot actually address the issue.
Christianity is like the American way of life. It is all vapor.
Ann Coulter is a ******* idiot. ‘Nuff said.
>I’d suppose that most professing Christians believe that their form of Christianity is closer to true Christianity than other forms and that is why they hold to their form. I hope that my acceptance and rejection of some forms (of the behavior of Christianity) are not based upon my “likes and dislikes”, but rather upon what the original source of the doctrines of Christianity – the Bible.
Most Xians I know believe their version of Xianity is the one most supported by the Bible–but they still disagree, even on matters as important to them as “what constitutes a state of salvation?” about what the Bible actually says–and they all seem sincere and fairly sure of themselves.
The Church of Christ, for example, believes that salvation cannot be achieved without baptism. Their belief is Biblically supported in that when one takes ALL the stories regarding salvation and combines them to see what factors are comprehensively included, baptism is expressed as required in some of those stories. Their tack is to say: If god says you need X here, and Y over there, and ABC in this other case–then you need X, Y, and ABC in order to be saved.
Meanwhile, some other churches look at the same information and also, very logically, conclude that if Y was missing where X was required–then one can be saved with just X sometimes.
So, the CofC would say, Y is required–and if a person is said to have been saved with X–they also HAD to have done Y, even if it wasn’t recorded in this particular instance, since over in this other story it says Y is required for salvation. The CofC would argue that otherwise you have inconsistent instructions regarding salvation, which cannot be rectified–why would John have to do Y, but Mary has to do X and Y, and someone else has to do ABC? Isn’t salvation supposed to be the same for all? In which case, what is required of John must have also been required of Mary even if it wasn’t stated in the text.
But the “accept Jesus into your heart, and baptism isn’t necessary” protestants will just as rightly point out that if the Bible says Mary was saved and doesn’t say she was baptized–then people can be saved without being baptized.
As far as I’m able to determine, both of these doctrines are fair to the text and potentially correct–based on what the Bible actually states. But the reader is required to make a choice as to what he believes is most accurate reading of the text–and there is no way for anyone to know which way it should actually be read.
The Bible itself doesn’t offer any clarification regarding which reading–if it’s even either one–is accurate. But if CofC is right about what the Bible instructs, there will be a lot of very sincere, yet disappointed “Xians” in Hell (most Xians I would wager will be there–because most protestant denominations don’t teach baptism is a strict requirement).
Welcome back Tracieh.
You are absolutely correct in what you say that CofC teach and they indeed are trying to be faithful to the biblical text. However, I do think that the Bible does offer a clarification.
The CofC as well as most, but not all denominations (yes, I know that CofC says they are not a denomination, but rather the true Church since they are the CofC) would hold that the Bible has no errors and does not contradict itself. So what one should do in the situations were there is confusion is is to ask the question what does the whole seem to teach, and then take the few “problem” verses and see if there is a legitimate way to interpret them so that they are not inconsistent with the main body of teaching. I believe there are legitimate ways to explain the teaching of the few verses that the CofC build their doctrine of salvation upon and show that baptism is not necessary for salvation.
Interestingly, Max Lucado, Minister of Oak Hills Church of Christ who is very prominent within the CofC does not hold to that baptism is necessary for salvation.
Below is a link from oak Hills web-site. I just learned that he retired. The link is the text of a sermon he preached on baptism. www.oakhillschurchsa.org/about/beliefs/baptism.dod.pdf
Yes–I did indicate that I understand that there are many who believe baptism is not necessary–and that their view is also Biblically supported. I’m not sure what your post was intended to illustrate–since I had already called that out in my own post.
Of course I realize that those who hold that Baptism isn’t necessary will say the CofC is not right. And those within the CofC who say baptism is required will hold that those who disagree are not right. Both have very legitimate arguments to support their beliefs. I’m familiar with both and I find flaws with neither. It’s a perspective issue. Still–with both sides saying “This is the requirement for salvation”–someone must be wrong. And there is no determination of which except for each person’s personal choice about how they read the text in order to resovle the issue. Basically, however one can live with oneself.
My intent was to say that even though it may seem that both have very legitimate arguments to support their belief the interpretation, the Bible does offer clarification as to whether or not the CofC is right when they say that a person must be baptized to be saved.
What a reader must do when approaching a difficult passage is to do so with the understanding that the true interpretation will be consistent with the whole teaching of Scripture. I think it can be shown that CocC interpretation of the baptism passages are not consistent with the whole.
The reader then must ask the question is there an alternate interpretation which is linguistically and theologically legitimate and also faithful to the text and consistent with the immediate context. I believe that there are explanations which fit those criteria.
My point in including the link was to show that there are now some very respected people within the CofC who have come to the conclusion that the historical CofC interpretation is wrong. Mr. Lucado is one of those and those who have read any of his books have found a CofC pastor who has a joy, and love and lack of condemnation which is almost unheard of and unsurpassed in the CofC.
tracieh,
It may be frustrating to you that your comments are going right over the head of Carter, but it’s very amusing for the rest of us.
Note that in defending Gibson’s ‘Passion of the Christ’ Coulter sneered at Jesus’ teaching, ‘Oh I guess he said something like “Be nice to each other.”‘ Good Christian Ann doesn’t believe in ‘Love one another,’ ‘Judge not,’ ect, so of course she doesn’t care what Jesus tought, He was a sacraficial goat, not a teacher
That photo of Anne Coulter doesn’t do justice to my neighbor’s Irish Setter.
Ms. Coulter is only blurting out what the evangelical christians believe. Many of them love Israel because in their Biblical end-of-days scenario, the gathering of Jews in the Holy Land is necessary for the Second Coming. Inconveniently for the Jews, the story calls for them to either abandon their beliefs or be exterminated in time for the great Rapture.
What a reader must do when approaching a difficult passage is to do so with the understanding that the true interpretation will be consistent with the whole teaching of Scripture.
And yet another still calling him/herself Christian may still claim they are being consistent with the whole, which is why (s)he’s come to the true interpretation, which still wouldn’t necessarily agree with your own.
It goes nowhere, because ultimately its a matter of a person’s will to feel one has come to the correct interpretation on your bible. It’s ultimately each person claiming its own interpretation as dogma.
I think it can be shown that CocC interpretation of the baptism passages are not consistent with the whole.
CocC supporters, obviously not all such supporters, would claim different. Provided you each continue to rest your claims on presuppositional faith, the term truth becomes another word for chosen personal opinion.
>> And yet another still calling him/herself Christian may still claim they are being consistent with the whole, which is why (s)he’s come to the true interpretation, which still wouldn’t necessarily agree with your own…. It goes nowhere,….Provided you each continue to rest your claims on presuppositional faith, the term truth becomes another word for chosen personal opinion.
That of course is correct, but in this situation the belief is based on perhaps less than 5 verses rather than the whole. The issue is if these 5 verses were removed from the whole New Testament would the CofC still come to the conclusion that baptism is still necessary for salvation. The answer is no because that is not what the whole teaches. Since the entire doctrine is based only a very few verses then these verses should be interpreted in a manner which is consistent with the whole rather than adding something to the whole.
I think it needs to be noted that although the majority of Christians disagree with the CofC’s view of baptism and salvation where the majority and the CofC both agree is that Bible is truth. The difference is in our understanding as to what the Scriptures teach. This kind of thing takes place in the realm of science all the time.. We believe God is speaking in and through the natural world and science seeks to understand what God is saying. The problem is that at times is is not all that clear and as a result scientist misspeak and often disagree with one another, but through study and dialog clarity and consensus often comes.
Carter,
“We believe God is speaking in and through the natural world…”
You forgot to add, “…despite the complete lack of credible evidence.”
Okay. Despite the complete lack of credible evidence in the eyes of a some, we believe that since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen by those who have eyes to see
.
>What a reader must do when approaching a difficult passage is to do so with the understanding that the true interpretation will be consistent with the whole teaching of Scripture. I think it can be shown that CocC interpretation of the baptism passages are not consistent with the whole.
Yes, and they think they can reverse this and show the same to you. Do you kid yourself that the CofC has never addressed the issue of why those who believe in belief only aren’t disregarding Bible passages that contradict _that_ doctrine? I assure you they have–thoroughly.
Both sides are able to “prove” their case from a Biblical stance. I’ve seen both sides do it. It boils down to interpretation and what the individual is willing to assume about what they’re reading.
>His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen by those who have eyes to see
I actually grasp this concept. Nobody, for example, will get presents from Santa unless they really believe. I know this is true, because when I stopped believing in Santa–the gifts from Santa stopped coming. From that time forward, I only ever got presents from friends and relatives.
I know of no existent item that requires belief to be observed. The point of a consensus reality and verification is that _any_ properly functioning human can observe X.
This is the point of Sagan’s “There’s a Dragon in My Garage” story. Things we can’t verify cannot be said to exist. And if people believe things exists that they can’t verify–and that others can’t observe (from anything other than a highly subjective standpoint)–then we call those people delusional.
>That of course is correct, but in this situation the belief is based on perhaps less than 5 verses rather than the whole.
Incorrect! This is a slander against their doctrine. They base their view VERY MUCH on the whole–even including OT philosophy. I don’t know where you got that–but you obviously haven’t discussed the doctrine with anyone familiar with CofC interpretation who still defends it.
There is an entire sermon in the NT that goes into “faith without works is dead”–that they also rely on to show that faith alone doesn’t cut it.
Additionally, they can show numerous passages indicating demons that the Bible says recognized god and Jesus–in other words, to say belief in god is all that is required is to say that demons have met the requirements for salvation.
Additionally, they show that in the OT–even ceremonial instructions, when not followed, were punished by death–including instant death from god. The question they sometimes use is this: If Noah had not built the ark according to god’s instructions, would it have saved him from the flood.
Anyone who has read the OT, and is familiar with the charcter of Yahweh can pretty well say “No, Noah would have perished.”
The CofC _does_ understand there is nothing special or miraculous about the water. Their point is that this is irrelevant, since, in the larger picture, having the will to do what god commands is what is required for salvation–not just accepting he exists–or calling on Jesus as a personal savior.
And those who don’t get baptized are not following the command to be baptized–which, yes, does appear in all of a few verses–but as it is listed as _something_ that one must do to be saved–it _needs_ to be done.
To say they’re disregarding the whole Bible as a whole and focusing on a couple passages shows a great ignorance (or disregard) of their doctrinal arguments.
“Incorrect! This is a slander against their doctrine.”
The reality is that I have and I have on quite a few occasions and to misrepresent what I have been told and what I have read would be dishonest and unprofitable. All the discussions and all the readings ultimately come down to a few verses and our understanding of what these verses teach.
One of the big differences has to do with the understanding of what James is saying when he says, “faith without works is dead”.
The CofC looks at it this way — Faith + Works (including baptism) = Salvation
Others say, no, what James is saying. Saving Faith is a faith that works. Otherwise it is just an intellectual agreement to a truth (demons believe). Or to bring it into the natural realm Does an apple tree bear apples or oranges? Apples. Why? Because that what apple trees do. In the same way, Faith works. That is what it does. If it doesn’t work, it is not saving faith, it is something else.
“ Their point is that … having the will to do what god commands is what is required for salvation–not just accepting he exists–or calling on Jesus as a personal savior.”
I understand their point very well. I also understand that they tell me since I am not in the CofC then I am lost. I also understand that some friends who left the CofC have been consigned to hell because to leave the CofC is to leave Christ. I am not aware of any verse that says that. Are you?
From a CofC understanding
* How many commands does a person have to obey before they are saved?
* How many commands can they break before they are lost?
* Who has ever obeyed fully?….Personally, I don’t know of a single person who has loved their neighbor has he has loved himself even for a day.
* Who has not willfully disobeyed a command of God?
* What if they do something that is wrong and forget to confess it?
If my salvation is contingent upon my obedience I know I’m doomed. The Apostle Paul cried out, “Why do I do the things that I do not want to do?” - which of us has not asked the very same question? Towards the end of his life, he also called himself the chief of sinners. Was he lost? If he was, then my friend there is no hope for any of us. But there is.
Carter,
“…we believe…God’s invisible qualities…have been clearly seen…”
You can see the invisible? What does it look like?