Will Born Again Christians be the only ones saved?

James Tour is world renowned chemist, who risked his head getting cut off by materialists and evolutionists for making claims and pretty much proving that that abiogenesis is impossible…

 

He is also a Jew converted to Christianity; a Born Again Christian. He seems very sincere to me….

I couldn’t help but wonder if the man of his intelligence believes that only BAC are the only Christians who are going to be saved. After all Jesus himself said:

John 3:3

“Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

If this is true, the great majority of people at UD, including Barry Arrington, KF, gpuccio, TWSYF, News and many others, will not be saved.

I’m just wondering why Barry and others are so supportive of James Tour, BA77 and other BAC, if in the end they are going to be snubbed as it seems BAC will be the only ones who will see the kingdom of God and the rest of so called true Christians apparently will not…

Or, am I perhaps missing something?

88 Replies to “Will Born Again Christians be the only ones saved?”

  1. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Of course, back then they were born again Jews.

  2. Joe Felsenstein Joe Felsenstein
    Ignored
    says:

    I love it that, at Uncommon Descent, Barry Arrington has faced up to the problem of people thinking that Intelligent Design is about religion rather than about science. To forcefully clarify the issue, he puts up a video starring James Tour, a chemist. And the video is devoted to one and only one issue … converting the Jews.

  3. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Joe Felsenstein,

    What makes one a Jew?

  4. Acartia Acartia
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac:
    Joe Felsenstein,

    What makes one a Jew?

    A live and let live tolerance of other cultures and faiths. What do I win?

  5. ABC
    Ignored
    says:

    It’s a sad indictment of Christian’s today that keiths was the only one that could answer J-Macs question. Yes J-Mac, you are missing something!

    Baptism is fundamental for Bible believing Christian’s – it means that you have taken on Christ’s name in addition to your own. That is, when you are baptised you are ‘born again’ because you are not just ‘J-Mac’ but ‘Jesus Christ + J-Mac’.

    This theme was set in the Old Testament (at the very beginning) when the Holy Spirit moved across the waters. This is already pointing us to the fact that water is important. Later, in the oft ridiculed Flood – a ‘baptism’ was delivered, but of man’s making. Yahweh showed us the way (and foretold He would) – He gave His Son. And there is no salvation by man, but by Him.

    So Christian’s are baptised and should be. We take His name – and we should not forget that!

  6. dazz dazz
    Ignored
    says:

    ABC: when the Holy Spirit moved across the waters

    Holy Spirit = scotch

    scotch + water = perfection

    Prove my hermeneutics wrong

  7. dazz dazz
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: Have you tried turmeric for that?

    Just googled that… I’m speechless. Trump needs to nuke Asia. Period

  8. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    ABC:

    Later, in the oft ridiculed Flood – a ‘baptism’ was delivered, but of man’s making.

    And all the little babies got baptized real good.

    Yahweh showed us the way (and foretold He would) – He gave His Son. And there is no salvation by man, but by Him.

    Technically He choose to temporarily give the incarnated human body of His Son.

  9. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    ABC: It’s a sad indictment of Christian’s today

    The Walrus and the Carpenter
    Were walking close at hand;
    They wept like anything to see
    Such quantities of sand:
    “If this were only cleared away,”
    They said, “it would be grand!”

    “If seven maids with seven mops
    Swept it for half a year.
    Do you suppose,” the Walrus said,
    “That they could get it clear?”
    “I doubt it,” said the Carpenter,
    And shed a bitter tear.

  10. Tom English Tom English
    Ignored
    says:

    ABC: That is, when you are baptised you are ‘born again’ because you are not just ‘J-Mac’ but ‘Jesus Christ + J-Mac’.

    Gee, I’ve always assumed that J-Mac was short for Jesus Mackenzie.

  11. Robert Byers
    Ignored
    says:

    Joe Felsenstein:
    I love it that, at Uncommon Descent, Barry Arrington has faced up to the problem of people thinking that Intelligent Design is about religion rather than about science.To forcefully clarify the issue, he puts up a video starring James Tour, a chemist. And the video is devoted to one and only one issue … converting the Jews.

    A chemist, creationists are told, deals with evolutiuonism also as chemistry tpouches on biology. if he fought ID/YEC would he be denied a intellectual scientific prestige?! No! Evolutionists always invoke the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY .
    This is wrong as it should only be the biological, nay even origin biological, community.
    Yet they do it and this dude can see his subject touching on biology.

    The video was not about converting the Jew. Obviouskly its about converting everybody but its establishing someone in the ID movement. I have read threads by him on the discovery blog thing.He is one of them.
    Tour is still a jew. He related how he lived in a segregated jewish area in NY.
    Being jewish is a people group or nation. Otherwise you would be saying any jew who is a atheist is not a Jew. never would anyone say that.
    Its not changinf a ethnic/racial/national identity but only changing relgious conclusions.
    The goyim is told jews are a ethnicity/race and then told a faith group only.
    its the former. i have brushed up against Evangelical christian jews and there have been many.
    If a jewish person doesn’t believe in God and the active god of the old testament then why any complaint with jews being converted? what is the logic here of complaint? i have bumped into it before!

  12. Tom English Tom English
    Ignored
    says:

    ABC: It’s a sad indictment of Christian’s today… Baptism is fundamental for Bible believing Christian’s… So Christian’s are baptised and should be.

    I did my Bible coursework with some preacher boys who never learned the difference between the genitive and the plural. They were no more Bible scholars than grammarians. I saw, time and again, that when confronted with (sometimes huge) differences in what the Bible says and what they had learned to say that the Bible says, they chose to ignore the Bible, and to preserve the heinous lie that they were spreading God’s Word.

    I don’t know the particulars of your dogma, but I certainly do recognize your process. Whatever God’s Truth is, you are no instrument of it. The Truth is not the stuff of reciters of salvation formulas. It’s the stuff of those who have the courage to open themselves to the possibility that they might be wrong — about everything. (If you think that’s an un-Christian notion, then it only goes to show your insularity.) You’re just a coward defending his preconceptions by asserting that they come from the Bible. No one who’s acknowledged, and then grappled with, the complexities of the book speaks of it as you do.

  13. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    ABC: It’s a sad indictment of Christian’s today that keiths was the only one that could answer J-Macs question.

    otoh, it could be a sad indictment of J-Mac OPs.

  14. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Tom English: I saw, time and again, that when confronted with (sometimes huge) differences in what the Bible says and what they had learned to say that the Bible says, they chose to ignore the Bible, and to preserve the heinous lie that they were spreading God’s Word.

    🙂

  15. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Will Born Again Christians be the only ones saved?

    Saved from what? The OP doesn’t say. Don’t you think that something rather important has been left out.

  16. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung:
    Will Born Again Christians be the only ones saved?

    Saved from what? The OP doesn’t say. Don’t you think that something rather important has been left out.

    If you cared reading the OP past the title, you wouldn’t be asking unnecessary questions…
    Alternatively, you can ask Robert for further indepth details about savings accounts…

  17. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    ABC:
    It’s a sad indictment of Christian’s today that keiths was the only one that could answer J-Macs question. Yes J-Mac, you are missing something!

    Baptism is fundamental for Bible believing Christian’s – it means that you have taken on Christ’s name in addition to your own. That is, when you are baptised you are ‘born again’ because you are not just ‘J-Mac’ but ‘Jesus Christ + J-Mac’.

    This theme was set in the Old Testament (at the very beginning) when the Holy Spirit moved across the waters. This is already pointing us to the fact that water is important. Later, in the oft ridiculed Flood – a ‘baptism’ was delivered, but of man’s making. Yahweh showed us the way (and foretold He would) – He gave His Son. And there is no salvation by man, but by Him.

    So Christian’s are baptised and should be. We take His name – and we should not forget that!

    I agree and I did give him due credit for it… What’s surprising to me is keiths’ knowledge of the Bible and the lack of his understanding where the wisdom found in it could have come from…

    BTW: There seems to be another baptism-by fire

    Mat 3:11

    “1I baptize you with water for repentance, but after me will come One more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”

  18. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Tom English: Gee, I’ve always assumed that J-Mac was short for Jesus Mackenzie.

    Now I know why each time I read your name I automatically think of Johnny English Born Again…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU2j_kP6U0w

  19. Seqenenre
    Ignored
    says:

    Die Verwandlung 1:1
    “Als Gregor Samsa eines Morgens aus unruhigen Träumen erwachte, fand er sich in seinem Bett zu einem ungeheuren Ungeziefer verwandelt.”

    The Lord has spoken. Born again christians won’t go to heaven. Only those who have been blessed by the Kafka to metamorph in a completely different phylum will be saved.
    Hail to saltationism!

  20. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: If you cared reading the OP past the title, you wouldn’t be asking unnecessary questions…

    Your OP doesn’t address it. Saved from what?

  21. TristanM
    Ignored
    says:

    Creationists sure do love James Tour. Of course, he’s never published any research on the subject of abiogenesis, but he’s constantly credited as having refuted it.

  22. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    TristanM:
    Creationists sure do love James Tour.Of course, he’s never published any research on the subject of abiogenesis, but he’s constantly credited as having refuted it.

    How does one publish a paper on abiogenesis when his own experiments show that there is not one piece of scientific evidence how inanimate matter could have become animate…

    If you got at least one piece of such evidence, you can share it here…. I’m pretty sure James Tour would be glad to see it too…I can email him…

  23. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: Your OP doesn’t address it. Saved from what?

    From everything (death) other than the kingdom of God…

  24. Tom English Tom English
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac,

    Does the Bible give a clear explanation of the meanings of “the kingdom of God” and “the kingdom of heaven”?

    If so, then provide us with the text. If not, then tell us how born-again Christians can be so sure of themselves.

    According to Matthew, Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, unless you change and become like little children, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” There is no excuse for evangelists to tell people that they must be born again, and not to tell them that they must become like little children. The omission is a gross (and terribly convenient) distortion of the teachings of Jesus.

    I’ve never known a Christian who sought to grow childlike. I’ve never heard of a Christian organization or movement that emphasized it. Yet the teaching resonates deeply with me. I recognize immediately that my life would be better if I were more like a child. Part of me understands immediately what I would have to let go to be like a child. And a thousand parts of me scream that I couldn’t possibly let go of all that. Most of what makes me not like a child is defenses that I acquired growing up. The prospect of letting go of my defenses is scary as hell, even though I understand them as a hell of my own making. Then there is ego: the stuff that I tell myself is important about my self. Let go of that, and there’s nothing but the raw fact of my existence in the moment, with no false ascription of significance to it.

    I think it takes a huge amount of courage to become like a little child. I don’t recall having seen a theologian comment on that particular point, but I’m pretty sure that Kierkegaard and Tillich would have agreed with me.

    So, yes, I sometimes indulge in scatological humor. I am no respecter of religion. But it’s certainly not the case that I’ve thrown out the bathwater with the Baby Jesus.

  25. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Tom English:
    J-Mac,

    Does the Bible give a clear explanation of the meanings of “the kingdom of God” and “the kingdom of heaven”?

    If so, then provide us with the text. If not, then tell us how born-again Christians can be so sure of themselves.

    According to Matthew, Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, unless you change and become like little children, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” There is no excuse for evangelists to tell people that they must be born again, and not to tell them that they must become like little children. The omission is a gross (and terribly convenient) distortion of the teachings of Jesus.

    I’ve never known a Christian who sought to grow childlike. I’ve never heard of a Christian organization or movement that emphasized it. Yet the teaching resonates deeply with me. I recognize immediately that my life would be better if I were more like a child. Part of me understands immediately what I would have to let go to be like a child. And a thousand parts of me scream that I couldn’t possibly let go of all that. Most of what makes me not like a child is defenses that I acquired growing up. The prospect of letting go of my defenses is scary as hell, even though I understand them as a hell of my own making. Then there is ego: the stuff that I tell myself is important about my self. Let go of that, and there’s nothing but the raw fact of my existence in the moment, with no false ascription of significance to it.

    I think it takes a huge amount of courage to become like a little child. I don’t recall having seen a theologian comment on that particular point, but I’m pretty sure that Kierkegaard and Tillich would have agreed with me.

    So, yes, I sometimes indulge in scatological humor. I am no respecter of religion. But it’s certainly not the case that I’ve thrown out the bathwater with the Baby Jesus.

    The Bible also says “…there is no God…” the same way it says “…unless you change and become like little children, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven…”

    I guess I have no choice but start looking for one piece of scientific evidence that life aroused spontaneously…
    If you have one that convinced you the most of that scientific fact, feel free to help me out…

  26. Tom English Tom English
    Ignored
    says:

    Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

    I have nothing sacred to give; I have plenty of pearls to throw. The last swine that turned on me is bacon.

  27. Tom English Tom English
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: The Bible also says “…there is no God…” the same way it says “…unless you change and become like little children, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven…”

    The opening of Matthew 18:

    1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me. 6 If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

    Do please explain how I’ve ignored context.

    You’ve just brought to mind something I hadn’t thought of in decades. When I was taking my courses in Bible, there was a group of my classmates that got together outside of class — the Dead Sea Club. The typical Dead Sea Club member needed an explanation of the name of the club. I’m guessing that you do, too.

  28. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Tom English: Does the Bible give a clear explanation of the meanings of “the kingdom of God” and “the kingdom of heaven”?

    Some Christians argue they are the same. Some Christians argue they are not the same. So I am going to check the box labeled NO.

  29. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: From everything (death) other than the kingdom of God…

    Going to have to go with no then, born again Christians are not saved from a lot of things. But thank you for asking.

  30. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Tom English: Do please explain how I’ve ignored context.

    Luke 9:43-50 (NIV) – Matthew 18:1-5, Mark 9 :30-41

    While everyone was marveling at all that Jesus did, he said to his disciples, 44 “Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you:

    The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men.”

    45 But they did not understand what this meant. It was hidden from them, so that they did not grasp it, and they were afraid to ask him about it.

    46 An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest.
    47 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him.
    48 Then he said to them,
    “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me;
    and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me.
    For it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest.”

    49 “Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.”

    50 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”

    Most scholars agree that Jesus was teaching his disciples a lesson of humility by showing them an example of a child who is more likely to be humble and accept correction than proud adults like them that cared only about who out of them is going to greatest in the kingdom..’
    I’m no bible scholar but I tend to agree that proud people should not see the kingdom of God….

  31. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Tom English: Do please explain how I’ve ignored context.

    You didn’t think that these Jesus’ words had the literal meaning similar to the ones about becoming a child, did you?

    Mt 19:24

    ” Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

    Miracles similar to a camel going through the eye of the needle are only possible in the materialistic, Darwinian theories…
    You should talk to Entropy. His delusions are full of miracles like the camel getting through the eye of the needle…lol

  32. Tom English Tom English
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: Some Christians argue they are the same. Some Christians argue they are not the same. So I am going to check the box labeled NO.

    Yup. The only sane answer. Even if you go with the consensus view that the terms are synonymous, it remains the case that Jesus always described the kingdom of heaven/God with strange and provocative analogies. The Gospels tell us that even the disciples were confused.

    I want to make it clear that this is not an indictment of Christianity. It’s an indictment of book idolatry. The notion that the Bible lays out everything you need to know is patent bunk. You’ve got to bring something to the reading. The Roman and Greek Orthodox churches have traditions tracing back to people who knew Jesus. The Quakers say that the scriptures are illuminated by one’s inner light. There are various ways you can go. And I’ll generally treat them with respect. But it’s unacceptable for educated folk of the Twenty-First Century to perpetuate the ignorance of poorly educated folk of the Nineteenth Century.

    I should mention also that I know guys who responded to Bible education about the same as I did, and who are now ministers. I remained utterly confident in the existence of God, and in my capacity to know the truth about him, for a couple years after completing my Bible coursework. My departure from Christianity was entirely a matter of philosophy.

  33. Robert Byers
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: You didn’t think that these Jesus’ words had the literal meaning similar to the ones about becoming a child, did you?

    Mt 19:24

    ” Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

    Miracles similar to a camel going through the eye of the needle are only possible in the materialistic, Darwinian theories…
    You should talk to Entropy. His delusions are full of miracles like the camel getting through the eye of the needle…lol

    A preacher once said THE eye of the needle was not a literal needle. instead it was a reference to a opening in a city, that at night had barred all entrances. The camel had to get on its knees and move forward which was very difficult but was done.
    Plenty of rich men enter heaven in fact relative to those people we are all rich.
    it meant that richness lead to pride, since the man saw his ability as the origin of the riches, and this interfered with a humble acceptance of Gods salvation plan.

  34. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Robert Byers: it meant that richness lead to pride, since the man saw his ability as the origin of the riches, and this interfered with a humble acceptance of Gods salvation plan.

    I bet Robert came up with this answer on his own… alternatively he eased up his fondness for the drink and googled it…

  35. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Tom English: My departure from Christianity was entirely a matter of philosophy.

    I was hoping that it was a matter of seeking the truth…

  36. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Tom English: The notion that the Bible lays out everything you need to know is patent bunk.

    Where did you learn that? Same bible studies that taught adults to become children? Maybe Robert attended the same seminar?

  37. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    I don’t thinks BAC understand what being Born Again means. I think it is a sacred thing I have little insight into it…

  38. ABC
    Ignored
    says:

    Tom English: I did my Bible coursework with some preacher boys who never learned the difference between the genitive and the plural. They were no more Bible scholars than grammarians. I saw, time and again, that when confronted with (sometimes huge) differences in what the Bible says and what they had learned to say that the Bible says, they chose to ignore the Bible, and to preserve the heinous lie that they were spreading God’s Word.

    There are certainly many things to get hung up on. We are looking at scripture with “dim eyes”, so the original meaning or intention is not always clear and is often interpreted in different ways.

    I don’t know the particulars of your dogma, but I certainly do recognize your process. Whatever God’s Truth is, you are no instrument of it. The Truth is not the stuff of reciters of salvation formulas.

    The reciters learnt from the Best. It’s foundational to Christianity (that is, death is not the final ‘answer’). But let’s see what you have…

    It’s the stuff of those who have the courage to open themselves to the possibility that they might be wrong — about everything. (If you think that’s an un-Christian notion, then it only goes to show your insularity.)

    I don’t think this is an un-Christian notion. But, no “Good News”, no objective truth in your assessment? Just the “courage” to admit you might be wrong (or right) about everything.

    You’re just a coward defending his preconceptions by asserting that they come from the Bible.

    “The wicked flee though no one pursues, but the righteous are as bold as a lion” (Prov. 28).

    Did someone pursue you?

    “I remained utterly confident in the existence of God, and in my capacity to know the truth about him, for a couple years after completing my Bible coursework. My departure from Christianity was entirely a matter of philosophy.”

    Nope.

    “No one who’s acknowledged, and then grappled with, the complexities of the book speaks of it as you do.”

    It certainly is a complex book, and the grappling will probably go on until the Last Day. My humble opinion is that the message is clear enough – even though we can barely see it.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.