Salvation vs. damnation: Biblical Interpretation?

Question

There are so many sects of Christianity, so many different interpretations of the Bible.
If it is so difficult to correctly interpret the Bible, then how can someone be expected to believe any one interpretation?
If you say that you just know it in your heart, then I have to ask why every other sect says the same thing: they know it in their hearts.
Furthermore, if there is one correct interpretation, this leaves the vast majority of Christians as wrong. If it is so easily misinterpreted, how can they be held responsible for having come up with the wrong answer?
You could expand this argument to all world religions.
Please help me understand why one person receives eternal life, while another with just as much faith and conviction will suffer eternally.

Friendly discussion please.

I was thinking and I guess you could expand this argument to include Atheists as well, since their non-belief would stem from a misinterpretation of the Bible.

Sam, if it's easy to interpret, then why do so many people believe so many different things?

Brando, this makes the Vatican a more credible source for correct Biblical interpretation, but it doesn't explain why most people still don't agree, or whether or not they should be held responsible for not believing.

Sorry Sam, the rest of your answer wasn't posted when I responded.
You say that people don't read the Bible with conviction and many take it with a lot of speculation, but isn't it meant for pastors and priests to correctly interpret it, not the people?
And if not, if every person red the Bible with the right intentions, don't you think that there would be a great many more interpretations than there already are?

Exodust, are you saying that the fundamental ideology of Christianity is all that matters? If so, then why not do away with all the sects?
But also, why hold a non-believer responsible for his misinterpretation?

Going2Rock, what can you say about people accepting Jesus when most people of the world do not? A great many do, yes, but can you hold someone responsible for not believing something? Christians make it sound easy to attain salvation, all you have to do is accept Jesus and believe, but it isn't really that simple to make yourself believe something. When it comes to your soul, it's not something to take lightly. Can you blame someone for being a skeptic?

Blastbeatist, I like your approach. I, too, have a deep respect for those who would genuinely seek the truth, but I still don't think those who don't can be held responsible. Some people just don't have the mind for it, and others just don't care.
Peoples' attitudes and feelings are really only combinations of that which is hardwired and that which is learned.
Do you believe that people can chose to be good or bad? Choose to care or not?
And if they can, do they really become these things, or have they really just adopted a philosophy?

I'm starting to think there should be a subcategory of Philosophy for this one...

I read and re-read all of the answers, and it was really difficult to chose a best.

Sam, you were a really close runner up. You had the only answer to the question of widespread misinterpretation: human incompetence.
However, is it logical for a God to ask a lifetime of painstaking study and soul searching from beings who are by nature apathetic, as exemplified by this widespread misinterpretation? Also factor in attitudes from environment, upraising, education... and you have a really low chance for success in interpreting the Bible, or having the mindset to accept that way of life. It seems like Heaven is really hard to get into, whether by luck or your own choices.

Answer 1

I grew up in a Protestant (evangelical) home and based on its teachings, as long as someone accepts Jesus as their Lord and savior and believes that he died on the cross to save humanity's sins, one will go to heaven.

We do not believe in one correct interpretation because we find that that is absurd because of all the historical developments surrounding the Bible and the Church.

As for other religions, we believe in respect for those religions, but we also believe that one will not go to heaven unless one accepts Jesus into their lives. That is why evangelicals are evangelicals- to evangelize and not necessarily encroach on other individuals, but to at least offer people the decision to embrace Jesus or deny Him.

As for myself, I am an on-off Christian. I find it difficult to reconcile modernity with religion because it seems that knowledge and studies are suffice to keep me satisfied and entertained. I do not believe in eternal damnation or heaven.

I believe that people should respect what others believe and help out fellow humans as a moral obligation. This is why I admire Christianity. Christians should follow the ways of Jesus. Jesus was a humble person and reached out to the "undesirables" of society like prostitutes and lepers. Many other religious figures don't associate with these social "inferiors" as far as i know.

I think it's called Latin Averroism (Averroes was a Muslim philosopher I think) where it is believed that intellectuals and people who genuinely care enough to know THE TRUTH about life and its meaning go to philosophy. people who don't care enough and like to accept certain facts turn to religion, yet they both come from a certain truth. Philosophy is a more enlightened form of religion, closer to the truth. I wouldn't call myself very intelligent, but I would like to consider myself in the first category.

We don't need religious fanatics in today's society. What we need are more philosophers.



ADDED:
I think people's environments are the main factors in what their attitudes and values are. If some kid is abused is entire life and nobody has confidence in him, he'll probably grow up to be a misanthrope or some "evil" person. Nobody is born evil, I don't think. As a society, we have to help people who feel marginalized and abused.

Philosophy is closer to the "truth" i believe, but it does have faults in not being EASY to grasp. I think religion isn't necessarily BAD. It can motivate people to do great things and act morally. I have no qualms with religious folk. it's just when people justify personal gain with religion that ticks me off.

Answer 2

You ask some very good although tough questions.
There are 27,000 different sects of Christianity, imagine that.
And who knows how many different interpretations of the word, but every interpretation was done by man, therefore it is flawed, in other words none of them are correct, or should I say perfect, and I can say that because I have over 200 different interpretations. The word says the heart is deceitful, so although everybody believes their interpretation is correct they are deceived.
So now you ask what is the answer?
It requires a lifelong study, obtaining the original manuscripts, learning the original languages, and studying the rest of your life.
HEY, don't blame me, I didn't say, "the path is wide" but "the gate is narrow"
P.S. no such thing as "eternal suffering", it was a bad translation.
Non-believers will be consumed into nonexistence.
LOOKn

Answer 3

its actually fairly easy to interpret the bible. The problem is that not many people read the bible on a daily basis so instead of siting down and reading it, I think they combine it with a lot of speculation.

Couple good pointers: When you are reading a portion of the bible, ask yourself what type of literature it is. he bible has many types. Is it poetry? Then read it like poetry. Is it prophecy? Then read it like prophecy...is it figurative? Is it literal? Is it a parable? A story or narrative? The main objective is to read it as it was written.

You really just have to spend time thinking about what you read instead of non-chalantly coming up with an answer like most people.

It is always helpful to read the context of passages before you come to a conclusion as to what it means....there's too much at risk to be presumtuous. If you only read one verse that seems to imply a lot, read the surrounding paragraph or page to get the whole idea.

Bottom line is that the bible is not a novel. You can't read it once and then you understand the whole thing and don't have to read it again. You have to spend time. You have to allow what is written in it to provoke your thought process. The bible deals with heavy questions and the content of people's hearts so you also have to becareful not to just dismiss certain things. Ask questions like what if? Or I wonder what that was like...take your time. Digest it. The bible was written more to the heart than to the intellect.

Yes, the bible is a complex book but only when you get down to the real nitty gritty stuff. You don't have to master the book....nobody has, but the main message is as simple as pie. You can read it out of one of the gospels. Christ really cares about the welfare of the human race. A lot more than people understand.

Edit: The reason why there are so many interpretations is because not everybody reads scripture in context. Its not enough to have good intentions...This is important: you have to read it correctly. Too many people read different ideas and notions into the passages rather than taking ideas and notions out from the passages. If you read the scripture in context it will flow smoothly...just as a conversation would flow, so was the writings - at least in the NT. And yes it is extremely important for leaders to be able to interpret but it is of extreme importance that all know God equally...not some more than others. And the way you can know for sure who God is and how he works is through the bible. Please feel free to email me and I will help you read it. Its easy to read the bible but you have to read it how the writer wrote it. As if it were even written to you.

Answer 4

There are many denominations, but Jesus only authorized a single Church (Matt 16:18). He gave the Church authority to "bind and loose" in matters of interpretation, forgiveness of sin, and apostolic succession, and he promised this Church that "the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

In the 16th century, Martin Luther came up with a novel idea: Only the scripture tells us anything about God, and everyone gets to decide for himself what God meant. As this idea took root, any wild speculation became as valid as the original meaning of Christ's teaching, as vouchsafed by the only Church he ever established.

Those who want to understand Jesus' message have only to go back to the testimony of the Fathers of the Church in the first few centuries of Christianity. The Fathers were the disciples of the Disciples, and the Disciples asked Jesus questions whenever they did not understand.

Jesus' teachings about salvation are clear from a comprehensive reading of the four gospels, as supported by the testimony of the Fathers of the Church.

Salvation requires baptism, believing Christ and putting faith in him, renunciation, repentance, obedience to God, doing what is right and just, adopting the humility of a child, eating the bread of life, forgiving others, and endurance to the end.

Cheers,
Bruce

Answer 5

all of us has a chance of receiving eternal life. however, this does not mean that each and every one of us will have eternal life. Christ died on the cross for us. His salvation is for all those who believe and receives Him. Jesus wants us to receive Him and grow in Him. He wants to place the truth inside of us.

I John 5:20
and we know that the Son of GOd has come and has given us an understanding that we might know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

Many sects teach different things and it is this interpretations that God warns us about. God does not want many interpretations, He wants us to realize the truth. this can only be done by reading the Bible and asking God to help us realize the truth. Wrong teachings have always abound even in the time of Christ. Paul;s writings to the churches of thessalonians, corinthians, etc. were rebukals of the churches wrong interpretations and teachings.

these wrong interpretations however does not mean that every believer of this interpretation will have eternal suffering. these people have the chance (which is why we are still living right now) to grow in Christ and to let Christ place the truth inside of us. it is p to them and to their leaders to understand Christ and His teachings.

Answer 6

The bottom line answer to your question, is that it's simply a matter of ego.

"I'm right, and you're wrong."

The exclusivity claimed by all religions, is what in my opinion dooms them all to not have an/the ultimate truth. I don't believe there is any such thing, as least that can be explained in finite terms.

The belief that there is a supreme "male" deity that creates and governs the universe, to me is absurd.

Consider our sexuality. If such a deity existed, they would of necessity have to be hermaphroditic: not of one sex, but both.

To me, ultimate reality has no gender assignment. It can only be known thru transcendence and what there comes to be known, can not be adequately defined or expressed on this physical plane.

So all the squabbling over which is or is not the one and only true religion, is a bunch of nonsense.

Yogi,

Wotan

Answer 7

All correct Christian churches agree on the basic doctrine of salvation. Believe and Repent. they also agree that Jesus is coming back to judge the world. So believe and repent before it is too late.

Just because I have faith that trucks don't exist doesn't make it so, the truth would certainly be revealed when I stood out on the highway. just as every knee will bow and every mouth confess, when Jesus returns.

Answer 8

There's a similar scripture in the Bible in which Christ Himself tells us that baptism is required (John 3:5). Personally, as blunt as Christ was, I'm not really sure how people think He was saying it was optional, but even so... If baptism was no longer required after Christ's death, why, then, did the apostles continue baptizing? There are tons of scriptures in Acts and the rest of the New Testament in which the apostles preached on baptism or baptized people. If it weren't necessary, wouldn't they have said Christ took care of it and quit? You argue that Christ never specifically mentioned baptism. Fine, but Paul later explained that to be born of water as part of the baptismal covenant is symbolic of Christ's sacrifice. He went on for a good while about it. Would he have bothered to explain if, again, it was no longer necessary? It would seem silly for him to continue preaching so emphatically on something that doesn't matter, wouldn't it? When we're baptized, it's a symbolic promise we make to accept and embrace Christ. Using your logic, that's no longer necessary, as Christ's sacrifice made it unecessary for us to act on our faith. If we take that train of thought a little further, though, wouldn't this mean that we also don't need to repent for our sins? Christ took care of it, right? And yet repentance was preached BY CHRIST after His resurrection, and by His apostles after He ascended. James also spoke against the idea that we can claim a belief in Christ--claim to have faith, specifically--and yet never do anything to back that up with our actions. You might want to read the Bible again, because your argument doesn't fit.

Answer 9

Well if you don't believe that Jesus died for you and that he is the only way to heaven no matter how much faith or conviction you have in some other religion you will still go to hell.You can accept Jesus in different ways and everyone see's him in a different way just as long as they know he is the only way to God the father.hope that helps and God bless.

Answer 10

The catholic church has always tried to give a clear and unified interpretation of the bible. They are the original interpretors of the bible. It is a shame that the reformation had to happen and the schism of the church. This has resulted in all the sects that you mention. The protestant church does not try to be unified.

But the catholic church does. Check it out.