Heaven: How to Get In

As per our other discussion, the suggestion is that the mechanism of salvation is operating wrt to yourself at this very moment - the outcome of which has yet to be decided. This, from 2 Thessalonians 2, gives some insight into the criterion by which your salvation will be decided upon.

quote:

---

10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

---

It is being suggested in that other thread that you are surrounded by good (truth) and evil (lies) and that you chose (love) both one and other millions of times over you life. It is also suggested that the mechanism of salvation establishes which you have your heart set on in a final sense. The best that can be suggested is that if you want to be saved then don't refuse to love the truth - for if you don't; refuse to love / suppress / resist / deny the truth to the point of damnation then the truth itself will work on you and lead you to salvation. Don't worry that you yourself can't establish yet what the truth is - your not being able to do that doesn't alter the fact that;- you are exposed to it by God
- you can make choices for/against it
- it can cause change to occur in you and lead you to salvation.In practice I don't think you can influence things consciously - this affair is carried out primarily at heart-response level, not at conscious level - although you will be conscious of your suppression/non-suppression of truth if you observe yourself closely enough.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The delusion referred to here would, I think, be the intellectually/emotionally satisfying alternative to God which all unbelievers wrap themselves in. An example of which would be the naturalistic view of the universe which excludes the need for God - although declaring 'not-yet-known' aspects of the explanation. God, I think, permits this to be so as to support the unbeliever in his heart-sourced unbelief. It's not unfair of God to do so - the choice against must be as enabled as the choice for if the choice is to be a fair and balanced one.The verses' reference to those who delight in wickedness refers, I'd argue, to the final response of the person. Their last word on the subject as it were - at whatever point God gives up his pursuit of them. You are right to say that folk delight in wickedness at all points along the way but at those points their heart isn't fully hardened and they delight in truth too. They are works-in-progress, still malleable clay whereas the ones in the Thessalonians passage are oven-hardened into their final, lost form.Edited by iano, : change over-hardened to oven-hardened

It's certainly not popular in Christian circles and here isn't the place to go into why not. But it's interesting to take the opportunity provided by Truthlover to point out that works-based salvation is the basis for salvation in every major Religion and sect - bar for Christianities salvation by faith alone.Call it Christianities Unique Selling Point

Such as? The first point to make centres around your canon vs. a Christians canon. You have writings of certain people which I assume are taken by you to reflect the words of Jesus. In order to give them the weight you do, I'd go further in assuming that you consider them in some way heaven sent (ie: very accurately reflecting the words of Jesus). Fair enough?Now I do the same with the writings of other people - including eg: Paul. So far so equitable.The question now is whether or not the balls can be juggled and in the case of Jesus words harmonising with Pauls words there isn't an enormous problem. Certainly so, if reading Jesus words through the equally important lens of Pauls words. If you can't juggle the two then of course it's an either/or - in which case folk are likely to err on the side of Jesus (or in the case of one stripped-down-canonist I know, to only those bits of the gospels which didn't interfere with his reincarnation doctrine)Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Question for you. Given Jesus' definition of what constitutes murder, do you think this rich young ruler was accurate in his self-assessment in this regard? And if not, why do you think Jesus suggested there was only one thing he lacked - with breaking the law on murder not being it?Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

double postEdited by iano, : No reason given.

My caps.Edited by iano, : oops.. insert caps

Christianity generally recognises God as the empowering agent behind a mans repentance and attributes salvation ultimately, to Gods grace. So no, my point isn't nullified so.- My apologies for being non-specific unto wasting your time.Let me expand on the spirit behind the term 'salvation by works' by describing works as anything you do or don't do in order to get on the right side of whatever deity/deities/energy/lifeforce/etc that lies at the root of the religion in question. And let's describe salvation not so much an issue of heaven instead of hell, but as 'a positive afterlife outcome' vs a negative one. Thus, a works-based salvation can be said to involve your doing/not doing things in order to ensure a positive afterlife outcome for yourself.We don't have to look too deeply in order to conclude the Kondhs religion works-based according to this definition, Hinduism being awash with works.

quote:

---

The Dongria are Hindus with syncretic beliefs combining animism. Their pantheon has both the common Hindu gods and their own...
  —Wiki

---

Similarily..

quote:

---

Noahidism (Wikipedia, 2009) Noahidism is a monotheistic ideology based on the Seven Laws of Noah. According to Jewish law, non-Jews are not obligated to convert to Judaism, but they are required to observe the Seven Laws of Noah...

---

- Again, my apologies if I've wasted your time (although in my partial defence I'd remind you that I did bracket my original claim to major religions and sects - recognising that there might exist, somewhere in the world, a religion aside from Christianity who'd buck the works-based trend. But as your your examples demonstrate, even the minor sects can be trusted to produce those same..er.. goods.- See later..- Every man and woman? But Paul tells us that the natural (unsaved) mans mind cannot understand the things of God, that such things are but foolishness to him. What use this wisdom of Jesus to every man and woman if that wisdom cannot, per definition, be considered by them as anything but foolishness. You might as well tell a pig to fly.And what of those who could never have access to Jesus words - living as they did on the other side of the world when they were being written down? Are you suggesting something along the lines of Calvinisms abominable "for God so loved the ... elect"?And how can anyone nullify huge swathes of the Bible when what was written is there for people to see and judge for themselves? Your not supposing your dissent the result of your discernment with all the others gullible fools by any chance?- Are you suggesting that Christ's split blood (assuming for a moment that it is indeed the means whereby sin can be forgiven) could only be effective from the day he died, onwards? This would fly in the face of Romans 4 in which the means of our justification is modelled on Abrahams example - with the statement that that self-same mechanism applies to us today and that it hinges on Jesus death and resurrection.

quote:

---

23The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, 24but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousnessfor us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
  —Romans 4

---

Now if Abraham is justified by faith (distant past) and we are justified by faith (present day) then what problem with that man-in-between-times on a stretcher being forgiven too when he, like we, firstly demonstrates his faith?- Yes. But if the 'us' referred to happen to be those who are born again/in Christ then we are already relying on Christs blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sin. That would be the operative mechanism by which forgiveness occurs. It need not be mentioned at every opportunity ... although 1 John does.

quote:

---

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

---

We can't strongly establish the sense of two types of person (the saved/unsaved) from 1 John but it is elsewhere made clear enough so that we can assume the 'us' to whom 1 John is addressing itself, to be the saved. The saved will sin and do, as Jesus points out, need their feet washed - even though they themselves are clean- John wanted Jesus murdered?-

quote:

---

Universalism (Wikipedia, 2009)

---

See my comments in defence above re: major religions and sects: Islam, Roman Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jehovahs Witnessism, Mormonism .. that kind of thing. The point being that if someone was considering where to dip an investigative toe in the religious water, then a works-based Religion isn't perhaps the best one.- All scripture is God breathed. Whilst some parts deal with bigger issues than other parts and so can be considered to be more important than other parts, I can't see how one could take one part as being more authorititive than another.I understand that you've arrived at a personal canon by convoluted means. Whilst admiring the time and dedication that must have gone into such a pursuit, it's indicative of a means of salvation open only to the very bright and of those, to only the one's with access to the means whereby an accurate opinion as to what is and isn't God-inspired can be formed. Call me simple, but if it's possible to reconcile the text by straightforward, internal means, I don't see the necessity of suspecting it of being erroneous/uninspired.For example: are ransoms and sacrifices mutually exclusive things? I think not. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that if the unit of currency used to pay the ransom wasn't considered precious by the recipient then the efficiacy of the ransom would be seriously depleted. - In a nutshell? You don't have to do a thing.Consider the picture of a fisherman catching a fish - whose nature is geared towards staying out of the fishermans reach. If the fish is landed it is due to the fisherman exhausting the will of the fish using the hook and line to exert a force. The fish hasn't done a thing to contribute to it's being landed. If the fish is lost it is due to the will of the fish insisting on it's escape. God, although a skilled fisherman won't insist on a person being saved if the persons will insists otherwise.

quote:

---

2 Thessalonians 2:10.. they perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

---

Refusal to love the truth is the act of will in question, the wriggling off Gods hook. It's an insistance of will unto damnation. So you can say that salvation doesn't require we do anything - God will do the drawing in to himself .. and that damnation requires we do something - we pull ourselves away from God.- Fair enough. As I say.. One mans twisting (ransom vs. sacrifice) is another mans reasonably straightforward, if multi-layered, puzzle. A ransom deals with that part of the problem which indicates man a captive and slave to sin. A (self)sacrifice deals with that part of the problem which demands that any forgiver pay the price of the transgression against himself, himself. If men require both release from captivity from sin and forgiveness of his sins, then he needs both a ransomer and a self-sacrifice.I don't see the problen in God providing the two (and more) in one.- So far I've not seen reason to side with either. Harmony is to be found.- Your two doctrines can be summed up in one. Works. Or they can be summed up in one. Grace. The former demands you succeed in the challenge or else Hell. The latter demands you succeed in the challenge or spit in the face of unconditional love.I'm inclined to suppose the latter as providing the greater by way of motivation. Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : Slight mods + some reformatting so as to being to approach the layout quality of a typical Bailey postEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Bite size is fine - What I prefer is; "How does one avoid being saved?" for that is what pulling away from God results in if one pursues that option to the bitter end - the successful avoidance of salvation.Or to put it another way: everyone will be saved except for those who successfully avoid it.Or to put it another way: salvation is the default destination you'll arrive at - all you can do is get off along the way.It's all down to your will..- Avoidance involves suppression of the truths to which we are exposed by God (via eg: conscience). That suppressing action is the result of an act of our will. Baby step example;- one of God's truths to which we are exposed is that stealing that which rightfully belongs to another is wrong. Yet we steal. The way we do that is to suppress this truth (or to put it another way; we ignore our conscience). We decide they can afford it. We decide it's not rightfully theirs. We decide it doesn't matter because we don't like them. We decide it'll pay them back for some hurt, real or imagined. We self-justify in other words, to fill the void left by the suppression of that which pronounces to us on the justness or otherwise of our actions.On the other hand we might not steal. In which case truth hasn't been suppressed and it's restraining hand (in the face of temptation to steal) holds us from sin. You could picture it as if we were suspended over the sin by a thread of truth: no act of will is required in order that we stay suspended and out of sin. The only thing an act of our will can achieve is to suppress truth - which effectively cuts the thread - resulting in our plunging into whatever the sin happens to be.The truth is instrinically lovable/admirable/attractive because God, who is truth is intrinsically loveable/admirable/attractive. Exposure to truth will result in that response from us: we will love it, admire it, find it attractive - unless we will otherwise. Exposure to truth will restrain us - unless we will otherwise.There's a baby step for now: the mechanism whereby we are pulled in Gods direction by God ('s truth) or we pull away from God (and his truth) by act of own will. Where we finally end up is an associated matter, reliant upon this general mechanism. The subject of another baby step or two.____________The above mechanism see's a place for expression of our will in one direction only and that direction is contra-God. Any movement towards God is the result of his will unto drawing us - not our will contributing. In other words; in order for us to be drawn in the direction of God, our will only has to do nothing/ not express itself. This idea aligns with the notion of man's spiritually dead-to-God nature as expounded upon by Paul. It also aligns perfectly with the doctrine of salvation by Gods grace and action alone.The landed fish takes no credit for his being landed - for he did, precisely, nothing to contribute. He merely didn't refuse to love the truth and so was saved.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I'm not sure what penal substitution (a mechanism through which grace is applied) has to do with the point raised. The assertion was that it is God's grace that lies at the very root of all aspects of salvation. For example: where would Abraham get his faith - if not through the gracious action of God?- When referring to the major religions, including ones that have no salvation as such (eg: Buddhism), expanding definitions so as to arrive at an all-inclusive phrases such as "positive afterlife outcome" is a necessity.- It plays a part alright. Just like believing on the one who God sent plays a part. Just like being sanctified plays a part. But the critical point - the fulcrum over which you tip from lost-to-found isn't, I hold, repentance. The tipping point is a little further back at conviction - for it is only the man convinced he his wrong that has his mind changed to the new view.Which is why the Spirit is sent: to convince the world of sin. Jesus insisted a man repent alright, but issued the command to those who had the (convicted) ears to listen. Without open ears his call falls on deaf ones.God is the one who convinces men and in doing so opens their ears. Their subsequent repentence is but a consequential domino fall - not a starting point.- I dunno that it has a name. Whatever it's called, 100% of the credit goes to God for my salvation. There isn't the merest whiff of an act of my will to sully the glory and honour due to him.- Again, I'm not sure where p-sub fits in this given that it's merely (if I might respectfully use that word) a mechanism whereby God applies grace. Kind-deed works or keeping-to-law works differ not at all from human ritual atonementworks. All rely on you and your actions for a positive afterlife outcome.If the Kui's 'Christianity' is a works based version then they haven't evolved at all.- Er.. I undertood Noahidism to be posited by you as a system concerned with a positive afterlife outcome (P.A.O.) which was not reliant on works. If it's adherance to the 6 laws is critical to a positive afterlife outcome then it's a works based system. If adherence the 6 laws have nothing to do with a P.A.O in Noahidism then I'd be interested in hearing what does have to do with a P.A.O in that system.I'd bet my bottom Euro that it centres on works of some sort.- One rule or a thousand rules. All works.- Cast your mind back from whence we came. I pointed out to an unbeliever that a distinguishing feature of all but one 'religion' is that they are works based. Someone poking around at the edges of investigation (a not unreasonable possibility given that said person is engaging in a religious discussion) might find that noteworthy.Something to put in one's pipe and smoke for a while. What about parts of the Bible that refer to him as a sacrifice? Will they do - or are we still singing from different Himsheets?- That's an Everest-sized 'when'. The proof is in the pudding - it's simply not in man's range of abilities to live like Jesus said he should live.- Yes.How often have unsaved men read Jesus and admired his teaching and rated him as a remarkable man - yet failed to understand his dire warnings. How many stood by him at his death of the many followers he garnered? How often have unsaved (and saved at times) men read Jesus and concluded a works-based salvation when the standard Jesus set was an impossible one to reach. Did Jesus ever insert a "try your best to.." before his instruction to live according to the standard set?- Despite..

quote:

---

Romans 4:25He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

---

..? You'd agree that if we're reading from two hymnsheets then discussion is rather pointless?- Did Jesus instruct Peter to go learn what that meant?Matthew 12:7 has Jesus direct these comments at the Pharisees in what appears to be a straightforward condemnation of legalism (ie: works). The reference both here and in Hosea would have me suppose that God isn't truly interested in man's sacrifices at the expense of humane treatment of others.Which is an altogether different thing to God being uninterested in his own sacrifice, ie: the lamb of God. Which reminds me: what kind of parallel do you yourself suppose for this expression, "the lamb of God"? Are you suggesting there is no sacrificial element involved despite it being so apparently obvious?- An all powerful God who applies mechanism instead of magic - the magic involving how you might square the notion of universal unconditional love with the requirement that you do something in order to ensure you continue receiving it.- I don't recall denying p-sub other than to mention (iirc) it not being mentioned in a particular passage (which says nothing about whether p-sub is the way it is).Neither do I see how something relying on Jesus death and resurrection in anyway diminishes the purity of the grace directed us-wards. Perhaps you could tease out for me why you think purity would be diminished - I'm getting curious about the depth of your arguments.- First the conviction, then the changing of mind: commoner garden logic and experience tells you that much. Abraham didn't first repent btw - he believed God. Same as me really.- Hymnsheets - issue stalemated.- Hymnsheets actually - issue stalemated.- Perhaps. Although it's looking increasingly unlikely given our respective canonika.-

quote:

---

Matisyahu 26:4 They planned to arrest Joshua by stealth and kill him.

​

Mark 14:1 Two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread,The chief priests and the experts in the ToRaH were trying to find a way to arrest Joshua by stealth and kill him.

​

Luke 13:31 At that time, some Pharisees came up and said to Joshua, Get away from here, because Herod wants to kill you.

​

22:2 The chief priests and the experts in the ToRaH were trying to find some way to execute Joshua, for they were afraid of the people.

​

John 11:48 If we allow Joshua to go on in this way, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary and our nation.

​

...

​

...

---

I'm not sure I understand what the problem is here. The Establishment had nefarious reasons to kill Jesus and succeeded in doing so. The ineffective (and ultimately undesired by God) system of blood sacrifice, a system which demonstrably doesn't change the evil hearts of men, is replaced by a system of blood sacrifice which does change the evil hearts of men.Hasn't that an elegance that causes the breath to catch - so much so it's worth highlighting:

quote:

---

a system which isn't the antidote to evil is itself destroyed by evil - making way for a system which is the antidote to evil?

---

Evil shoots itself in the foot the day it put Christ on the cross. What could be more elegant than that!!- Antinomianism is a charge all to frequently levelled by those who have difficulty in swallowing their grace neat.Captivation by the law of the Spirit of life that is in Christ Jesus isn't a picnic, let me tell you. But compared to the law of sin and death - however few you happen to boil it down to..- Trick answer: as many as can be reconciled within the theological mechanism whose wheels I watch turning smoothly. If there's a spanner thrown into the works at some point in my travels I'm sure I'll notice something grinding to a halt - such is the nature of mechanisms. And if the machine should collapse to the point of my arriving at a works-based salvation then you'll be the 2nd to know - there's another works-based-salvationist I know who I promised to tell 1st.- Sorry, I thought your canon included Pauls/other epistles to some extent what with your praise of Truthlover who shoehorns at least some of them into his works doctrine.On the basis of different hymnsheets I'll ignore subsequent discussion based around that difference for timesake- Er... I didn't say we're all saved. I said you don't have to do anything/avoid doing anything in order to be saved. You'll have seen my post outlining the mechanics of that so I'll not say much more about it here.As to why telling? To gospel is the power of God unto salvation and is worth sharing in order that it's power is spread. Not to mention Jesus' instruction that we do so.- Aah I see your point!It's a semantical issue I know, but the intention behind 'doing' was eg: "help the lady across the road / offering up human sacrifice" and my intention behind 'not doing' was eg: "not stealing". Both being works YOU do/don't do to ensure youself a positive afterlife outcome.To further underline the point let me suggest that you can't choose to love the truth so can't do something for your salvation in that regard. And not doing by way of a "refusal to love" is something that results in your damnation - so can't be considered relevant to your getting a positive afterlife outcome either.- You've an uncanny nose for kicking all the ..er.. interesting challenges into touch.As you will.- I dunno that that's much of a response.Anyway, Jesus burst that rich young rulers bubble with a well-aimed arrow. An arrow that circumvented the need to debate him regarding his murder (murder as understood by Jesus) of others. I imagine he'll do the same to any proud enough to suppose, as that young ruler did, that they are capable of meeting Gods' standard. Hopefully for them the puncturing of their balloon will happen on this side of Judgement.Did you notice that mans question btw? "what must I do to inherit eternal life"? And his finding out that I couldn't do what Jesus demanded? There's a message in there for all the other I's in the world who suppose they too can do something to inherit eternal life.The disciples recognised the impossibility of man doing. You don't.Once you appreciate the standard Jesus sets for you, once the arrow that would deflate your own particular bubble strikes home, you too will be panting for salvation by grace, like a deer pants for water. It was riches in that young rulers life - it'll be something else in our own. We've all got a balloon(s)- If only he had said "Try your best to love the Lord your God..."But he didn't say that. He commanded "You shall love..."And you don't love - not with ALL your heart, soul and mind.Happy (if ultimately fruitless) working, Bailey.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

They were until I saw the length of response .In order to pare things back a bit, I'll limit responding to those parts of your post that (appear to) rely on positioning one piece of scripture above another (ie: Jesus words more authorititive than Pauls words in forming our doctrine). Since there is no meeting ground to be had, merely restating your/my point from our respective position is a bit pointless.If I'm mistaken in my application of this 'rule' in any instance you can perhaps be so good as correct me?- If salvation at sea is by rescue helicopter and not by anything we did to contribute, then an examination into the workings of a helicopter engine (the means whereby salvation was delivered to us) represents a besides-the point.Not that I've a problem with looking at the workings of the helicopter engine. It's just that it has no bearing on salvation by helicopter alone. Consider it a sub-set of the main topic.- Different hymnsheets (ie: Jesus-as-sacrifice would address these objections)- I'm not suggesting that anyones faith should or did arise from a ritual atonement killing / Christs sacrifice.My point? Faith, in the general sense of the word, arises out of our being convinced. For example, I have faith that my brakes will stop me because they have done so before - my brakes have provided me with conviction unto faith in them. I also have faith that my friend Brian would prove a good scuba diving buddy - because he's proven himself level- headed and reliable in other parts of my life. Brian has provided me with conviction unto faith in him as scuba buddy.If our faith in something generally, arises out of an action by that something itself, then we can suppose the specific case of Abrahams faith to arise out of something external to himself too. That something being an action of God. Thus; ..is incorrect. Our part (faith) is actually the result of a prior action on God's part. That is, if it wasn't for his prior action, I wouldn't have faith. Meaning it's all of his grace.The spirit was sent to convict. When we are convinced then we shall believe/have faith.- Granted - if only to avoid a discussion about the sin one is supposedly saved from in Buddhism.We can return to the central point from whence we came; Buddhism, like all major (and a great many minor) world religions and sects, is through-and-through works based. Obtaining a PAO is contingent upon what YOU do.- It's hardly necessary. If there is but one way to God then all the other ways are false from the outset. There being one person behind these false ways (satan) it's hardly surprising that the underlying lie is the same in all cases (your salvation relies on you). And when you don't find works you'll find out-and-out denial of a just and holy God (Atheism/Agnosticsm/Universalism).Or are you forgetting the point from whence we came?- Different hymnsheets (ie: two states of lost and found with no distinction being drawn as to the type of sinner one happened to be influencing the nature of salvation).That said, there are many ways to arrive at the bottom of the barrel an so be brought to your knees. Sickness, depression, addictions, perversions, loss, approaching death. The gospel accounts give us many examples of the kinds of wretched needs that brought people to God.- Different hymnsheets (ie: the gospel of Jesus Christ includes statements about the state of sinful man before God. It delivers the bad news which makes the good news so good).Delivery of the gospel is our task. Conviction (or application of the gospel), the Holy Spirits. Personally speaking I don't aim to convince folk - rather, discussion is used as a Trojan Horse for delivery of the gospel.- Sure. I'm assuming we agree that "eyes/ears" refers to spiritual discernment? If so then it is clear that the command cannot have been issued to those who can't hear/see. It's irrational to command something which can't respond to do something it can't do.And the only time it makes sense to do otherwise is when God is doing the empowering - like commanding the lame to walk or the blind to see.

quote:

---

"...the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14-15

---

- Your demonstration only highlights different hymnsheets. You are either lost or you are found. If lost and yet to repent you won't "love the idea of seeking and serving God, as well as their fellow wo/man" for you are at emnity with God and hating God. The best that one could be doing is seeking and serving a god of their own manufacture.- I doubt it. The discussion seems to spend most of it's time pointing out that we're reading from different hymnsheets - You can't answer Yes or No to an either/or question but seeing as you demand It was an act of God's will.Remember though that it's an act of God's will if it comes about. It can be prevented from occurring by an act of my will. Which brings us back to the actual topic at hand: the mechanism of salvation or "How you get to Heaven"Remember the fisherman analogy - the one where the fish can't contribute to his being caught, his being caught being the will of the fisherman? But that he can contribute to his escaping the fisherman.- There is no inconsistancy - for this is actually what I stated in msg 59.

quote:

---

Refusal to love the truth is the act of will in question, the wriggling off Gods hook. It's an insistance of will unto damnation. So you can say that salvation doesn't require we do anything - God will do the drawing in to himself .. and that damnation requires we do something - we pull ourselves away from God.

---

You'll see that 'refusal to love' is an act of the will - ultimately leading to damnation if persisted in to the bitter end. 'Loving the truth', on the other hand, doesn't require an act of the will. The truth is loveable and will evoke our love unless we will to resist it. In other words: will active (in the only way it can be active) results in damnation and will inactive/passive results in salvation. That was the analogy given by the fisherman story - fisherman analogies being used by Jesus.Your error here is to re-formulate what I've said so that we "will to love the truth".It might be worth noting that the mechanism I'm describing here works well in an environment where we haven't a free will (requiring God to be the one to pull us in a direction we can't will for ourselves - if we are to be saved). It's a scenario majored on by Paul (ie: helpless enslavement to sin) and one I'd say the Calvinists have right.- Hopefully I've set your mind at rest given the above? God is responsible for our being landed if we are landed (all by God's grace). We are responsible if we are not landed and are lost (all by our will)The place for predestination, I hold, is limited to 'what has been predestined to occur to those who are saved by the above mechanism' (they are placed in Christ, are justified, are to be made holy and righteous (sanctified). What isn't predestined is who is to be saved. That element of (hyper?)Calvinism is, I think, an abomination.- The helicopter analogy might have pointed out my confusion in this matter.If you want to discuss this element of the mechanism then perhaps you could revive that yet-to-be-dealt-with portion of a previous post of mine in which the-forgiver-pays-the-price-of-the-offence-himself was posed as a rational for the sacrifice.- Eliminating human-sacrifice eliminates a human-works element, I don't know what the Kui believe now. God presenting and slaughtering his own sacrifice is a completely different matter to man doing such a thing. You need to take the matter up with his doing so - not a Christian being the beneficiary of his doing so.- Fair enough. So what happens if, between transgression and repentance, one get's run over by a bus?- It appears I win. Follow the rules or else. And if you don't follow the rules, an act of your will will sort things out - provided you can steer clear of buses in the intervening period.- Where was Paul so abundantly clear about this?- There is no action on my part involved and no expression of will. What possible work of mine could be left?

Not having a photographic memory the best I can do is say that I don't recall Jesus ever referring to himself as a sacrifice.I can't for the life of me understand what positional advantage you think such an admission could give you.- Ditto above. The stripped down deck you're dealing from demands you conclude works. If God isn't doing the removal then the only other show in town is you.- Of biblical proportions it would seem. Jesus way of living didn't include sinning - indeed, he is quoted as saying to folk that they should go away and sin no more.Do you suppose anyone ever followed that instruction? Do you suppose they ever will?Question for you (and an outline summary in plain speak would be appreciated): under what circumstance would you see yourself as arriving in Hell instead of Heaven?- Er...Christ.First things first: the natural man can't understand a darn thing - not of Christ and not of Paul. The saved mind however, will understand Christ a lot better when he first understands the mechanism of salvation. Paul is the one to go to if understanding mechanism is your interest.- But my one hymnsheet includes things your one hymnsheet doesn't - for instance, those commentaries you refer to. What now?- Hang on a sec - aren't you attempting to circumvent issues with your attempts to ringfence the discussion? Take the first couple of points at the top of this post. "Did the Anointed One (the whole Anointed One and nothing but the Anointed One) say.."...as if something is being established thus?- Er...the passage itself actually condemns Religious legalism if you were to take the time to quote it - and not a pletora of verses scattered hither and thither to make the case you make.Besides... ...the NT "commentaries" are replete with a parallel imagery comparing physical nation Israel/spiritual nation Israel and physical chosen people/spiritual chosen people and physical Jew and spiritual Jew. Their assertion is that Christs sacrifice was aimed at a spiritual end and not a physical one.No wonder the legalist/works religionists prophecy wasn't fulfilled in the physical. It was never intended that it would.I can't countenance your not being aware of this spiritual-level parallel and so wonder why it is you halt where you halt. You know the theology and merely strip it from your deckAnd move from grace to works. Why?- The Matthew passage condemns legalism. Legalism applies the letter of the law without reference to it's heart/purpose. You've seriously mis-read.- Fair enough - John the Baptist was presumably mistaken when he announced Jesus as he did.I'd take the time to resinstate the point about God's interest in his own provision by way of sacrifice not being the same as any interest he may/may not have in one's supplied by man - in the (contested) case that he provides a sacrifice.The two would clearly be different things about which God could have a wildly differing view.- You might:a) have to follow certain commandments and when you failed to do so..b) ensure you repented of your failure and subsequent sin.It would appear that failure to follow these steps would result in the withdrawal of a P.A.O. Could you explain how God's love can be unconditional (you say) whilst at the same time (you appear to argue) demanding that you fulfil conditions for it's continued flowing in your direction?- That much has been established ..phew!- As ever, it's a question of whether or not you can juggle the balls of the Bible. Stripping away that which is inconvenient to you (with John the Baptist apparently being the latest casualty) is one way to juggle a reduced set.- ?Grace refers to something that comes from God. The purity of that grace isn't affected by the false/misunderstood prophecy of men, nor by the murder by men for own nefarious reasons.Perhaps you could argue why Gods provision of sacrifice and punishment of same (were that the case) in any way affects the grace we receive in purity terms?- Perhaps not . But you have avoided certain questions I wouldn't have minded seeing a response to.

Is this so? Not being an OT scholar I was under the impression that Abraham believed God on the issue of God promise of an heir and that that belief what credited as righteousness.I mean, anyone who believes that murder is wrong believes God. That doesn't mean that they are credited with righteousness.- Yes, yes. But the contention is that the paradigm shift doesn't happen in a vacuum. The contention is that repentance is the result of something prior happening, which results in the turn around occurring. In your example above: what would cause Abraham to conclude his former pagan religion erroneous if not some or other revelation from God to indicate it erroneous. Does not... ..repentance is a result of a previous action. Not a stand alone action in itself? No credit need accrue to one who repents - they repented because of information they were exposed to which caused a change of heart. It's the person who doesn't repent in the face of sufficient evidence who gets the credit for their suppressing action. For it is only suppression of evidence that would prevent repentance occurring.Suppression of evidence is equivilent to refusing to love the truth.- Because of an act of God - first. Conviction by action of God then > repentance by man. That is the sequence. Otherwise you've repentance in a vacuum. And nature abhors such non-sense.- Exactly like me. Abraham comes to the Father through Christ - just like I do. Whether or not we are agreed on how that occurs (mechanically) isn't relevant to the fact that we both do.Unless Jesus saying so isn't included in your canon?- There is stalemate when we don't agree whose arguments are to be considered authorititive. Quite how you expect fruitful discussion when vast swathes of the Bible aren't held authorititive by you is completely beyond me.- Paul was a paradigm shifted Pharisee you'd agree. And what problem his being single? Is there some kind of safety in numbers?I can't quite understand your conclusion 'nonsense' either when Pauls writings dovetail with Jesus and the OT and render salvation by grace in the face of a world awash with works based religions. Is it the very singularity of that mechanism of salvation that causes such ire?- Except that a heavy reliance in placed on your ability to safely arrive at the conclusion that this section is more authorititive than that section of the Bible. Sure enough, I'd do the same with what the RC church includes in it's (works)canon - but you're talking vast swathes of the NT being set aside in your case.I'm not sure quite what sort of brothers that makes us - nor quite sure what we hold Jesus to be anointed for.- Fair enough..- Could you spell this out for me? I'm in agreement that Pauls former (legalistic salvation) interpretation was erroneous. I'm not of the opinion that his rejection of that erroneous view should lead anyone to conclude him lawless. I've not heard that view - neither would I accept it if I heard it.Paul is extremely concerned with the law. But it's his view of the function of the law which changes so dramatically. Rather than being something lost men adhere to in order to be saved (the law of sin and death), it's something meant to lead lost men to Christ. And when they are saved, to be changed in heart to observe the law (the law of the Spirit of life) from heart. That said, the law will condemn a lost man in the case he appears before God at Judgement in that lost state.It's the same law in the sense of what you should and shouldn't do. It's a different law completely in terms of why you should consider obeying it.There is no contradiction with his leader here that I can see.- Animal sacrifice? Er..Jesus was God. Translation: ineffective (albeit it shadowing the effective in type) animal sacrifices are replaced by effective God sacrifice.- Your ringfencing again for reasons I cannot comprehend. Christ as mechanism operates before, during and after his death and resurrection. Abraham saved in him, Paul saved in him, me saved in him.- Of course you wouldn't. A works-based salvation relies upon YOU doing - not Him doing.- I've mentioned elsewhere where it is I think predestination applies: certain things are predestined to occur to those who are saved. I don't consider predestination to mean that this one is sure to be saved (not matter what) and that one is predestined to be lost (no matter what). The latter view is an abomination in my view.I am not obligated to obey any law of sin and death simply because such law has no juristiction over me in the place where I currently reside (in Christ). Each and every one of my transgressions lands at the foot of [i]his/i cross.I am captive to the law of Spirit of life that is in Christ Jesus however so I'm not free to sin as I like. I have the Holy Spirit within who balks at such a notion and wars against my sinning. Beside, it's not as God doesn't discipline those whom he loves - unto death as Paul points out. God will not be mocked - whether you're a child of his or not: a man reaps as he sows.If your suggesting that the fact of my sure salvation means I'd thumb my nose up at Gods requirements of me then you'd be sorely and somewhat ludicrously mistaken. Remember that I'm fully aware of the existance of an Almighty (and I mean Almighty) God. Can you imagine how BIG he is? Working out my salvation with fear and trembling ...indeed.- It's becoming evident that you don't consider Jesus to be God. I know, I know... "where did the Anointed One say that he was God"- The mechanism of salvation .. indeed God's general purpose and plan can be examined .. mechanistically. When examined so, a point is reached where certain foundational elements are in place and you form an understanding as to it's movement and working. So when James says something like "faith without works is dead" it's looks at first flush as if a spanner has been thrown into the well-functioning by-grace-alone mechanism. Until you realise that the faith established by grace alone is intended to be made manifest, is intended to be worked out (with proper awestruck fear), is intended to be stood like a lamp on the top of a hill. Indeed, it's the very exhortation typically contained in the second half of the Pauline epistles. To paraphrase:"..in the light of what God has done for you and the status you now occupy as a result, it is fitting that you should do this.."So if I get around to something in Mark that appears to throw a spanner in any central work I'll question whether it truly belongs in the word of God. Until that time, the weight of the mechanism rolls smoothly enough on.- Fair enough. It's just that previous dealings with Truthlover have revealed works-at-the-core of salvation.- Might I suppose that sterling effort is required in order to ensure that you've not a whole lot of repenting to do. Surely it's not sufficient to live as you please wrt the law, then spend a brief moment repenting?The greatest lies (with respect) are those that align themselves closely with the truth. Works based is works based - no matter how you dice it.- How does an "Anointed One only" and one who appears to believe that Jesus isn't God ..say such a thing with a straight face?- I refer to it as salvation by Gods grace alone. You do nothing to contribute.- There is a post dealing with your specific question. Perhaps there is the place to interrogate and request specifics and not this generalist posting? God uses his children in the process and mechanism of salvation. This isn't unusual in that he has a long history of dealing with sinful man through other men - including through the God/man Christ. The power of salvation remains his - we become the medium.That's one reason to spread the gospel. To expand the medium whereby salvation and a knowledge of Jesus comes. As to your own model whereby: forgiveness and other such deeds? It's the result of a stripped down canon and we've said enough on that subject- Er.. Jesus is God and I didn't offer him up. God did.- There were certain kids who, when called in for their tea, take the ball home with them. Such a practice isn't fitting in adults and so I remain in possession of a Bible indicating Jesus to be the lamb of God. On this is my argument based - not on your stripped down canon.And concerning Gods lamb. God was the one doing the killing then. That the implement of death used was mens owen evil is a side issue to God being the one who planned and executed. God pulled the trigger - those who murdered him were merely the gun.- Hopefully you'll be clear that predestination isn't on my agenda here. Nor antinomianism for the reasons stated earlier.- You don't appear to have offered any rebuttal of what I say. I've tidied up the definition of what a work-for-salvation is so as to make clearer how the grace mechanism works. Is an (impoverished) attempt to equate Jesus death to a human sacrifice all you could come up with in response?- Jobs done.As I say, I can't think of what possible benefit such a thing would prove to be to your position. I await that revelation with interest.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

That's fine by me.- My position is that your 'works' do not secure a PAO. Repentance, as you appear to consider it, would be considered a 'work' also - such a thing stemming from the will of a man and not from the prior work of God. All 'works' find their source in the heart of man and so the glory for a mans salvation can be (part) attributed to man - contrary to the movement of the NT indicating all the glory due to God. The contrasting positions are highlighted thus;Man's part + God's part = salvation

quote:

---

On one hand, I contend that a repentant heart and the unconditional love of God are the primary 'mechanisms'..

​

- Bailey

---

VERSUSGod's part only leads to salvation

quote:

---

Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

​

- Romans 2:4

---

- I'm of the opinion that forward movement won't be possible. You've got a way of accomodating the likes of..

quote:

---

1 Cor 6; Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeastas you really are.For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

---

..which differs wholesale from mine. Would not the simplest thing be to state that your position is arrived at by excluding as Gods word, those portions of scripture which state Christ a sacrifice? And mine position arrived at by doing the opposite?Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Let's look..- Discussion on Christ's sacrifice is being avoided for reasons of 'different hymnsheets' - you implying his sacrifice wasn't one ("show me where Christ/the Father said he was a sacrifice" to paraphrase you) by excluding those pieces of scripture which say it was.It's fairly simple Bailey: when language isn't common, discussion can't take place.- Sounds good to me.- 1) You've not exactly cleared up the chicken & egg situation that persists as to the source of a mans repentance (unto salvation). My position is that action on Gods part convinces him and that conviction leads to a changing of his mind. Gods action followed by his repentance. The credit goes to God for his salvation. Unless of course a mans suppresses the evidence that would convict him - in which case the credit for his damnation is his alone.Your description above appears to fudge things. Repentance is initiated by the father, but...This act of will on the childrens part, that bit which stems from themselves is the "work" I'm referring to. Something for which the (supposed) child can pat themselves on the back for come salvation. "Thank God (and me) that I am saved - my salvation was a joint effort"2) Your quotations from Paul fail to acknowledge that the (Paulian)salvation transaction has already occurred at this point and that when Paul addresses 'you' at these points in his letters he is addressing those who are saved through faith. Repentance unto salvation is history at this stage - not that your point about co-operation is lost. There is indeed cooperation but God is the instigator it being his Spirit that drives the sanctifying work in his adopted children.- Agreed*. Repentance unto salvation is decline-able, the tradition into which I've been adopted indicating a mans will limited to expression in the negative direction only, if it is to be expressed at all. His salvation relies on him doing nothing at all - let's call it contributing by doing no work at all.*almost. Given the alternative, I don't see it as contra-God's love that he utilise guilt as a way of levering us into repentance. And so long as his levering so is resistable and decline-able I don't see how our element of choice is diminished.Refusal to love the truth is indicated as the means of damnation at 2 Thessalonians 2:10. Refusal being a thing we chose to do.- Kindness, forbearance and patience aren't sentimental things. I consider it a kindness that God utilised pain to bring me to my knees - pain being his design-in indicator to tell us that something is amiss. And seeing as nothing could be more amiss than our faulty relationship with him pre-salvation it is not unreasonable to expect severe degrees of pain involved in diverting us from our doomed path.It should be clear by now where it is I view your 'work'. It lies that fuzzy chicken & egg area of "together, with the Father" above, the implication being a sort of hand-in-hand, side-by-side, together-WE-did-it kind of salvation. Not quite man on the throne but not quite God on the throne either.Nearly by grace..but not quite.- Speaking of natural habitation.The danger referred to is eliminated when you drop your gaze a couple of verses to see who Paul is addressing himself to in this section of yours:

quote:

---

Romans 2 17Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; 18if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19..

---

The Jew (and every other Religious legalist) is relying on his law-abiding to ensure right standing with God. And he will be judged according to that works-based system. He will be stood up alongside the Gentile (who Paul has just told us, has the law of God written on his conscience and so can too be measured by his work) and will be found wanting. Found wanting because no one will actually meet the standard of the law by working - Paul concludes at the end of this section.

quote:

---

Romans 3 19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

---

It's from this point (Romans 3:20 on) that Paul set's out how salvation is actually wrought - the good news given to counter the bad news he's just been delivering.Romans up to 3:20 isn't the good news Bailey.- The above should illuminate why I argue against.Paul concludes that such attempts to work for your salvation are bound for failure. For the reason that the intention of the law isn't that you be justified by keeping it but rather, that you become conscious of the fact that you're a sinner.- Do folk actually interpret Romans that way? Gosh!!It appears obvious to me that Pauls intention in these early chapters is to merely to lump the Gentiles and Jews into one big pot containing lost, law-breaking sinners. A pot from which a singular subsequently described ladle called Salvation by Grace can remove them.- This is a curious grafting of notions onto one another given Pauls conclusion at 3:19. The section regarding the gentiles and the law tells us that the gentiles have the law of God available to them - just as the Jews do. And that they keep it here and break it there - their consciences bearing witness to that fact.How could they be saved by 'doing right' by the law when Paul tells us that no one will be declared righteous by keeping the law?- Where is this view supported by Paul?- As mentioned earlier: Paul is lumping the Jew with the Gentile.Consider his purpose: the haughty Jew (haughtiness being the natural by-product of legalistic religion) is convinced the Gentile is a godless dog. If Paul successfully aligns the Jew with the godless dog in the only way it matters: his rightstanding before God, then this renders the Jew equivilent to a godless dog too. In the only way it matters.Which could be expected to work towards producing an effect in one convinced of Pauls argument.- Cold comfort that.. is his conclusion at 3:19-20- Unfortunately for this position, it's been plucked out of a vacuum. You can't conclude anything such thing from Romans 1,2 or 3 (up to 3:20). All that's been talked of is condemnation and measurement of mens works under Gods law, with all; Jew and Gentile alike, concluded to be found wanting.So far, so terrifying - if you happen to be relying on your work.- Er.. you've taken a giant leap past a lot of Romans - especially those bits dealing with the basis by which a person is saved. The "you" he is addressing at Romans 14 isn't just any old you, it's you who've been saved by grace. This is standard Paulian structure: 1st half of the epistle lays out the doctrine, the 2nd half lays out application of doctrine or "how you should live in the light of the doctrine"-Similarily, ...see's us parachuting into the middle of an argument unpacking how the law does what Paul said it's aim was to do back at Romans 3:20.He said then that the law is intended to make us conscious of sin and Hey Presto! in the section dealing with that very subject, he gives us an illustration of a man undergoing this very same thing. This man is very conscious of sin indeed. Convicted of it one could say..That man concludes with the acknowledgement that he is wretched in sin and in need of rescuing from his wretchedness. Can we agree that could be called "a changing of the mind"?.Repentance in other words.- Plucking your beans at random points through Romans as you do makes me wonder how you suppose yourself to be drinking coffee at all.- My position on Christ as sacrifice is considered scriptural by me because I consider eg: Paul to be a mouthpiece of God. Once equipped I set about understanding why it is as it is and find no real issues of concern. Christ-as-sacrifice 'fits' the burgeoning mechanism just fine.Considering this objection of yours below to once have been mine we can look at a possible answer:

quote:

---

That is, all blood sacrifices are legalistic regulations, or 'works'.

---

Firstly there is a confusion between our works (legalistic regulations to which we must adhere) and Gods work. In Christs case, the work would be Gods work. I (and scripture) have no objection to God working for my salvation. Scripture only objects to me working for my salvation.As to God's power limited? I think yes, for the same reason his power is limited in his being unable to create an object too heavy for him to lift. Not even God can forgive a transgression without paying the price for the the transgression himself. The nature of forgiveness stems, like so many other things, from the nature of God.God limited by his nature isn't God's power limited in any sense that matters.- The place of your work was highlighted above. If saved then both you and God achieved it. Both your efforts/will contributed to that happy outcome.- Er.. I was referring to Paul as God's words. Or God's mouthpiece if you prefer. Is his writing a scribal forgery? Or is there some other way you deal with his saying as he says? And what of John the Baptist - was he incorrect in his stating what he stated about Jesus?- My lack of faith only extends to your doctrine - you appearing to miss the fact that your objections are centred around your doctrine which runs counter to mine. There's not a whole lot of point claiming to be inspired in argument by the Holy Spirit - given that both can do that. Which leaves us to argue the doctrine supporting our case.I'm afraid Christ as atoning sacrifice fits too well to set be set aside on a (not very compelling) say so of yours. I mean no insult, but apart from objecting (wordily) about how reprehensible you find the notion & excluding scripture that inconveniently says it's so - I haven't seen much content to your argument.Christs sacrifice was a requirement of the justness of God - mirrored in type by the animal sacrifice legally demanded by the Torah of Moses.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.