|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Faith and salvation -- let's cut to the chase :)
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
OK. We've been skirting around this one in a number of other threads, and I'd kind of like to get it out in the open in its own thread. I apologise for going over the same ground again, but this seems to me to be a Really Big Deal, and one that Christians don't really like to engage with.
Very few mainstream Christian denominations teach that a person can `earn' salvation by his own good works, even though many observant Christians do, in effect, hold to this view.
Instead, most (all?) mainstream denominations stress that Christian faith is part-and-parcel of salvation in some way or other.
Some say that freely choosing faith is how one `earns' salvation. Some say that faith is a manifestation of God's grace, given by God to the Elect. Some say that faith is a response to God's grace, which an individual can freely reject. There are other variations.
But all mainstream denominations officially teach that if an individual does not have Christian faith, that individual will not be saved. End of story.
If you are a person who holds to that view, are you able to square it with the concept of an omnipotent, benevolent God? Or are you prepared to accept that God is partial to certain individuals or societies? And, if so, why is He?
( I'm particular interested in the opinions of people who do hold to this few-will-be-saved viewpoint. Universal Salvationists don't really have a case to answer ![[Smile]](smile.gif) )
[ 27. February 2006, 22:36: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
But all mainstream denominations officially teach that if an individual does not have Christian faith, that individual will not be saved. End of story.
I guess then that the RCC is not a mainstream denomination? For this is certainly not the official RC doctrine, see CCC 839-848.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
R.A.M.
Shipmate
# 7390
|
Posted
Ooh love that link; a lot of it rings true for me - I must admit I always assumed quite the opposite of the RCC. Not quite ready to cross the Tiber yet mind...
I'm probably not the best person to say something on this thread however much interest I will read it with. I am sometimes a 'Soft' universalist; where I think that some peoploe will go to hell, but lots of non-Christains will be saved by Gods Grace - this mainly justified by the stuff in Paul about the fruits of the spirit; which I recognise in atehists as well as Christians. I am often a 'Hard' universalist where I find it difficult to believe in a God who would deprive anyone of his or her salvation. Officially I adopt an attitude of "I don't know but I expect God will sort it all out for the best".
My understanding for the position that not all are saved is that we must balence our Loving God with the Just God. A Just God HAS to punish us for our rebellion; but opens forgiveness to those who choose it.
--------------------
Formerly Real Ale Methodist
Back after prolonged absence...
Posts: 1584 | From: (Sunshine on) Leith | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
I_am_not_Job
Shipmate
# 3634
|
Posted
Moreoever a loving God wouldn't make someone who didn't want to be with him, be with him. Perchance?
--------------------
Hope for everything; expect nothing
Posts: 988 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
I go no further than "All can be saved". There is no one who God cannot save. As to who he will save, that's not for me to say, but I proceed on the assumption that he's much more merciful and loving than I am.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
But all mainstream denominations officially teach that if an individual does not have Christian faith, that individual will not be saved. End of story.
I guess then that the RCC is not a mainstream denomination? For this is certainly not the official RC doctrine, see CCC 839-848.
Sorry, IngoB -- I meant to say ``mainstream protestant denominations''. You're off the hook
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zealot en vacance
Shipmate
# 9795
|
Posted
The necessity of faith for salvation is hard to reconcile with what Jesus is reported as saying to the sheep and the goats in Matt 25. The 'sheep' are greeted as enjoying the Father's blessing, and respond by denying that they ever served Christ. It seems to me very likely that at least some of these saved people would not have had faith in Christ either. Salvation is in God's hands, and no human formulation limits His action, I would suggest.
[ 26. January 2006, 12:08: Message edited by: Zealot en vacance ]
--------------------
He said, "Love one another".
Posts: 2014 | From: Surface of planet Earth | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Real Ale Methodist:
My understanding for the position that not all are saved is that we must balence our Loving God with the Just God. A Just God HAS to punish us for our rebellion; but opens forgiveness to those who choose it.
How does one choose forgiveness if one does not, for no fault of one's own, know that a choice is required? Suppose you don't that there is a God who offers forgiveness?
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot en vacance:
The necessity of faith for salvation is hard to reconcile with what Jesus is reported as saying to the sheep and the goats in Matt 25. The 'sheep' are greeted as enjoying the Father's blessing, and respond by denying that they ever served Christ. It seems to me very likely that at least some of these saved people would not have had faith in Christ either. Salvation is in God's hands, and no human formulation limits His action, I would suggest.
I agree about Matthew 25.
The formulation, though, that I think is most universal is that the good are saved and the wicked are not - with the caveat, of course, that none are truly good except God. This is what the vast majority of people on this planet believe, unless I am mistaken.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Sorry, IngoB -- I meant to say ``mainstream protestant denominations''.
Which ones did you have in mind?
[ 26. January 2006, 12:40: Message edited by: GreyFace ]
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I'd view myself as having a pretty mainstream protestant background. I think it's easy to assume that your OP is mainstream protestant doctrine - since there is a fundamentalist, loud wing that proclaims it - but if you talk to someone more middle of the road, very few will argue that those not evangelised are heading to hell. Many will admit on more pushing that it seems unfair and unlikely that people rejecting christianity because of unrepresentative, even abusive, encounters with it are heading for the flames.
I think a more accurate mainstream position is that we don't know the details - and can't know how God will judge - and many me be saved who we don't expect - but that faith is a sure entry ticket.
So having it equals salvation, not having it doesn't necessarily equal damnation - but it puts you at risk of it.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Real Ale Methodist:
A Just God HAS to punish us for our rebellion; but opens forgiveness to those who choose it.
What does this mean, God HAS to punish us? Who makes him? What if he doesn't want to? I don't believe God is under any compulsion to punish.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Keren-Happuch
Ship's Eyeshadow
# 9818
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:
Originally posted by Real Ale Methodist:
My understanding for the position that not all are saved is that we must balence our Loving God with the Just God. A Just God HAS to punish us for our rebellion; but opens forgiveness to those who choose it.
How does one choose forgiveness if one does not, for no fault of one's own, know that a choice is required? Suppose you don't that there is a God who offers forgiveness?
It seems to make sense to me that when the time for judgement comes, everyone will have to come face to face with God and choose whether or not they accept Him and His forgiveness, whether or not they knew Him in their lifetime. Rather like the end of The Last Battle where the children are surprised by some of the people who end up accepting Aslan, when they were previously fighting him.
--------------------
Travesty, treachery, betrayal!
EXCESS - The Art of Treason
Nea Fox
Posts: 2407 | From: A Fine City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
[...] but if you talk to someone more middle of the road, very few will argue that those not evangelised are heading to hell.
To be honest, I'm not trying to pick a battle with middle-of-the-road protestants; my gripe is with the corporate doctrine of the protestant churches. I think that regardless of what most churchgoers (and ministers) believe, sola fide is still a foundational doctrine of the protestant movement. In my experience, the best that can be said of the credal statements of the protestant denominations is that they are largely silent on the fate of the unevangelized majority. They generally aren't condemning them (apart from the groups you mention), but at the same time they aren't explaining theologically how hope for the unevangelized fits with sola fide.
quote:
I think a more accurate mainstream position is that we don't know the details - and can't know how God will judge - and many me be saved who we don't expect - but that faith is a sure entry ticket.
Well, this is the position that CS Lewis took, and therefore has to be taken seriously But I've not seen this written down anywhere as official doctrine of any protestant denomination. I'd be very happy to wrong about this, if you know better.
quote:
So having it equals salvation, not having it doesn't necessarily equal damnation - but it puts you at risk of it.
This still appears to make God very partial. You can't have faith if you've never been exposed to anything to have faith in. So why should God be willing to put so many people in peril of their souls?
Saying ``we don't know'' or ``we don't presume to understand how God figures these things out'' is at least an honest position to take. But it's not one I feel comfortable with.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Keren-Happuch:
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:
Originally posted by Real Ale Methodist:
My understanding for the position that not all are saved is that we must balence our Loving God with the Just God. A Just God HAS to punish us for our rebellion; but opens forgiveness to those who choose it.
How does one choose forgiveness if one does not, for no fault of one's own, know that a choice is required? Suppose you don't that there is a God who offers forgiveness?
It seems to make sense to me that when the time for judgement comes, everyone will have to come face to face with God and choose whether or not they accept Him and His forgiveness, whether or not they knew Him in their lifetime. Rather like the end of The Last Battle where the children are surprised by some of the people who end up accepting Aslan, when they were previously fighting him.
If you believe that a person will be in a position to accept or reject God when he or she is in full possession of the facts, then you too are off the hook Presumably if we get to look God in the eye, the time for `faith' will be over.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:
So having it equals salvation, not having it doesn't necessarily equal damnation - but it puts you at risk of it.
This still appears to make God very partial. You can't have faith if you've never been exposed to anything to have faith in. So why should God be willing to put so many people in peril of their souls?
Saying ``we don't know'' or ``we don't presume to understand how God figures these things out'' is at least an honest position to take. But it's not one I feel comfortable with.
It seems to me that the more fruitful way round to look at this is to make goodness, rather than salvation, the goal. That is, the whole point is God's will being done on earth as it is in heaven. This is what "salvation" really amounts to. This is what will save the world.
The real argument is whether this can happen without faith in God. It certainly seems as though people can be well disposed without having any faith in God. Christianity claims, however, that in the last analysis this is not really possible. I agree.
So it's not that faith in God is unimportant, because all that really matters is whether you are good or wicked. You can't really be good without faith in God.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
sola fide is still a foundational doctrine of the protestant movement. In my experience, the best that can be said of the credal statements of the protestant denominations is that they are largely silent on the fate of the unevangelized majority. They generally aren't condemning them (apart from the groups you mention), but at the same time they aren't explaining theologically how hope for the unevangelized fits with sola fide.......So why should God be willing to put so many people in peril of their souls?
Maybe he can't do any better than he has?
But I accept this characterisation - a bit silent on it in the formal, public statements - but on pushed, a sort of "we don't know - up to God" position.
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Saying ``we don't know'' or ``we don't presume to understand how God figures these things out'' is at least an honest position to take. But it's not one I feel comfortable with.
Why not? My position is that for both the faithfull and the unfaithfull - we don't know, we do what we think is best - and we'll find out when we get there. God knows our hearts. Purgatory... Hell with optional salvation... the tree lies as it falls.... or absolutely bloody nothing. I'm prepared for the range of options.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I think before we can answer any of the very important questions that this thread has raised, we need to decide what we mean by "faith" -- do we mean intellectual assent to a proposition or set of propositions (e.g. "God exists", "Jesus is Lord" etc.)? Or something more profound and deeper, something that might even exist in a person who gives intellectual assent to none of the propositions usually mentioned in terms of "faith"?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Saying ``we don't know'' or ``we don't presume to understand how God figures these things out'' is at least an honest position to take. But it's not one I feel comfortable with.
[small tangent]Then I would prepare myself for a long (God-willing!) life of discomfort.[/small tangent]
(Not that I think exploring is bad (obviously or else why be here on the Ship???), but at the end of the day I think 90% of my thoughts still end up in some form of "I just don't know." I think becoming okay with that answer is a HUGE step for many Christians...)
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Superslug
Shipmate
# 7024
|
Posted
CC
Being uncomfortable with 'I dont know' was where I was for a long time, until I realised, or lost some of my preocupation with ' what do we have to do to be saved'
I came to the conclusion that worry or even concern about this issue is largly counter productive.
If we do this faith thing to be saved, we miss the point and are only doing this thing for selfish reasons. There is therefore a high chance that wanting to find the 'truth' about this is the ultimate catch 22.
What this left me with was being obediant to God as a response to his love for me and that boils down to two great commandaments and one great commission.
The rest, as it has been said, is left to God.
YMMV
SS
--------------------
I was 'educated' in the UK in the 70s and early 80s. Therefore, please feel free to correct my grammar and punctuation. I need to know!
Posts: 464 | From: Hessle, East Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
[qb] [QUOTE]So having it equals salvation, not The real argument is whether this can happen without faith in God. It certainly seems as though people can be well disposed without having any faith in God. Christianity claims, however, that in the last analysis this is not really possible. I agree.
I submit that this depends on what you mean by `good'. I am saddened to say that the people I have met who have most impressed me with their selflessness and charity have not been Christians. Mostly they have been atheists. Your mileage may vary However, if `goodness' demands something more or different from selflessness and charity, then you might be right. What is your understanding of goodness that makes it contingent on faith in God?
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
You can't really be good without faith in God.
What CC said - define "good".
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
...at the end of the day I think 90% of my thoughts still end up in some form of "I just don't know." I think becoming okay with that answer is a HUGE step for many Christians...)
OK, there are certain questions, even quite deep questions, that I can comfortably live without knowing the answers to. The problem is that I can't plod along with a huge logical incongruity in my beliefs. Uncertainty, yes; illogicality, no. For me, accepting sola fide in its strict form means rejecting the idea that God is wholely benevolent. And vice versa. I just don't see how these two doctrines logically fit together -- one or other has to be wrong.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
But golly, CC, that's easy. Toss sola fide out on its ear as a relative newcomer and twisting of the biblical witness. Problem solved!
Nobody seems to want to define "faith" however, or even respond to my challenge to do so; maybe I used too many words in that post?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
For me, accepting sola fide in its strict form means rejecting the idea that God is wholely benevolent. And vice versa. I just don't see how these two doctrines logically fit together -- one or other has to be wrong.
I think you're right, if by the strict form of sola fide you mean, all those who don't come to conscious and visible faith in Christ before death are going to roast in hellfire for eternity.
But I'm not aware that most mainstream Protestant denominations teach that. Mine doesn't.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I think you're right, if by the strict form of sola fide you mean, all those who don't come to conscious and visible faith in Christ before death are going to roast in hellfire for eternity.
But I'm not aware that most mainstream Protestant denominations teach that. Mine doesn't.
It's at least strongly implied in every single act of evangelism.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Nobody seems to want to define "faith" however, or even respond to my challenge to do so; maybe I used too many words in that post?
But `faith' is a weasle word, isn't it? The NT writers used it all the time, but pistis in Greek is just as weasely as `faith' in English. It can mean many different things, from (as you say) intellectual assent to the likelihood of certain propositions' being true, to the `blind unreasoning allegiance' of Kierkegaard. pistis will stand all these meanings, and more.
So when Luther wrote `sola fide,' I really have no idea what he understood fide to mean. My gut feeling is that his meaning was not way different to Kierkegaard's -- unconditional submission to the divinity of Jesus, and unconditional acceptance of the authority of scripture, in the absence of any evidential, naturalistic basis for so doing.
I accept that there might be ways to define `faith' that make sola fide more inclusive -- I just don't know what they are.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I think you're right, if by the strict form of sola fide you mean, all those who don't come to conscious and visible faith in Christ before death are going to roast in hellfire for eternity.
But I'm not aware that most mainstream Protestant denominations teach that. Mine doesn't.
It's at least strongly implied in every single act of evangelism.
That may be true, but I don't think it must necessarily be true. If the `good news' is ``If you believe in this you won't roast in Hell'' then yes. If the `good news' is ``All are saved -- you no longer have to live in fear and uncertainty'' then no.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
....For me, accepting sola fide in its strict form means rejecting the idea that God is wholely benevolent. And vice versa. I just don't see how these two doctrines logically fit together -- one or other has to be wrong.
I'd submit that the problem isn't just sola fide, then. The problem is hell. How can a wholely benevolent God condemn anyone to hell? If we deal with that, perhaps we can move on to subsets of humanity for which the unfairness is magnified....
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
You can't really be good without faith in God.
What CC said - define "good".
I think that the Bible defines what "good" is. I would say that to be "good" is to live as Jesus taught.
But I agree with CC that there does not seem to necessarily be a correlation between being "good" and being "Christian." My experience has also been that the kindest people are often non-Christian.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But I agree with CC that there does not seem to necessarily be a correlation between being "good" and being "Christian." My experience has also been that the kindest people are often non-Christian.
I agree. It just seems odd to assent to such a position, but also say that "goodness" is impossible without faith in God...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'd submit that the problem isn't just sola fide, then. The problem is hell. How can a wholely benevolent God condemn anyone to hell? If we deal with that, perhaps we can move on to subsets of humanity for which the unfairness is magnified....
Well, I have two reasons for not wanting to do that...
1. We've already had 30-odd pages on that, and not got anywhere
2. I think what you're saying is that salvation is (or appears to be) prima facie inequitable, and the fact that it is more inequitable for some people than others doesn't present any additional problem. I can see the strength of that argument. But it is at least arguable that a person who rejects God of his own free will can miss out on salvation without the blame being placed on God. It isn't necessarily inequitable. But the inequity faced by a person who has never heard of God is not merely different in degree from that of a person who actively rejects God; it is of a wholely different kind.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
If goodness were not possible without faith how would we ever arrive at the faith required to get goodness?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber
Sorry, IngoB -- I meant to say ``mainstream protestant denominations''. You're off the hook
Which is why mainstream Protestant denominations leave me so cold.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If goodness were not possible without faith how would we ever arrive at the faith required to get goodness?
Grace.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Birdseye
I can see my house from here!
# 5280
|
Posted
I think that people will be fairly judged on the goodness of their spirits, if one professes to have faith in God and yet is not changed for the better, then perhaps that profession is not true.
But since all humanity will fail to hit the ultimate mark of perfection, the only reason anyone will be saved is because of the sacrifice paid by Christ.
It is through GRACE that we are saved -not faith.
--------------------
Life is what happens whilst you're busy making other plans.
a birdseye view
Posts: 1615 | From: West Yorkshire | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
quote:
But all mainstream denominations officially teach that if an individual does not have Christian faith, that individual will not be saved. End of story.
Who told you that?
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Superslug
If we do this faith thing to be saved, we miss the point and are only doing this thing for selfish reasons. There is therefore a high chance that wanting to find the 'truth' about this is the ultimate catch 22.
The current thread on attraction to Judaism reminds me of where I think Christinity goes wrong on this point. Since its inception it has been a religion obsessed with personal salvation. That isn't why we're here. Our purpose is to do the will of God in the present moment for which we may hope for a place in the world to come.
That difference of emphasis between Judaism and Christianity is one in which I believe that Judaism has it right.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Birdseye:
But since all humanity will fail to hit the ultimate mark of perfection, the only reason anyone will be saved is because of the sacrifice paid by Christ.
It is through GRACE that we are saved -not faith.
Fair enough. But it only avoids the problem I set out if grace is universal. Is it? How would we know?
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But I agree with CC that there does not seem to necessarily be a correlation between being "good" and being "Christian." My experience has also been that the kindest people are often non-Christian.
I agree. It just seems odd to assent to such a position, but also say that "goodness" is impossible without faith in God...
I agree that it seems odd, but this is what the Bible teaches.
I think that our surface perception of the way that "nice people" act is not necessarily the same as the kind of "goodness" that would, in the long run, make the world a better place to live.
Another way to put this is that everyone on earth is involved in trying to make the world a better place. From governments to schoolteachers, efforts to improve the future can be found everywhere. But Christianity teaches that these efforts will never be successful without trust in God - despite the appearance that trust in God would not seem to most people to be the most important factor.
The same, I think, is true of the efforts that we as individuals make to improve our lives. It certainly appears that belief in God is not necessary to becoming a better person. Anyone can improve their lives, regardless of what they believe. But Christianity teaches that belief in God is more central than people realize, and that positive changes are more difficult and less likely if He is not involved. Movements like Alcoholics Anonymous testify to the truth of this idea.
As Jesus said:
quote:
Matthew 6:33 Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.
The point is that salvation, not to mention the improvement of the planet, depend on the actual quality of every individual, and of all of us as a whole. It does not seem as though this depends on our faith in God. But I think, in the long run, that it actually does.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
quote:
But all mainstream denominations officially teach that if an individual does not have Christian faith, that individual will not be saved. End of story.
Who told you that?
Which ones don't? (I'm asking about official credal statements, not the views of individual churchgoers or ministers, which I accept can be quite different)
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Nobody seems to want to define "faith" however, or even respond to my challenge to do so; maybe I used too many words in that post?
I do! I do! Pick me! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I loved what you said here:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
<snip> we need to decide what we mean by "faith"
I agree this is absolutely crucial.
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
-- do we mean intellectual assent to a proposition or set of propositions (e.g. "God exists", "Jesus is Lord" etc.)?
This reminds me of the verse:
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"
(Matthew 7:21-23, NIV)
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
-- Or something more profound and deeper, something that might even exist in a person who gives intellectual assent to none of the propositions usually mentioned in terms of "faith"?
Exactly.
Faith pleases God. This reiterated all over the scriptures. But also acting justly and being merciful and humble is also what pleases God. I think maybe they are interconnected.
The way I see it -- faith is the same as acting in obedience to the will of the Father which is the same as loving your neighbor which is the same as God's words "what does God require? To love mercy, to act justly, and to walk humbly" which is the same as pursuing the kingdom of heaven which is the same as following Christ which is the same thing as being "saved."
quote:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
(Ephesians 2:8, NIV)
From what I read, "faith" is not merely intellectual assent but instead some type of transformation of the inner self into someone more like Christ.
This is what I wrote before on another thread:
Faith, itself, is a lifestyle. It is not just a declaration of belief, a faithful person is a righteous person (in the Eyes of God).
I pretty much agree with the link IngoB posted. Salvation is in the hands of a merciful God who atoned for the sins of the whole world.
I also don't mind saying that I don't know.
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The point is that salvation, not to mention the improvement of the planet, depend on the actual quality of every individual, and of all of us as a whole. It does not seem as though this depends on our faith in God. But I think, in the long run, that it actually does.
Can you give a specific example of a `good' act that is informed by a faith in good, and an example of an act carried out by an atheist which appears good, and yet is not, by the former standard?
Doesn't your formulation leave a helluva lot of people (about 60% of the world's population) incapable of doing real `good'?
I find extremely disturbing the notion that an ethical humanist could devote his whole life to doing good works, and indeed do things that appear to be good acts in the eyes of the huge majority of people in the world, and who nevertheless has done nothing good at all because his state of mind was wrong.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Our purpose is to do the will of God in the present moment for which we may hope for a place in the world to come.
I wouldn't work for any company on the basis of the hope that I'd get paid. Why should I for God?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
Sorry about the multiple posts, but I wanted to clear something up.
I have no problem with not knowing the answers to deep questions. Through a glass darkly, and all that.
My original post was trying to get at the fact that to accept sola fide in its strict form (no faith => damnation), while holding to a belief in a wholely benevolent God, while at the same time knowing that there are many people to whom Christian faith (in any of its possible forms) is impossible, is to accept a logical inconsistency.
It's not the same as saying `we don't know', it's the same as saying that 2+2=5.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
My original post was trying to get at the fact that to accept sola fide in its strict form (no faith => damnation), while holding to a belief in a wholely benevolent God, while at the same time knowing that there are many people to whom Christian faith (in any of its possible forms) is impossible, is to accept a logical inconsistency.
Because I enjoy being contrary sometimes, yes, for the sake of the argument, I'll take the position here that no faith => damnation. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Basically, it depends how you define "faith" - which is what Mousethief was trying to point out.
I'm summarising my previous post on this thread (if you would so kind to give it a glance for further illustration):
Conclusion: Faith through grace = righteous by God
Why?
1. faith = obedience to God's will
2. God's will = acting justly, loving mercy, walking humbly
3. Acting justly, loving mercy, walking humble = Christ
4. Christ = salvation
or
no faith = one will be cruel, one will be arrogant, unjust...will continue pursue a kingdom of darkness rather than light _____ [fill in the blank]
not righteous => pain & suffering
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Can you give a specific example of a `good' act that is informed by a faith in good, and an example of an act carried out by an atheist which appears good, and yet is not, by the former standard?
Good actions are good actions whether they are done by a Christian or an atheist. If I'm looking for a good lawyer I don't give a rat's tap what the guy believes.
The difference is in the effect on the individual doing the action. If I practice law purely to make myself rich and famous then it is different than if I do it because I actually care about helping people. If belief in God is part of the mix that has an effect as well.
In any particular instance it may make no difference at all. I don't care what is going on in my lawyer's heart. But if all lawyers only cared about themselves and their reputations then their public image might begin to suffer. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Doesn't your formulation leave a helluva lot of people (about 60% of the world's population) incapable of doing real `good'?
No. Almost everyone on earth believes in God.
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
I find extremely disturbing the notion that an ethical humanist could devote his whole life to doing good works, and indeed do things that appear to be good acts in the eyes of the huge majority of people in the world, and who nevertheless has done nothing good at all because his state of mind was wrong.
I never said it was all-or-nothing. There are many many factors. Belief in God is only one. Sincerity is another. The atheistic ethical humanist can do all kinds of good things, and do them better than a Christian. What is going on in his heart is his own business. Everyone plays their onw part in reforming the world.
My point is that, while good things can be done by anyone, the world, in the long run, will not be reformed by atheists but by believers. The reason is that all power resides in God, and so a connection to Him through religion is needed to achieve and sustain peace and prosperity over the long term.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wolfgang
Shipmate
# 10809
|
Posted
Marvin, you wrote
quote:
I wouldn't work for any company on the basis of the hope that I'd get paid. Why should I for God?
I confess I've not entered the world of work yet, nor am I likely to do so within the next few years, but surely this is exactly what you DO do. You don't get paid before you do the job, but rather you do your job, assuming that you'll be paid in full for the work you've done. The difference with Christianity is that we already have a down-payment, a deposit, guaranteeing our inheritance. (see Ephesians 1:13-14, for example.)
--------------------
"The socialist who is a Christian is more to be dreaded than a socialist who is an atheist" - Dostoevksy
Posts: 121 | From: The North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang:
I confess I've not entered the world of work yet, nor am I likely to do so within the next few years, but surely this is exactly what you DO do. You don't get paid before you do the job, but rather you do your job, assuming that you'll be paid in full for the work you've done.
Except I have a contract with my employer, which we have both signed, stating the work I must do for them and the salary they must pay me. This contract is fully legal, and if they just refused to pay me one month I could get the money that is rightfully mine through the courts.
It's not like they just ask me to pop over and do some work for them, on the off chance that they'll feel like paying me for it afterwards...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
