quote:

---

For speaking to Moses, he said: I am gracious to those to whom I am gracious and I take pity on those on whom I take pity. So it is not a matter of what any person wants or what any person does, but only of God having mercy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seasick:
Much as I'm loathe in general to proof-text,

---

quote:

---

Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qlib:
Adolf Hitler

---

You mentioned Hitler, you lose.

Actually a number of the high-ranking Nazis who were incarcerated before hanging heard the gospel from a prison chaplain, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to meet some of them in heaven. Corrie Ten Boom, who gave shelter to Jews during in Haarlem during WW II, speaks of meeting a concentration camp guard after speaking and offering him forgiveness (in her book The Hiding Place). I can't see that God would fall short of Corrie's standard.

(Her house in Haarlem still operates as a museum by the way, and you can see where Dutch Jews were hidden before their escape).

Still, if you trust Jesus, you will be forgiven. I can't see any other way to escape sin.
 

---

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
Seasick's quote from Roman's 9.16-17 tells us all. It is for God to decide on the full impact of His mercy. We just hope.
 

---

Posted by Qlib (# 43) on :
 
Misinterpretation of Godwin's Law, Gordon.

Since you're so fond of proof-texting, I give you
Matthew 7v21: Not everyone who says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of God and, as usual, Matthew 25 v34-46, which to my mind inescapably demonstrate that the blameless Muslim doctor is in and Adolf is out.
 

---

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Ooh! Prooftexting!

I have no such moral qualms, so

quote:

---

Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

---

Will it ruin the prooftexting effect if I point out context? Peter is talking about the Lord Jesus. By trusting him, we receive mercy and are saved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
When the door is closing and we make our last representations to God, what will invoke His mercy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qlib:
So Adolf Hitler calls out: "Oh Jesus Christ, save me!" and goes to Paradise. Whereas a merciful, god-fearing, blameless Muslim doctor, who can't bring him/herself to say the words goes to Hell? I don't think so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qlib:
I've never read anywhere that we have to spend our lives explicitly giving glory to God - how would anything ever get done?

---

quote:

---

So the Muslim doctor is not blameless. Did he spend every moment of every day glorifying God and giving thanks to him? Did he worship God, as God revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ? No.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
Did he spend every moment of every day glorifying God and giving thanks to him? Did he worship God, as God revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ? No.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But it doesn't work, because the standard of behaviour in heaven is perfection, which is decidedly uncomfortable for anyone who isn't. Both Hitler and Muslim doctor fail, as do you and I.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But it doesn't work, because the standard of behaviour in heaven is perfection, which is decidedly uncomfortable for anyone who isn't. Both Hitler and Muslim doctor fail, as do you and I.

---

Then why did God bother spending all that time listing which sins to avoid? Why not just say "you're all wretched scum in need of repentance whatever you do"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
Gordon, what would happen to me, in your view, if I placed sincere faith in Brahman, or Moses, or the Buddha or Allah, but never in Jesus Christ?

---

quote:

---

Given that geography is a factor <snip> is it possible to become too Christocentric when debating soteriology?

---

Well, not on my view—if Jesus Christ is Lord in Sydney and Jerusalem, Velore and Brazil, I can't see a necessary reason for excluding his lordship from Islamabad, or Alpha Centauri for that matter. His lordship in Sydney (and the other places) is predicated on his role as Creator and Sustainer of all.
 

---

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 
Yes, the list of religions I gave was intended to be illustrative rather than exhaustive. A post listing every deity there has ever been (that we know of) would be rather long and tedious.

I look forward to your reply.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
You know what? This thread is making me really hope God doesn't exist.

Because the God that's coming across is a bullying control freak who sets a whole raft of laws, some of them impossible to follow, then says it doesn't actually matter if you followed as many as you could, the consequences are the same.

It's like if the government passed a law against breathing, and made the penalty for transgressing exactly the same as that for murder.
 

---

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng

quote:

---

Well, not on my view—if Jesus Christ is Lord in Sydney and Jerusalem, Velore and Brazil, I can't see a necessary reason for excluding his lordship from Islamabad, or Alpha Centauri for that matter. His lordship in Sydney (and the other places) is predicated on his role as Creator and Sustainer of all

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's like if the government passed a law against breathing, and made the penalty for transgressing exactly the same as that for murder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
It depends on whether sins are sinful because God says they are sinful, or whether they are sinful irrespective of what God says, and the only reason God said anything was so we'd know they were sinful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qlib:
Since you're so fond of proof-texting, I give you Matthew 7v21: Not everyone who says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of God and, as usual, Matthew 25 v34-46, which to my mind inescapably demonstrate that the blameless Muslim doctor is in and Adolf is out.

---

quote:

---

I wonder if Jesus' message to us, in our efforts to figure out who is on and who is off the salvation bus, is rather like that line in the Gospel of John..."What is it to you...follow me!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
You seem to be advocating salvation by works, Qlib.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubitante:
"Wilt thou indeed destroy the righteous with the wicked?
...
Far be it from thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
In the former, God has deliberately set up existence so that we can't get through without Him. That's not loving in my book, it's more like the sort of thing a drug dealer would do to an addict.

---

Indeed. I don't think it's unreasonable to apply our moral judgement to the case. Put it like this - if you were God, for what crimes would YOU like to condemn someone to eternal torture?

In a civilised country, we don't believe that anyone should be tortured at all for anything. Do we believe in something that makes God out to be less civilised than countries here on Earth that don't permit torture?
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
I think some people are missing the point on this question of us all being guilty, and as anyone knows, clearly* I understand it all fully.

St Anselm IIRC argued that if God is actually God, that is the only self-existent being, the creator of all things and so on, the source of all goodness and love, then we owe total allegiance to him and any transgression against his will turns out to be of greater significance than we can imagine. I accept this although it appears to be an unpopular opinion. Few living humans manage to get through life without sinning in some manner, and I'd be here for hours if I had to list even the ones I can remember. That's the justly condemned argument out of the way.

Now, assume for a moment that there's some kind of binary division between those who end up in Heaven and those who don't - note that that leaves the nature of Hell out of the question, other than to say it's not-Heaven in eternity. Is it just that any sinner ends up there, if Heaven is a reward for good behaviour? I say not. Is anyone prepared to say they think they've been good enough to get in? Have you earned your salvation? No form of Christianity with which I'm familiar claims this is practically possible.

Take the next step. If nobody has earned their way into heaven, then we end up in not-Heaven by default. What's unfair about that? It's no use moaning that we didn't have a chance and so should be let into Heaven anyway as if it's our right. A serial killer doesn't have the right to walk the streets with a chainsaw.

But as we presume God knows what he's doing and wants all to be saved, we don't assume Heaven is unpopulated. If anyone gets in, it must be an act of mercy. Not an act of you-earned-your-way-in justice, but of undeserved mercy. That's all there is to it.

Now, getting down to judgement. We've had rather large hints from scripture and our own consciences that what we do actually matters in an eternal sense. How can this be, if a single sin puts us outside the set of those who deserve Heaven? Well, it only makes sense to me in a theosis or sanctification context. In order to be in Heaven, we will have to be transformed into Heavenly creatures, or Heaven will be just the same as this world, with people backstabbing each other (no offence Sine) left right and centre, suffering not exactly hard to find, rampant oppression and so on.

Tentatively therefore, I propose that judgement might be about whether we actually want this and are prepared to do anything about it - which way are we heading, towards God and Heaven or away from them? The problems of faith versus works and Amazon tribes go away if this is true, and we can see that the practical teachings of mainstream Christian denominations are geared towards this. Detailed Catholic doctrine on sin with its system of confession and repentance is designed to orient the creature towards God and hasten deification. Protestant soteriology still emphasises that faith without works is dead - thus sanctification must proceed inevitably from justification.

Does this usurp Christ's position as judge? Obviously not, as nobody but God can see into someone's heart, can know all the circumstances that limited and influenced choice, and so on. Does this mean that Christianity is not necessarily the surest way to salvation? I don't think so. Sheep in the vicinity of the (visible) Church will generally find their way in, recognising their Master's voice and it's within the Church that the fastest and surest means of turning to God are available. Nor does this mean that those who have no access to the Church are abandoned.

Hopefully some of that is coherent and anyone who got this far will know that I didn't actually answer the OP, because my answer is somewhere between "everyone but it won't necessarily help" and "I don't know and can't know." Nothing I've said is for or against universalism.

* Clearly, the use of the word 'clearly' indicates that it is anything but.
 

---

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
I can't believe that (to put an extreme case) there is not a space in God's mercy for those who could not 'put their trust in Jesus' - or whatever - simply because by history or geography they had never heard of him.
 

---

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
I have to admit that I do believe in salvation through works although grace plays its part in God's forgiveness. In this sense. God requires complete and perfect holiness from us. We can't give it. But He knows that because He created us and put us here. So what does He require of us. Campbellit's quote from Micah 6.8 about sums it up.

In practical terms, He requires us to strive with every fibre of our being to do His will. Where we fgail, and we all do, He forgives us when we have the courage and honesty to admit to Him that we were wrong. That's where grace comes in. By His unlimited grace, He forgives the penitent. Belief, credulity and the recitation of creeds have nothing, IMO to do with it.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Paul, I see it the way that you do. God's grace consists in giving us the ability to obey Him and reform. The power is all His.

If this were not true Jesus' many statements to this effect would be meaningless. His free gift to us is the power to obey Him, and the heavenly joy that results.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Just answering a few questions and comments that were directed to me:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Gordon<snip> If you want to say that God only pardons those who call Jesus saviour, please cough up!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
Gordon, what would happen to me, in your view, if I placed sincere faith in Brahman, or Moses, or the Buddha or Allah, but never in Jesus Christ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Because the God that's coming across is a bullying control freak who sets a whole raft of laws, some of them impossible to follow, then says it doesn't actually matter if you followed as many as you could, the consequences are the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QUOTE] Besides, I don't buy it because if God doesn't exist then sin doesn't exist. It only exists in relation to God.

---

So if neither of us believed in God it would be OK for me to remove fifty quid from your wallet without asking?

And just on the off-chance that the answer is 'no', are people to find a sense of right and wrong from somewhere? When an atheist I was still convinced there was an ethical framework that made sense for all humans to follow (broadly speaking, it was obvious to me that there were limited occasions when generally nasty stuff ™ like violence and stealing were necessary)
 

---

Posted by Joan_of_Quark (# 9887) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
We also need to ask about the sincere followers of Canaanite or Aztec religions involving infant sacrifice. But I'll get back to you.

---

Tangent alert: Aztecs probably didn't practise infant sacrifice. They had human sacrifices, mainly drawn from adult war captives, from ritual 'wars/games' called the 'flower wars'.
There were also sacrifices of adult 'volunteers' on religious occasions, sometimes losers or winners of other war games, some 'elected' and given a period of time treated like a king before sacrifice.

Just standing up for a much-maligned and really quite cuddly group of people
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Because the God that's coming across is a bullying control freak who sets a whole raft of laws, some of them impossible to follow, then says it doesn't actually matter if you followed as many as you could, the consequences are the same.

---

Question for you Marvin. Some killers and sex criminals report that they feel unavoidably compelled to commit the particular crimes that they do. On your view, should the government pass laws against the crimes they are committing? And if the government does, and the compulsive criminal goes ahead and breaks the law anyway, is "I couldn't help it" a reasonable defence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan_of_Quark:
So if neither of us believed in God it would be OK for me to remove fifty quid from your wallet without asking?

---

It wouldn't be a sin. But then, neither would me hunting you down and taking your eyes in bloody vengeance .

So laws would spring up to make sure people don't go round hurting each other like that, because it would only lead to the complete failure of society.

But those laws wouldn't cover shit like not having the right theology, or govern what you think. They'd exist only so that we treated each other well.

God sets the bar way, way too high for us to ever clear. And ISTM that He does so purely in order to make sure we need to be with Him. So either He's really insecure, or He's a total control freak.

Any good human parent keeps their kids on a tight leash as a way of teaching them to go it alone. And when the kids are ready, they let go. God insists that we remain toddlers clinging to the apron strings for eternity, or He sends us to Hell .
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My problem with the God presented on this thread is that there's a completely binary heaven/hell afterlife. It doesn't matter if you committed one tiny sin or every mortal sin possible - you're just as wretched and destined to burn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
You would be judged by God and go to hell.

---

...And you really, honestly find that God to be worthy of worship?

I'm truly sorry to say this, but I just don't.

His criteria seem to be to be arbitary, unjust, petulent, stupid, biased and cruel.
 

---

Posted by JJB (# 9009) on :
 
As Lutheran Chik said, there's been very little mention of Grace on this thread. I believe that our reaction to Grace is what ultimately saves or damns us. If we accept it, and admit our desperate need for it, we are saved. If we reject it, and rely on anything else for our salvation, be that faith or works or whatever, we are damned by our own acts. However, I also believe that we are given many, many opportunities to accept or deny our need for Grace.

The 'good' man crucified with Jesus was offered Grace just before he died, which was (probably) the first time he had met Jesus. He accepted it, and received salvation. The other man rejected it, and was condemned. If that first man could be saved at the very moment of his death, there is hope for everyone. Perhaps what really happens at the Gates of Heaven is that the dead are asked their views on Grace. Our final destination is thus of our own choosing.

I'm aware that this doesn't leave much room for the wrath of God, or for His judgement to be meted out, but perhaps the real judgement is whether or not we accept Grace.

JJB
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
God sets the bar way, way too high for us to ever clear. And ISTM that He does so purely in order to make sure we need to be with Him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
No. The bar is that high because that's where the bar is. I can't construct any image of heaven in my mind that doesn't involve people who choose never to sin, and have the power so to choose (as we don't).

---

quote:

---

It isn't, be perfect (or whatever translation you prefer) or God will be so pissed off he'll send you to Hell. It's, be perfect because perfection is the Heavenly state. Being in Heaven without being perfect is either a logical contradiction or a state of affairs that would destroy you or Heaven. Something like that, anyway...

---

quote:

---

Then the question of judgement once again isn't God asking, "Are you a sinner? Oops, everybody except Mother and me, in the furnace." I think it must be something else, something that will determine whether you become a Heavenly creature. Gordon's reading of the Bible is I think that that something is God's apparently arbitrary choice to grant faith to some based on nothing we can change.

I think it may be the active cooperation of the will, that engages more fully the more you come to learn of and experience God (hence the importance of doctrine), that is enhanced and accelerated by the sacraments of the Church and ultimately, though not necessarily in this life, found only by being incorporated (pun intended) into the Body of Christ, by the fullest acquisition of the Holy Spirit, by communion with God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is there another option?

---

quote:

---

"The hope for participation in eternity is hope for a continuation of the present life after death. It is not hope for endless time after the time given to us. Endless time is not eternity; no finite being can seriously hope for it. But every finite being can hope for return to the eternal from which it comes. And this hope has the more assurance, the deeper and more real the present participation in eternal life is."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimmyT:
From Paul Tillich's The Right to Hope at Religion-Online.

---

quote:

---

Participation in the eternal is not given to the separated individual. It is given to him in unity with all others, with mankind, with everything living, with everything that has being and is rooted in the divine ground of being. All powers of creation are in us, and we are in them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
No. The bar is that high because that's where the bar is. I can't construct any image of heaven in my mind that doesn't involve people who choose never to sin, and have the power so to choose (as we don't).

---

It's going to be a pretty empty place then. Or somewhere filled with millions of identical perfection clones. Either way it doesn't exactly appeal...

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

It isn't, be perfect (or whatever translation you prefer) or God will be so pissed off he'll send you to Hell. It's, be perfect because perfection is the Heavenly state. Being in Heaven without being perfect is either a logical contradiction or a state of affairs that would destroy you or Heaven. Something like that, anyway...

---

Then none of us will make it intact. Only a shell of what we were, devoid of all character and interest, will remain. We'll be like Winston Smith at the end of 1984 - everything but blind obedience to the Party (God) will have been removed.

---

quote:

---

Sounds terrible. The only way to be saved is to completely subjugate yourself. To abandon any individuality you once posessed.

The very thought terrifies me. Is there another option?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

It isn't, be perfect (or whatever translation you prefer) or God will be so pissed off he'll send you to Hell. It's, be perfect because perfection is the Heavenly state. Being in Heaven without being perfect is either a logical contradiction or a state of affairs that would destroy you or Heaven. Something like that, anyway...

---

Then none of us will make it intact. Only a shell of what we were, devoid of all character and interest, will remain. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Are you less of an individual when your team all comes together and plays as a team, rather than 15 disparate individuals all trying to please themselves?

---

quote:

---

Or might you be more of an individual, at least as a Rugby player, when that happens?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Why do you assume that perfection equals identity? Why should a perfected GreyFace be a clone of a perfected Marvin the Martian?

---

quote:

---

As we have according to Christian theology a generally undisputed example of a perfect human in Jesus Christ, are you claiming that he was devoid of all character and interest? That's an interesting position to take.

---

quote:

---

Are you seriously suggesting that a self-centred ego is the only thing that allows for individuality? Don't the lives of the Saints suggest an enormous variety of goodness in those who have been noted by the Church as significantly sanctified?

---

quote:

---

I think you've bought into the bullshit about sitting on a cloud playing a harp all day.

---

quote:

---

You would be judged by God and go to hell

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is there no way to participate in eternal life as an individual? If not, what does it mean to say we "participate" in it?

---

quote:

---

Participation in the eternal is not given to individuals separately because what is eternal is the whole. The individual cannot literally exist separately; not physically because he is a physical process depending on intakes, and not metaphysically because he is a conscious process that depends on intakes as well. Once intake happens, it is inevitable that the physical will interact with the physical and the metaphysical will interact with the metaphysical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Well, I figure that if something is truly perfect, then anything which is different is by definition not perfect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
It is possible to have a definition of "perfect" which allows for multiple different things to all be perfect. If I have a perfect cheese sandwich, it doesn't mean that everything else has to be a cheese sandwich to be perfect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I believe that Jews, Muslims and Buddhist can find salvation on their own terms.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Are you less of an individual when your team all comes together and plays as a team, rather than 15 disparate individuals all trying to please themselves?

---

Simple answer: Yes. I put aside what I want to do for the sake of the team.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Or might you be more of an individual, at least as a Rugby player, when that happens?

---

Only in the sense that without a team around me I couldn't play at all.

---

quote:

---

How about atheists, secular humanists, Wiccans, Neo-Pagans, existentialists, agnostics, and the members of the Church of Satan, keeping in mind that the "official" Church of Satan in NYC does not condone animal or human sacrifice and conceptualizes of "Satan" only as an archetype of complete freedom apart from any constraint of religious authority?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Surely each of us are to perfect ourselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimmyT:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Surely each of us are to perfect ourselves.

---

Yes yes, but Christianity says that we cannot do this in the sense of reaching the endpoint of perfection does it not?

---

quote:

---

We do not become perfect by becoming identical to an abstract notion of perfection but by becoming more like ourselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimmyT:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Surely each of us are to perfect ourselves.

---

Yes yes, but Christianity says that we cannot do this in the sense of reaching the endpoint of perfection does it not?

---

It does? Where?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I think religions can be salvific as long as they teach the golden rule as their central element.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I don't know much about Wiccans or Satan worshippers, but I can't imagine the latter encouraging their followers to grow in love for all creation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
IMO, any path which leads to that growth in love and progressive sloughing off of the personal acquisitive ego is leading its followers towards God's light whatever it calls itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimmyT:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Surely each of us are to perfect ourselves.

---

Yes yes, but Christianity says that we cannot do this in the sense of reaching the endpoint of perfection does it not?

---

It does? Where?

---

"Why do you call me good? Don't you know that no-one is good except my Father, who is in Heaven." seems to come pretty close to saying that.

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Paul met with the various challenges in his ministry he recognised that humanity cannot attain perfection. We can strive for it, but we cannot attain perfection. He and we therefore ought to be engaged in an ongoing pursuit. Only by sharing in Christ's suffering and living in the tension of the "not yet" can we hope to participate in the glorious Resurrection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qlib:
So Adolf Hitler calls out: "Oh Jesus Christ, save me!" and goes to Paradise. Whereas a merciful, god-fearing, blameless Muslim doctor, who can't bring him/herself to say the words goes to Hell? I don't think so.

As someone on the 'demon' thread said, I think we just have to trust that there will be a perfect resolution of these issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

You would be judged by God and go to hell

---

This is for believing in Allah, Buddha or Moses? This is the Christianity I grew up with and it is as nauseating to me now as it was then. Which leads to the question raised by Little Weevil. Do those of other faiths get saved by some mechanism other than Christ? Christianity's exclusive view of itself as a means to salvation is something I'm unable to accept. I believe that Jews, Muslims and Buddhist can find salvation on their own terms.

To me, salvatrion through Christ is about obedience to his commandments. Which are love of God and neighbour and living the golden rule. In this, Jesus was our supreme exemplar. People of other religions are perfectly as capable as Christians in living a life dedicated to those principles. In fact all the world's major religions have their own version of the golden rule. If Christians had spent more time trying to live the religion of Jesus instead of slavishly following a religion about Jesus, the world would have been a nicer place.

---

quote:

---

Yes yes, but Christianity says that we cannot do this in the sense of reaching the endpoint of perfection does it not? And so, we are never "fit for Heaven" in the afterlife. We must be made perfect by God, and He only gives the final dose of perfection after we've accepted his promise to do this through the atoning work of Christ, which gives us the pattern to almost but not quite reach perfection. Through unmerited grace, we are granted forgiveness for the imperfections if we were striving after the pattern of Christ believing it to be the right pattern. Something like that? That's how I've heard it for these many years. The details being that it's not only a "right pattern" but the "only pattern" and the pattern is the literal words of the Bible, including wearing a hat in church if you're a woman, and only if you obey the commandment to "do this in remembrance of me with a male priest acting in persona Christi" and six billion other requirements that have always looked to me exactly like the Pharisees and the Torah.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If Christians had spent more time trying to live the religion of Jesus instead of slavishly following a religion about Jesus, the world would have been a nicer place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Jesus didn't come to 'live a religion'.
He came to die.

Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

---

quote:

---

For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. John 18.37

---

quote:

---

Wwhoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. Matthew 16:25

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would like to know on what basis the members of other religions feel they are saved/forgiven.

---

quote:

---

Matthew 7:21 Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

Matthew 25:40 And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did [it] to one of the least of these My brethren, you did [it] to Me.'

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

John 14:24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

John 15:10 "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
God's relationship to us is like a physician to a patient.

---

quote:

---

I would like to know on what basis the members of other religions feel they are saved/forgiven .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
In other words by following the moral requirements of that faith. I don't include in that unblanaced elements within Islam which promise a paradise full of virgins to suicide bombers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Freddy said by following the commandments of Jesus. I agree with him, but also by following the precepts taught by Moses of the Buddha which include versions of the golden rule. In other words by following the moral requirements of that faith. I don't include in that unblanaced elements within Islam which promise a paradise full of virgins to suicide bombers. I mean morality which teaches love of God and neighbour. After all, Jesus said that entry to the kingdom came from a correct following of Deuteronomy 6.4 and Leviticus 19.18. (Mark 12.28-34)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can anyone be described as blameless whose sins are not forgiven at the cross?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

<big snip>
Sounds terrible. The only way to be saved is to completely subjugate yourself. To abandon any individuality you once posessed.

The very thought terrifies me. Is there another option?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

I would like to know on what basis the members of other religions feel they are saved/forgiven .

---

Freddy said by following the commandments of Jesus. I agree with him, but also by following the precepts taught by Moses of the Buddha which include versions of the golden rule. In other words by following the moral requirements of that faith. I don't include in that unblanaced elements within Islam which promise a paradise full of virgins to suicide bombers. I mean morality which teaches love of God and neighbour. After all, Jesus said that entry to the kingdom came from a correct following of Deuteronomy 6.4 and Leviticus 19.18. (Mark 12.28-34)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can anyone be described as blameless whose sins are not forgiven at the cross?

---

Is there anybody whose sins are not forgiven at the cross? But don't take my word for it:

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

---

I am not a Calvinist. I do not believe in limited atonement - ie that Jesus died to save those he had predestined to save.

I am a Wesleyan, which is not as wishy-washy and person-centred as Arminianism, relying as it does on prevenient grace. I believe that Jesus has made atonement for the whole world that 'whosoever will may be saved.'

That makes me not a universalist. If I was, I would believe that unlimited atonement automatically saves everyone because he died for the whole world. But that position is as bad as predestiantion because it rules out choice, free-will, and the integrity of the individual.

If predestination is horrible becuase it forces people into hell, then universalism (though kinder) is wrong because it forces everyone (even non-believers) into heaven.

Yes, there is a heaven for everyone; but it wouldn't be heaven if everyone went there regardless of righteousness or otherwise.

Can there be eternal life without repentance and faith?

Or sacraments?

IMHO, I think not.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Oh, no! I hate to seem a closet supporter of the Orthodox Plot(tm), but as usual ISTM Josephene has it spot on!

In answer to your question,

quote:

---

Why then is there not a Final Healing instead of a Final Judgment?

---

quote:

---

The word judgement is somewhat problematic, because, when used in a religious context, it is so tied up in our minds with punishment. In fact in secular legal terms, judgement is the revealing of the mind of the judge, the basis upon which s/he makes his or her decision. So I would see God's judgement as the declaration of His mind on all things. I don't think it is necessarily to do with harps or toasting forks.

---

quote:

---

What is the basis of salvation - not spirituality, not faith or religion, not golden rules or holistic welfare; not sense of worth, purpose or 'light' - but forgiveness of sins.

In other religions, under what basis does 'god' forgive sins?

---

quote:

---

Is there anybody whose sins are not forgiven at the cross? But don't take my word for it:

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Tentatively therefore, I propose that judgement might be about whether we actually want this and are prepared to do anything about it - which way are we heading, towards God and Heaven or away from them? The problems of faith versus works and Amazon tribes go away if this is true, and we can see that the practical teachings of mainstream Christian denominations are geared towards this. Detailed Catholic doctrine on sin with its system of confession and repentance is designed to orient the creature towards God and hasten deification. Protestant soteriology still emphasises that faith without works is dead - thus sanctification must proceed inevitably from justification.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

---

quote:

---

And that's the bottom line.
What is the basis of salvation - not spirituality, not faith or religion, not golden rules or holistic welfare; not sense of worth, purpose or 'light' - but forgiveness of sins.

In other religions, under what basis does 'god' forgive sins?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I am not a Calvinist. I do not believe in limited atonement - ie that Jesus died to save those he had predestined to save.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Paul tells us that it's impossible to keep the Law adequately in order to attain eternal life.

Romans 3 v 20
"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather through the law we become conscious of sin."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And James - who majors on works as well as faith - says:
"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." 2 v 10

---

quote:

---

Matthew 5:19 "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches [them,] he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
In fact in secular legal terms, judgement is the revealing of the mind of the judge, the basis upon which s/he makes his or her decision. So I would see God's judgement as the declaration of His mind on all things.

---

See, there's one teeny tiny problem here Jolly Jape. In secular legal terms, once the judge "reveals his/her mind," not everyone gets to get up and leave. The innocent and the spectators get to walk out. The guilty have to take their punishment and big guys with guns slap handcuffs on them to take them where they are going for punishment. They don't get to say, "The judge was an idiot, I'm leaving with everybody else. Thanks for declaring your mind, judge. Real interesting stuff. Can you people believe this crap?"

If God does nothing but declare His mind on all things at some point, and that's all there is to Final Judgment of the Living and The Dead, there is neither healing nor judgment. There is only hot air.
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimmyT:
See, there's one teeny tiny problem here Jolly Jape. In secular legal terms, once the judge "reveals his/her mind," not everyone gets to get up and leave.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
The problem, of course, is that you're insisting that "judgment" be understood in secular legal terms. I simply don't believe that's the correct way to see it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Please, I would be interested if you could expound on this verse without discounting it or changing it's plain meaning. Don't read it in the light of your doctrine, just read it as it stands and tell me what it means.

You cannot get plainer than what it says.

---

Not plain enough, evidently.

The meaning is not that you are doomed if you make the least little mistake. The point is that you can't pick and choose which of God's teachings you are going to obey. You don't get "credit" for keeping nine commandments if you intentionally ignore the tenth.

This is more obvious if you read the statement in context:

quote:

---

James2.10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one [point,] he is guilty of all. 11 For He who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. 14 What [does it] profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

---

James is not speaking of "one small point." He is speaking about people who refrain from adultery but commt murder.

Beyond that, however, he goes on to say that faith cannot save a person. It makes no sense to read James as teaching that it is impossible to keep the law, and that therefore we must rely on grace through faith. He explicitly denies salvation by faith alone.

Jame's point is that it is very important to keep all the commandments. It is ludicrous that Christians have used these statements to support the idea that salvation is not based on obedience to God.

[ 26. August 2005, 20:00: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimmyT:
[quote][qb]1. Why doesn't God heal us permanently now? Why do we need to limp around in this life until the Final Healing of the next?

---

quote:

---

2. If our children show the first signs of rejection of God, why don't we kill them and send them to God for healing?

---

quote:

---

Indeed, if Heaven is where we will be well because there will be no more sickness of any kind, and if we are all sick now because sin has not been eliminated from the universe, why don't we all kill ourselves and wait for our Final Healing?

---

quote:

---

Further, you said there are no rules, only sickness and advice. <snip> I can't see the function or purpose of a protracted period of disease. If there are no rules, why should we force ourselves to put up with it, or why should God force us to put up with it?

---

quote:

---

...Jolly Jape set up her analogy ....

---

Ahem! "his" as it happens . Poetic justice for me spelling your name wrong, I guess.

The point I was making was that, whilst the word judgement is used, that need not necessarily carry with it connotations of penal retribution.
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
Except that JimmyT said that, not me. And in my post, I was agreeing with you -- judgment needn't imply crime and and punishment.
 

---

Posted by JimmyT (# 142) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Except that JimmyT said that, not me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimmyT:

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Except that JimmyT said that, not me.

---

Said what?

---

quote:

---

Josephine:

quote:

---

...Jolly Jape set up her analogy ....

---

Ahem! "his" as it happens . Poetic justice for me spelling your name wrong, I guess.

---

quote:

---

At the same time, I raised an objection to your "disease" analogy and on the most important questions got a recording: "not part of the prescription."

---

quote:

---

You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written: 'God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
"If God is the Great Physician, why don't we all just kill our children, then kill ourselves?" it didn't seem like an important question to me. In fact, it honestly didn't sound like a question at all. It sounded like a bit of belligerent rhetoric. So I treated it as such.

If I misread your tone, I apologize. If you were asking a question that you wanted an answer for, I'll be happy to do my best to answer it. Just let me know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimmyT:
So that's what I meant. My apologies again.

---

quote:

---

you blew off my admittedly semi-rhetorical question which I suppose should have been worded as a statement: your analogy breaks down because...

---

quote:

---

If to say, "We're all sinners, we're all sinful" is our way of saying, "Something is not right, something is radically wrong, we are lost," I agree.

<snip>

When sin becomes the one-size-fits all designator of the human condition, then forgiveness becomes the one size fits all remedy. And this is the problem. If the issue is blindness, what we need is not forgiveness, but sight. If the issue is bondage, what we need is not forgiveness, but liberation, and so forth.

---

I can agree that we are "diseased" in some regards and in need of "healing" for those diseases but also "beset by all manner of problems" and in need of solutions. We need to solve our problems and help others solve theirs be it healing or provision of essentials of any kind. Sin perhaps should be seen as shielding ourselves and others from solutions to problems and that sin is erased when the problem is solved. Finding solutions to problems appeals to me more than asking forgiveness for my sins. If I'm doing my best to solve my own problems and running around helping others solve theirs, how many sins can I really be committing if I go about it with an earnest and humble heart?
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Gordon--

Re Josephine:


Maybe because the legal model doesn't allow for much hope?



[ 27. August 2005, 05:47: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Maybe because the legal model doesn't allow for much hope?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimmyT:
Finding solutions to problems appeals to me more than asking forgiveness for my sins. If I'm doing my best to solve my own problems and running around helping others solve theirs, how many sins can I really be committing if I go about it with an earnest and humble heart?

---

I like this way of looking at it. In fact I think that this is the whole idea behind true religion.

Jesus came, in my view, to help people find solutions to their problems, and set them back on the right course. The right course is one that leads to useful service and mutual love, and therefore to heavenly happiness.

This "healing" is truly something miraculous, which can only come from God. But our part is to identify what is harmful and avoid it by keeping the commandments of God. This is how to receive God's mercy and be healed.

The idea that this can only happen by faith alone, because actual changes in behavior are impossible is not, in my opinion, a productive way to approach the issue.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Please, I would be interested if you could expound on this verse without discounting it or changing it's plain meaning. Don't read it in the light of your doctrine, just read it as it stands and tell me what it means.

You cannot get plainer than what it says.

---

Not plain enough, evidently.

The meaning is not that you are doomed if you make the least little mistake. The point is that you can't pick and choose which of God's teachings you are going to obey. You don't get "credit" for keeping nine commandments if you intentionally ignore the tenth.

This is more obvious if you read the statement in context:

quote:

---

James2.10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one [point,] he is guilty of all. 11 For He who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. 14 What [does it] profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

---

James is not speaking of "one small point." He is speaking about people who refrain from adultery but commt murder.

Beyond that, however, he goes on to say that faith cannot save a person. It makes no sense to read James as teaching that it is impossible to keep the law, and that therefore we must rely on grace through faith. He explicitly denies salvation by faith alone.

Jame's point is that it is very important to keep all the commandments. It is ludicrous that Christians have used these statements to support the idea that salvation is not based on obedience to God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimmyT:
Finding solutions to problems appeals to me more than asking forgiveness for my sins. If I'm doing my best to solve my own problems and running around helping others solve theirs, how many sins can I really be committing if I go about it with an earnest and humble heart?

---

I like this way of looking at it. In fact I think that this is the whole idea behind true religion.

Jesus came, in my view, to help people find solutions to their problems, and set them back on the right course. The right course is one that leads to useful service and mutual love, and therefore to heavenly happiness.

This "healing" is truly something miraculous, which can only come from God. But our part is to identify what is harmful and avoid it by keeping the commandments of God. This is how to receive God's mercy and be healed.

The idea that this can only happen by faith alone, because actual changes in behavior are impossible is not, in my opinion, a productive way to approach the issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I still can't quite get, Josephine, why you want to insist that your model is right (or right enough) and the legal model is not just less right, but plain wrong.

I think they are both right as far as they go, and others as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But what I am saying is that keeping the law will not save you because you would need to be 100% in your law-keeping and that is impossible.

---

quote:

---

It ought to be understood as follows: that anyone who from purpose or from confirmation acts against one commandment, acts against all the rest. The reason is that to act from purpose or from confirmation is to deny altogether that it is a sin. Someone who denies that it is a sin, makes light of acting against all the rest of the commandments.

Everyone knows that a fornicator is not therefore a murderer, a thief, or a false witness, nor even wants to be such. But a person who is an adulterer from purpose and confirmation, makes light of all things relating to religion, and consequently pays no regard to murders, thefts, and false witness, not abstaining from them because they are sins, but for fear of the law or loss of reputation.

The case is similar, if anyone from purpose or confirmation acts against any other commandment of the Decalogue. He does then also offend against the rest, because he does not account anything a sin.

At the same time, the case is the same in the opposite situation, that is, with people who desire to do what is right from the Lord. These, if from the will and understanding, or from purpose and confirmation, abstain from one evil because it is a sin, abstain from all. This is even more true if they abstain from many.

For whenever anyone abstains, from purpose and confirmation, from any evil, because it is a sin, he is kept by the Lord in the purpose of abstaining from the rest. Wherefore if through ignorance, or any predominant lust of the body, he does an evil, it nevertheless is not imputed to him, because he did not intend it, nor confirm it with himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
However, you are quite right when you speak about obedience. Salvationist docrtine states explicitly: We believe that continuance in a state of salvation depends upon continued obedient faith in Christ.

---

Well, hang on. If it is impossible to be obedient to Christ then how does this work? Aren't you contradicting yourself?
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sorry, you can't get away from the fact that "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners" and that "He who knew no sin became sin for us."

Jesus is not a problem solver, he is a sin-bearer.

---

He is a sin-bearer in the sense that He took on the sins of the world and overcame them.

He overcame the power of Hell.

He saved sinners by teaching them the truth and by releasing them from the power of the hells.

So He is a problem solver. He is our Redeemer and Savior.

The problem is solved when people obey Jesus, learn to love one another, to abstain from harmful things, and restore peace to the world. This is how God works and what Jesus taught.

He came to reform the world, not to satisfy "divine justice."
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Golly, that makes a great deal of sense, Freddy. You sure you're not Orthodox?
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
You sure you're not Orthodox?

---

I am always happy about how much Orthodox theology has in common with the New Church.
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
At the same time, the case is the same in the opposite situation, that is, with people who desire to do what is right from the Lord. These, if from the will and understanding, or from purpose and confirmation, abstain from one evil because it is a sin, abstain from all. This is even more true if they abstain from many.

For whenever anyone abstains, from purpose and confirmation, from any evil, because it is a sin, he is kept by the Lord in the purpose of abstaining from the rest. Wherefore if through ignorance, or any predominant lust of the body, he does an evil, it nevertheless is not imputed to him, because he did not intend it, nor confirm it with himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
It seems to be a very indefenseable, tautological framework.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
You sure you're not Orthodox?

---

I am always happy about how much Orthodox theology has in common with the New Church.

---

And with my own New Corinthian Fellowship of Radically Reformed Christians, Panentheist.

But Freddy, you slipped just a tad back to the "legal," or at least back to the "rule maker" instead of "advice giver" and "prescription writer:"

quote:

---

But our part is to identify what is harmful and avoid it by keeping the commandments of God. This is how to receive God's mercy and be healed.

---

quote:

---

But our part is to recognize, with prayer and meditation, what is harmful and eliminate it by seeking, finding, and taking the advice of God. In taking it, we receive God's mercy and inevitably will be healed. This is a promise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimmyT:
Am I Clear?*

* The correct answer is "Crystal."

---

 

---

Posted by JimmyT (# 142) on :
 
That was the response of Tom Cruise to Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men." Joke. Not funny if it has to be explained. Ignore if not funny.

Thank you.

[ 27. August 2005, 22:00: Message edited by: JimmyT ]
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
I got the reference. The question is whether I can handle the truth.
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
It seems to be a very indefenseable, tautological framework.

---

Not at all.

There is a big difference between the effort to obey the law and the effort to disregard the law. This effort and intention is what God looks at. Are you not aware that God looks at the heart?

---

Okay, so I'll give you that God looks at the heart. Yes, I agree with that. We now see that God looks at our heart and knows our motivations and intentions. He knows if the sin we committed was unintentional. He also knows if the abstention was ill-motivated.

It would follow that a person could continue to slip up over and over, never quite getting it right but always wanting to, and God would see his/her heart. A person could never outwardly break the law or even the spiritual law once and yet be completely ill-motivated, and God would see this too.

So what does it mean to say that we can be saved by the Law -- that salvation depends on our obedience? It can only mean that salvation depends on the condition of our heart, doesn't it?


Perhaps I'm still misunderstanding. It's late. Let me emphasize something I've never said -- much respect for you Freddy.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I still can't quite get, Josephine, why you want to insist that your model is right (or right enough) and the legal model is not just less right, but plain wrong.

I think they are both right as far as they go, and others as well.

---

I'll grant that the legal model has "something of the truth," as you said. Our Lord himself compared the Kingdom of Heaven to an unjust judge, and there's the parable of the servant who would not forgive his fellows their debts. Both of those use a juridical/legal model to tell us something about what God is like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
It would follow that a person could continue to slip up over and over, never quite getting it right but always wanting to, and God would see his/her heart. A person could never outwardly break the law or even the spiritual law once and yet be completely ill-motivated, and God would see this too.

So what does it mean to say that we can be saved by the Law -- that salvation depends on our obedience? It can only mean that salvation depends on the condition of our heart, doesn't it?

---

That's right. The loves that exist in heaven are love to the Lord and love to the neighbor. Everyone whose heart is formed to possess those loves is in heaven, and experiences its happiness.

God sees the heart and God, in a sense, judges each individual based on what He sees. But the actual process of judgment is that happiness or unhappiness is inherent in what a person loves, because this determines the quality of life that receives God's love.

So a person can slip up many times and yet have heavenly qualities in their heart, or conversely they can never slip up and have only hellish ones.

But all are nevertheless saved according to the law because the effort to obey God is the essence of what receives His life, and what therefore forms the heart that God sees.

The proof is in the pudding. In this world people can, by circumstances and heredity, struggle unsuccessfully all of their life to obey, and yet fall short. But in the next life the playing field is leveled, and people act according to the true dictates of their heart. Those dictates then lead them to heaven or hell, because those places are where they experience the happiness that is consistent with what they truly love.

The catch is that the dictates of the heart are formed according to a person's life and intentions in this world. People aren't actually judged according to their sins. Rather, it is that people are formed by the nature of their life, and both their sins and good actions go into that equation. One who commits adultery gradually becomes an adulterer. One who rejects adultery, gradually has those tendencies taken away by God.

So God shows mercy to all, but only those who can receive it are able to have the heavenly happiness that He wishes to give to all. Each receives it according to the form of his heart, formed according to his efforts, which are really God's efforts, to obey God's will and not his own.

Thank you for your expression of respect, which I am happy to return.
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
You've shown me two instances in Scripture about where it is found, but is there anything in the juridical/legal model that is taught, that you didn't already believe without it? Would you say, for example, that we really are guilty?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sorry, you can't get away from the fact that "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners" and that "He who knew no sin became sin for us."

Jesus is not a problem solver, he is a sin-bearer.

---

He is a sin-bearer in the sense that He took on the sins of the world and overcame them.

He overcame the power of Hell.

He saved sinners by teaching them the truth and by releasing them from the power of the hells.

So He is a problem solver. He is our Redeemer and Savior.

The problem is solved when people obey Jesus, learn to love one another, to abstain from harmful things, and restore peace to the world. This is how God works and what Jesus taught.

He came to reform the world, not to satisfy "divine justice."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And yes, the wrath of God is satisfied by Christ's death. And my sin, making me deserve an eternity in hell, is taken away by repentance and faith...

Contradict that and you contradict the Christian doctrine of atonement believed by all mainstream orthodoxy.

---

By "all mainstream orthodoxy" I presume you mean "me and all my friends."

--Tom Clune
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Is sin not an offense to God that we participate in and thus are deserving of his wrath?

Does sin not need forgiveness by grace following repentance?

Is sin not the cause of spiritual death rather tan an inconvenience that God can take away.

---

Yes, yes, and yes. Sin is a very bad thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We are not blameless in all this. Being sinners puts us at enmity with God. It is certainly not a doctor / patient relationship where the illness is foreign to us. The sin we have in ourselves is our nature.

---

quote:

---

“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13“But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” Matthew 9.12

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It is not defeated on our behalf by Jesus, it is cleansed from us by his blood, forgiven by his atoning substitutionary sacrifice - all because of God's love which would rather we didn't suffer spiritual death.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Contradict that and you contradict the Christian doctrine of atonement believed by all mainstream orthodoxy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And yes, the wrath of God is satisfied by Christ's death. And my sin, making me deserve an eternity in hell, is taken away by repentance and faith...

Contradict that and you contradict the Christian doctrine of atonement believed by all mainstream orthodoxy.

---

By "all mainstream orthodoxy" I presume you mean "me and all my friends."

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So you are saying that mainstream Christian doctrine is neither Scriptural nor correct?

Does that not put your church at variance with Christianity?

---

I would rather be at variance with mainstream Christianity than at variance with the Bible.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Who the hell is this "Mainstream Christianity"?
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
And where did tclune and Freddy get the idea that saying potentially stinging things is all okay as long as they append the winking smiley to their posts?

Mudfrog, I've sung that hymn more times than I can count--fortunately not in the church in which i found a home--and it never fails to creep me out. I am very much in disagreement with its sentiment. I don't think Jesus pardons us at the moment when we believe (whatever "belief" is); God's prevenient grace comes before any action on our part.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
I was wondering the same thing. But Mudfrog seemed very sure of himself, so I thought I better just play along.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
And where did tclune and Freddy get the idea that saying potentially stinging things is all okay as long as they append the winking smiley to their posts?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
You've shown me two instances in Scripture about where it is found, but is there anything in the juridical/legal model that is taught, that you didn't already believe without it? Would you say, for example, that we really are guilty?

---

Ah, Gordon, if I say, "yes," you'll immediately point out that guilt implies by definition a law that was broken and a judge that declares that it was broken. The whole concept of guilt belongs to the juridical model.

---

I was 100% sure you'd spot that hole and step your way around it as delicately as you have. You didn't disappoint!

But may I point out that you did so only by not answering my question, and then expanding on your previous point.
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
I think guilt can be defined as a society-invoked feeling, learned young enough to be effective in gaining submission to a set of rules. Not that I believe it definitely IS that. But it's not necessarily a direct proof that God actually desires us to experience guilt.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Guilt can be defined that way, but it also has a technical legal meaning, which I believe is reflected in Scripture.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So you are saying that mainstream Christian doctrine is neither Scriptural nor correct?

Does that not put your church at variance with Christianity?

---

I would rather be at variance with mainstream Christianity than at variance with the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So you are saying that mainstream Christian doctrine is neither Scriptural nor correct?

Does that not put your church at variance with Christianity?

---

I would rather be at variance with mainstream Christianity than at variance with the Bible.

---

I'm always worried about a group that believes it alone has the truth about what the Bible says.

Jehovah's Witnesses
Mormons
Christadelphians
Swedengorgians

You all think you are the only way.
You all have a 'prophet' who sets himself up as the expounder of truth lost to every other church.

It's all so predictable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Who the hell is this "Mainstream Christianity"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
And where did tclune and Freddy get the idea that saying potentially stinging things is all okay as long as they append the winking smiley to their posts?

Mudfrog, I've sung that hymn more times than I can count--fortunately not in the church in which i found a home--and it never fails to creep me out. I am very much in disagreement with its sentiment. I don't think Jesus pardons us at the moment when we believe (whatever "belief" is); God's prevenient grace comes before any action on our part.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You all think you are the only way.
You all have a 'prophet' who sets himself up as the expounder of truth lost to every other church.

It's all so predictable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You all think you are the only way.
You all have a 'prophet' who sets himself up as the expounder of truth lost to every other church.

It's all so predictable.

---

Every group was started by someone who thought they had the right idea. It is true that virtually all of them don't have it quite right. God will be the judge of that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But may I point out that you did so only by not answering my question, and then expanding on your previous point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And to come on this forum - as is your right of course - and tell those of us in the catholic, orthodox, reformed and evangelical churches that we have ALL got our Scriptural interpretations wrong over the last 1900 years, whilst Mr Swedenborg uniquely knows the mind of God and the Biblical writers, is a little...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And yes, the wrath of God is satisfied by Christ's death. And my sin, making me deserve an eternity in hell, is taken away by repentance and faith...

Contradict that and you contradict the Christian doctrine of atonement believed by all mainstream orthodoxy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I appreciate the creeping out thing. There are hymns that jar with me too. It's the language styles used propbably, especially if it's victorian.

---

quote:

---

As far as the belief that Jesus pardons at the moment we believe, well it's the experience and testimony of an awful lot of people that theirs is an instantaneous conversion experience.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

As far as the belief that Jesus pardons at the moment we believe, well it's the experience and testimony of an awful lot of people that theirs is an instantaneous conversion experience.

---

And it's also the experience of a lot of people that their conversion experience isn't instantaneous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
This brief article might be useful in helping you understand the problem we see in any theory of satisfaction.

---

I'd never seen this distinction between theories of atonement. Delightfully enlightening!

(Though not exactly brief... )


-Digory
 

---

Posted by The Lesser Weevil (# 10070) on :
 
Though perhaps we should split the question: when a human, bound by time, experiences a feeling of pardon from Jesus is a different question than when Jesus, dying and rising 2000 years ago and active divinely outside of the bounds of time, actually pardons/pardoned/will pardon.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

Which is what I did with your question. "Are we guilty?" carries a cartload of assumptions that must be addressed first, and separately, before we know whether your question even has an answer.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by josephine:
I'll grant that the legal model has "something of the truth," as you said.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by me:
What is that "something of the truth", then? You've shown me two instances in Scripture about where it is found, but is there anything in the juridical/legal model that is taught, that you didn't already believe without it? Would you say, for example, that we really are guilty?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
[T]he full version of what I asked in response was:

quote:

---

originally posted by me:
What is that "something of the truth", then? You've shown me two instances in Scripture about where it is found, but is there anything in the juridical/legal model that is taught, that you didn't already believe without it? Would you say, for example, that we really are guilty?

---

I would be happy to drop that last subquestion and still hear your answer to the main question, as I'm still unclear as to what you think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
(Though not exactly brief... )

---

quote:

---

I'll grant that the legal model has "something of the truth," as you said. Our Lord himself compared the Kingdom of Heaven to an unjust judge, and there's the parable of the servant who would not forgive his fellows their debts. Both of those use a juridical/legal model to tell us something about what God is like.

---

quote:

---

As far as the belief that Jesus pardons at the moment we believe, well it's the experience and testimony of an awful lot of people that theirs is an instantaneous conversion experience.

---

quote:

---

Surely not accepting forgiveness and not being aware of the provision of forgiveness amounts to the same thing.

---

quote:

---

If you are not in conscious possession of forgiveness by grace through faith, then you an offender that has not received a pardon and the penalty still stands and the sentence must be served.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
My argument is with your presupposition that the central salvific problem is that we need our sins forgiven. I contend that they are already forgiven. What the atonement accomplishes is the undoing of the cosmic effect of that sin, if you like, the healing of the sinner (and all creation too).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You make it sound like we are all saved unless we choose not to be.

Which is of course the antithesis of the Gospel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Sorry to douple post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenWritez:
I've seen this myth being promulgated for a long time but I figure since AW's a noob I'll address it now.

AW; "double posting" is not a faux pas, it's not any kind of an official issue on the Ship. I've no idea how that idea got started, but it's untrue. If you double post, you double post; no worries.

Anyone who has a problem with double posting has their knickers knotted waaaay too tightly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If one doesn't seek for that grace then it is not given to you and you will die unredeemed. To say that God forgives our sins, thereby saving us, without our knowing is going against free will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If one doesn't seek for that grace then it is not given to you and you will die unredeemed. To say that God forgives our sins, thereby saving us, without our knowing is going against free will.

---

But Jesus said that the way that you go about seeking grace is to do the will of the Father. People all over the world who love God and the neighbor are obeying that will.

The choice is between good and evil. Everyone on earth knows enough about this to freely choose.

The point of being Christian is that acceptance of and obedience to Christ's teachings is the most powerful and best way for this to happen. This is the light that came into the world that will change the world.

It is like information about health. It is vital for this information to be spread around the world. Millions are suffering without it. But everyone has some information about it, and there are healthy people everywhere in the world.

The Incarnation was for the purpose of restoring spiritual health to the world. The mechanism is similar to almost any other kind of reformation. This is how grace operates in all things.

---

quote:

---

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.

---

quote:

---

My church's doctrine says that the Lord JC has, by his suffering and death made an atonement for the whole world so that whosoever will may be saved.

---

quote:

---

Yes, our forgiveness is a done deal as far as its provision but the personal application of that forgiveness depends very much on a deliberate act of willing faith.

---

quote:

---

If one doesn't seek for that grace then it is not given to you and you will die unredeemed. To say that God forgives our sins, thereby saving us, without our knowing is going against free will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
You apparently contradict yourself Mudfrog:

'You make it sound like we are all saved unless we choose not to be.

Which is of course the antithesis of the Gospel.'

...

'whosoever will may be saved'.

So either you don't believe the gospel or you can somehow reconcile these logical opposites.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
God's will has a lot to do with our response to Jesus and not to some vague notion of 'God' and our practice of neighbourliness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If there is no trust in Jesus as the atoning sacrifice, then we can obey the letter of the law as much as the next Pharisee but we will die in our sins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If there is no trust in Jesus as the atoning sacrifice, then we can obey the letter of the law as much as the next Pharisee but we will die in our sins.

---

I understand what Scriptures you base that idea on.

But don't you think that Jesus own teaching leans more heavily towards obedience to His teachings as the basis of forgiveness and salvation?

If you lined up the biblical statements about salvation and forgiveness, what would you say receives the greater emphasis?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would say that Jesus gave a different message to everyone who asked him how to gain eternal life. The reason was not that he contradicted himself or was inconsistent, but that he only used religious words to religious people and the only person he spoke 'spiritually' to was Nicodemus - and even he didn't understand about being born again and believing in the only begotten Son.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Second point. Are you suggesting that we take Jesus' teaching against the Apostles's?

Or should we treat the Gospel as contained in the 66 books as a unified whole?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Belief certainly involves acceptance and obedience but it also involves trust and faith.

---

Oh you went and did it--you made me bust out the Zondervan Exhaustive Concordance.

Ephesians 2

1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

[a]Ephesians 2:3 Or "our flesh"

It seems to me that every explanation we typically give for how we obtain salvation always leaves room for us to boast. We accept it. We are obedient. We make a choice. Etc.

But as this passage points out, God, in his great mercy, made us alive while we were still dead. This, to me, implies that through no action or choice of our own we were saved by grace ("through faith" may be added because of our tendency to disbelieve the idea that we could be saved just by grace), so that no one can boast about it for any reason.

For some reason, we are very hesitant to even consider this idea.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by The Lesser Weevil (# 10070) on :
 
Digory,

quote:

---

But as this passage points out, God, in his great mercy, made us alive while we were still dead. This, to me, implies that through no action or choice of our own we were saved by grace

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Lesser Weevil:
Digory,

quote:

---

But as this passage points out, God, in his great mercy, made us alive while we were still dead. This, to me, implies that through no action or choice of our own we were saved by grace

---

Amen! God has mercy on us first. Then we believe, repent, obey, become increasingly loving/holy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Question: If God has mercy on us first... will we not receive this mercy if we do not "believe, repent, obey, become increasingly loving/holy"?

---

There's the rub.

If we do ANYTHING then we have room to boast. The only way to not do anything is if all is predestined.

And if God can give us the power to believe without our claiming merit, then why can't He give us power to obey without our claiming merit?
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Lesser Weevil:
Digory,

quote:

---

But as this passage points out, God, in his great mercy, made us alive while we were still dead. This, to me, implies that through no action or choice of our own we were saved by grace

---

Amen! God has mercy on us first. Then we believe, repent, obey, become increasingly loving/holy.

---

I got an Amen! What a proud day in the Kirke house...

Question: If God has mercy on us first... will we not receive this mercy if we do not "believe, repent, obey, become increasingly loving/holy"?

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
If we do ANYTHING then we have room to boast. The only way to not do anything is if all is predestined.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
And if God can give us the power to believe without our claiming merit, then why can't He give us power to obey without our claiming merit?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
And if God can give us the power to believe without our claiming merit, then why can't He give us power to obey without our claiming merit?

---

I think I may have lost you here. What are you referring to when you say that God can give us the power to believe without claiming merit?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Question: If God has mercy on us first... will we not receive this mercy if we do not "believe, repent, obey, become increasingly loving/holy"?

-Digory

---

No, because the gospel "is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes."

Ropmans 1 v 16

---

Honestly, I don't know how this passage relates to my question?
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
And if God can give us the power to believe without our claiming merit, then why can't He give us power to obey without our claiming merit?

---

I think I may have lost you here. What are you referring to when you say that God can give us the power to believe without claiming merit?

---

Just that we are trying to avoid merit and boasting. Someone could easily be proud and claim merit for having accepted Jesus.

So faith-alone is no solution to the problem of merit.

The truth is that it is God who gives us faith, so there is really no room for merit and pride.

But if that is true, then it is also true that God gives us the power to obey Him, so there is no room for merit there either.

So why not just accept Jesus' words that salvation depends on obedience?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
And if God can give us the power to believe without our claiming merit, then why can't He give us power to obey without our claiming merit?

---

I think I may have lost you here. What are you referring to when you say that God can give us the power to believe without claiming merit?

---

Just that we are trying to avoid merit and boasting. Someone could easily be proud and claim merit for having accepted Jesus.

So faith-alone is no solution to the problem of merit.

The truth is that it is God who gives us faith, so there is really no room for merit and pride.

But if that is true, then it is also true that God gives us the power to obey Him, so there is no room for merit there either.

So why not just accept Jesus' words that salvation depends on obedience?

---

Ah, I see now. But what I've been suggesting is that salvation doesn't depend on anything we do at all, belief OR obedience. As stated in the passage I quoted above, I suggest that Christ saved us while we were yet sinners, granting us grace before we even realize we need it. Our lives involve our journey toward the full realization of the potential life we can now live once we understand our salvation, but we need not do ANYTHING to gain it.

-Digory

[ETA the last nine words of the last sentence.]

[ 30. August 2005, 20:43: Message edited by: professorkirke ]
 

---

Posted by The Lesser Weevil (# 10070) on :
 
P-R-E-S-B...

But to shift the thread, what about our Moslem doctor of earlier? I didn't mean to imply that our grace-enabled response was necessarily of any particular form. Might some become holy and loving long before they recognise the source of the grace that set them on that path?
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
As stated in the passage I quoted above, I suggest that Christ saved us while we were yet sinners, granting us grace before we even realize we need it. Our lives involve our journey toward the full realization of the potential life we can now live once we understand our salvation, but we need not do ANYTHING to gain it.

---

echoing the Lesser Weevil, sure, go ahead down that path. It is a perfectly logical conclusion.

No point in being a Christian or anything else, then.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If obtaining salvation depends upon obediently keeping the law, why bother with a gift of faith then?

---

Because the truth is that we have no power to do anything by or from ourselves, because God has all power.

We cannot keep the law without having faith in Him, and we have no power even to have faith - so it is a free gift.

But because He loves us, He lets us feel that this faith, and these works, are ours. So it feels as though we ourselves are keeping the Law through our own efforts. But the efforts are God's. Still, this is what He asks us to do.

The real secret, though, is that belief in God, and appealing to Him for help, is necessary to being able to live a good life. A person really can't keep the Law without faith.

Alcoholics Anonymous is a very interesting illustration of this, since its key ingredient is that only God can keep a person back from the Demon Rum.
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
So my understanding of a legal model is that it begins (I think confirmed by these stories and others) not with the Law as some free-floating standard but with a just Lawgiver who communicates his expectations perfectly. Adam and Eve obeyed his law for a time and then failed (You may eat...but do not eat of...), the rest of us fail, except in Christ, who imparts an alien righteousness (righteous='not guilty', among other things) to us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
To say that God forgives our sins, thereby saving us, without our knowing is going against free will.

---

quote:

---

But what I've been suggesting is that salvation doesn't depend on anything we do at all, belief OR obedience. As stated in the passage I quoted above, I suggest that Christ saved us while we were yet sinners, granting us grace before we even realize we need it. Our lives involve our journey toward the full realization of the potential life we can now live once we understand our salvation, but we need not do ANYTHING to gain it.

---

quote:

---

How can John 3 v 16 not be about forgiveness.

aul says the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

In other words, the opposite of sin, the result of having sin taken away/ forgiven, is receiving the gift of eternal life - which is what God sent his son to give in response to our belief.

---

quote:

---

In other words, the opposite of sin, the result of having sin taken away/ forgiven, is receiving the gift of eternal life - which is what God sent his son to give in response to our belief.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Sorry to be so basic, then, but why (in your opinion) does the New Testament (including Jesus) refer to the Old Testament as the "Law and the Prophets", and sometimes just as the "Law", if God is not lawgiver.

---

quote:

---

And, in your opinion (depending on your answer), is it possible to break this "Law"?

---

quote:

---

Yes, our forgiveness is a done deal as far as its provision but the personal application of that forgiveness depends very much on a deliberate act of willing faith.

---

quote:

---

Of course it is. I break it every time I have a ham and cheese sandwich, or wear my cotton-and-linen blend dress

---

quote:

---

God's will has a lot to do with our response to Jesus and not to some vague notion of 'God' and our practice of neighbourliness

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
As several clergypeople and theologians of my acquaintance are wont to point out, if it ain't free, it ain't grace .

Mandating that someone do or think or feel the right things about God is turning salvation into a human work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Interestingly, over on our side of the street I think that the judicial/penal theory of atonement is rapidly losing ground to the Christus Victor theory..."it's all over but the shouting."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
In fact I can't see why we need Jesus' death or anyone else's to redeem us. Why can't I simply petition the Father for forgiveness when I go astray? For His mercy endureth forever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I see salvation through Christ in those terms and the view that God had to send Jesus to put right His creation which had gone wrong denies the omnipotence and omniscience of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Sorry to be so basic, then, but why (in your opinion) does the New Testament (including Jesus) refer to the Old Testament as the "Law and the Prophets", and sometimes just as the "Law", if God is not lawgiver.

---

I didn't say that God is not lawgiver. In fact, I think I rather clearly said that he gave the Law to his people.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Me: And, in your opinion (depending on your answer), is it possible to break this "Law"?

---

You: Of course it is. I break it every time I have a ham and cheese sandwich, or wear my cotton-and-linen blend dress.

---

quote:

---

James 2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.

---

quote:

---

The logic here is hard to argue with, but didn't Jesus mandate these things?

---

quote:

---

Maybe I'm misunderstanding Christus Victor, but I thought that it rejected the idea of faith alone. Christ was victorious over sin so that we are free to obey His law - and our salvation then depends on this obedience. Or isn't this the Orthodox view?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
No point in being a Christian or anything else, then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Of course it is. I break it every time I have a ham and cheese sandwich, or wear my cotton-and-linen blend dress

---

Actually you don't because you aren't a Jew.

---

quote:

---

A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly...

Romans 2:28-29

---

Under the new covenant, there is no Jew or Gentile. But to simply say "Well this is the old law that passed away under this new covenant, too" puts us at the same risk that comes with those who argue "If you take one thing out of the Bible, somewhat arbitrarily, how can you accept any of it as authoritative?"

It's a tough line, and quite confusing.

(Especially for me!)

-Digory
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Standing on head to get a different perspective...


What if...


...we've mistaken goals for commandments? Maybe God doesn't say "oh, you nasty filthy humans--bad humans BAD--You Didn't Do It Right! Damn you!" but instead "listen up...you're hurting yourselves and each other...there's a better way to live...how about you try it...ok, now try it again..."

...God is like a parent with a baby who is learning to walk? "C'mon, sweetie, you can do it. Whoops. Fall down and go boom! Ick. Ok, c'mon, hoist that rear up there and try again. You can do it. Keep trying. "

--God is infinitely patient with each one of us? "Hey, you got your driver's license. Congratulations! I knew you could do it. Ok, so you had to take the test 500 times, and had to practice for years. Big deal. You did it!"


Maybe God's grace and love are bigger and deeper than anything we've ever hoped for.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Re: the incertainty about To God Be The Glory and especially the verse that reads,

O perfect redemption, the purchase of blood,
To every believer the promise of God.
The vilest offender who truly believes
That moment from Jesus a pardon receives.


Some are questioning this instantaneous savation/forgiveness concept. Could I suggest a pastoral use for these words?

The scenario is a person who approaches a pastor or a priest with a heavy conscience. He is aware of wrong-doing, perhaps it's a crisis of guilt and shame. In confession, or at the altar or even in the pastor's study he asks, "I am a sinner, I feel guilty, can God forgive me?"

What would any pastor offer to a man in those circulmstances? He would the comfort and the assurance of God's grace and forgiveness:

Almighty God,
who forgives all who truly repent,
have mercy upon you,
pardon and deliver you from all your sins,
confirm and strengthen you in all goodness,
and keep you in life eternal;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Or more extempore words as an alternative.

Is the churches teaching not that Jesus forgives sins at the moment of repentance?

Surely we are not going to say to the penitent, "You'll have to wait for forgiveness until you have proved you can obey the commandments!"

Forgiveness is instantaneous - and so is the assurance of the work of grace.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Some are questioning this instantaneous savation/forgiveness concept.

---

quote:

---

Is the churches teaching not that Jesus forgives sins at the moment of repentance?

---

quote:

---

What would any pastor offer to a man in those circulmstances? He would the comfort and the assurance of God's grace and forgiveness:

Almighty God,
who forgives all who truly repent,
have mercy upon you,
pardon and deliver you from all your sins,
confirm and strengthen you in all goodness,
and keep you in life eternal;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.

---

quote:

---

Surely we are not going to say to the penitent, "You'll have to wait for forgiveness until you have proved you can obey the commandments!"

---

quote:

---

Forgiveness is instantaneous - and so is the assurance of the work of grace.

---

quote:

---

I don't think I mentioned feelings.

---

quote:

---

Forgiveness is instantaneous - and so is the assurance of the work of grace.

---

quote:

---

I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that forgiveness is already won and we are invited to appropriate it for ourselves.

---

quote:

---

What I can't accept is the possibility that just because Jesus died for the world, the world is therefore saved, it just doesn't know it yet.

---

quote:

---

forgiveness of sins is not the same thing as salvation. Forgiveness of sins is part of salvation for those of us (most of us) who have sins that need to be forgiven. But forgiveness of sins is only a very small part of salvation.

---

quote:

---

What I can't accept is the possibility that just because Jesus died for the world, the world is therefore saved, it just doesn't know it yet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Freddy asks:

quote:

---

The logic here is hard to argue with, but didn't Jesus mandate these things?

---

No.

---

quote:

---

“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13“But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” Matthew 9

“But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do the things which I say? 47“Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them, I will show you whom he is like: 48“He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently against that house, and could not shake it, for it was founded on the rock. 49“But he who heard and did nothing is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream beat vehemently; and immediately it fell. And the ruin of that house was great.” Luke 6.46-49

"For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35“A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. 36“But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. 37“For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Matthew 12.33

2“This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13“Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. 14“You are My friends if you do whatever I command you." John 15.12

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20“teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you." Matthew 28.20

“Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20“Therefore by their fruits you will know them. 21“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22“Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Matthew 7.19-23

“If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7“If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8“By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples. 9“As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. 10“If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love. John 15.6-10

“Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of the heavens.” Matthew 5:20.

“Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20“Therefore by their fruits you will know them. 21“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22“Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Matthew 7.19-23

“If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 9“As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. 10“If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love. John 15.6-10

“A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. 36“But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. 37“For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Matthew 12.33

“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.” 14Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie. Revelation 22.12-15

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:

quote:

---

What I can't accept is the possibility that just because Jesus died for the world, the world is therefore saved, it just doesn't know it yet.

---

Why? Why can't you accept that?

BTW: If you are going to make salvation contingent upon "doing something," then it seems to me that it's vitally important -- a matter of life and death, as it were -- for us all to know what the ratio of divine/human effort is that effects salvation. Is it 50/50? 75/25? 90/10? 10/90? 25/75? Do you know?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I see salvation through Christ in those terms and the view that God had to send Jesus to put right His creation which had gone wrong denies the omnipotence and omniscience of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Look, Jesus does all the saving but he can't believe for you.
You have to do something for yourself!

Whosever believes shall have everlasting life...

Repent and believe the gospel...

It is the power of God unto salvation to those who believe...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Look, Jesus does all the saving but he can't believe for you.
You have to do something for yourself!

Whosever believes shall have everlasting life...

Repent and believe the gospel...

It is the power of God unto salvation to those who believe...

---

You make it sound as if believing is something that one can just decide to do. IME that's not the case.

You also make it sound as if belief is the only thing that's essential for salvation (albeit that the other stuff is desirable). Is that what you're saying?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
We're saying the same thing Mudfrog. Unless you mean not all obtain the provision of atonement and prevenient grace. ALL are saved, whether they know it or not, unless they choose otherwise. I'm gald you agree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonaventura:
ah... the scotist doctrine of God. By scotist doctrine I mean in effect appeals to ominipotence: God if he wants is entirely free to remit sin, why then is there a need for Jesus?

Appeals to omnipotence are almost always unsatisfactory, being in effect abstract appeals to logical possibility rather than arguments from the way which God is in his action.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Freddy: What did the thief on the cross do to earn his salvation?

---

quote:

---

Is there a difference between earning salvation in the sense of a fair judge having to conclude there has been no transgression - which is what I believe earning salvation would amount to...

---

quote:

---

...doing what is necessary...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If there is no repentance and faith there is no forgiveness or salvation - however nice you might be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
These seem like a mandate to me. There are many other passages like them.

Jesus mandated that people do and think the right things in relation to God to be saved. This does not turn salvation into a human work because part of this is the acknowledgment that only God has merit and power, so that we can believe and obey Him only from His power, not our own.

Does this fit with your take on these passages?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimmyT:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If there is no repentance and faith there is no forgiveness or salvation - however nice you might be.

---

Faith in Jesus as Savior, 2nd person of the Trinity, incarnate from a Virgin, raised back to conscious life three days after physical death on a cross, Lamb of God whose shed blood was payment in full for the sin deserved by the whole world for an inherited proclivity to sin, disease, and separation from a God who is so holy that he will eternal punish those who commit any sin at all during their finite lives if they do not confess with their mouths this faith? Do I have your complete picture of the faith portion required for salvation from a fate of eternal conscious, painful punishment, or is there more? Have I added or distorted anything with respect to essentials of faith?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Repentance from unbelief is inevitable in nice people in the resurrection when God will give them His gift of faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Freddy: What did the thief on the cross do to earn his salvation?

For that matter, what do you think you're doing to earn yours? How do you know you have? What's your "salvation formula"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
1) I think Jesus' message was meant to close the chapter on the Law's saving power. As if to say, "Yes, I know you all want to save yourselves, but unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, you will never reach the kingdom of heaven" which would be equivalent to today saying "Unless you're more righteouss than Billy Graham and Mother Teresa you won't be in heaven." His point, IMO, was that salvation would have to come through other means because we are unable to live righteous enough lives to acheive it on our own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
2) Jesus wanted them to know that if they wanted salvation, they needed to follow HIS commandments, rather than the commandments they thought they should follow. The emphasis was probably on "keep MY commandments" as opposed to any others. What were his commandments--to love God and to love each other. Stop focusing on all of this religiousy stuff and just worry about loving. No amount of good works are going to save you--but I am offering you grace that saves you indefinitely. Nothing you can do can separate you from that grace.

---

quote:

---

Jesus saw the thief's heart. He knew what the thief loved, That is the key.

---

quote:

---

Only God can implant these loves in us, because by nature we incline to the loves of self and the world.

---

quote:

---

God implants these loves in us as we turn to Him, or believe in Him, and obey His Word.

---

quote:

---

This is not "earning" salvation.

---

quote:

---

If it is then even the requirement to "believe" would be "earning" salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Can you give any that it isn't?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:

quote:

---

This is not "earning" salvation.

---

"Earning points by doing stuff" is a work. Trying to believe or feel or will or do certain things in order to get God to love you is a work .

quote:

---

If it is then even the requirement to "believe" would be "earning" salvation.

---

That is indeed true -- if it were up to you to work up to a requisite level of belief or trust or holiness. The Holy Spirit is what creates saving faith in an individual -- not your own goodness or cleverness or iron-willed determination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
1) I think Jesus' message was meant to close the chapter on the Law's saving power. As if to say, "Yes, I know you all want to save yourselves, but unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, you will never reach the kingdom of heaven" which would be equivalent to today saying "Unless you're more righteouss than Billy Graham and Mother Teresa you won't be in heaven." His point, IMO, was that salvation would have to come through other means because we are unable to live righteous enough lives to acheive it on our own.

---

Digory, I don't think that this was His point at all...

---

Freddy, I'm okay with disagreeing with you on this, now that we understand exactly where we disagree. I'm not trying to say that Jesus held Pharisees up as ancient Mother Teresas, but rather that people would have seen trying to be more righteous than Pharisees as modern people would view trying to be more righteous than Mother Teresa. It just didn't seem possible to them. Jesus even tells them to "Be holy." It is my belief that this was a challenge meant to illuminate our need for grace rather than a calling to actually be sinless.

quote:

---

The teachings about salvation being conditional on obedience are so numerous that it is ridiculous to interpret them as saying that this obedience is impossible.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
2) Jesus wanted them to know that if they wanted salvation, they needed to follow HIS commandments, rather than the commandments they thought they should follow. The emphasis was probably on "keep MY commandments" as opposed to any others. What were his commandments--to love God and to love each other. Stop focusing on all of this religiousy stuff and just worry about loving. No amount of good works are going to save you--but I am offering you grace that saves you indefinitely. Nothing you can do can separate you from that grace.

---

That sounds great, except that He many times talked about what they had to do. The general idea was certainly to love God and each other, but He was more specific than this in condemning fornication, theft, hatred, etc.

---

quote:

---

Then your own decision has nothing to do with it? Then why are you trying to persuade me?

---

quote:

---

And what about what Jesus says? No comment? Isn't He the one we believe in?

---

Christ's whole life, death and resurrection are God's "yes" to us.

Come to think of it...what about Jesus? Because if salvation is something we can manage ourselves, who needs a Savior? Let's just all follow the 613 Laws in the OT and be done with it. Makes things easier. You first.
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:

quote:

---

God implants these loves in us as we turn to Him, or believe in Him, and obey His Word.

---

Oh, Freddy -- so close and yet so far away. You just said that the human inclination is to not love and care about the things of God. Yet in the very next sentence, you're making salvation contingent upon you own ability to "turn to Him," "believe in Him," and "obey His Word." Good luck with that, dude.

quote:

---

This is not "earning" salvation.

---

"Earning points by doing stuff" is a work. Trying to believe or feel or will or do certain things in order to get God to love you is a work .

quote:

---

If it is then even the requirement to "believe" would be "earning" salvation.

---

That is indeed true -- if it were up to you to work up to a requisite level of belief or trust or holiness. The Holy Spirit is what creates saving faith in an individual -- not your own goodness or cleverness or iron-willed determination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:

quote:

---

Then your own decision has nothing to do with it? Then why are you trying to persuade me?

---

To quote an American TV character: "Dude, I just do what I'm told." I.E., proclaim the Gospel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
GreyFace: Look up the dictionary definition of "saved."

---

quote:

---

Jesus did what is necessary for our salvation.

---

quote:

---

We can do nothing to effect our salvation. As soon as you put conditions on grace, it stops being grace and starts becoming Law.

---

quote:

---

And I see noone wants to answer my question on the "my work/God's work" salvation ratio.

---

quote:

---

If you're convinced that you have to do something to earn your salvation

---

quote:

---

I mentioned this on the other related topic thread, but...there seems to be a real confusion in this conversation not only between Law and Gospel but between justification and sanctification.

---

quote:

---

I want to think we're all for sanctification. But please don't confuse it with justification.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
The only thing I don't understand is this, Freddy. You say that both the ability to have faith and the ability to do works, and even the ability to truly love, all come from a gift from God--that we are unable to generate these things ourselves. Would you then assert that God grants these gifts to all people? Or would you say that those who end up in hell are there because God chose to withhold the gifts of faith and obedience from them?

---

This is a good question. I think that it is central to the whole problem.

It is true that God does everything, because we have no power to do it of ourselves.

We do, however, have free choice. Not that it is inherent in us, but that God gives it to us. We can therefore choose to accept, or not accept, what God would give us.

Even our choice to accept is not from us, and so we have no merit, but yet God attributes it to us.

So we can choose not to accept. The choice is ours because God gives it to us.

That is the reality. The appearance to us, however, and I'm sure that this is everyone's experience, is that we act or don't act, from our own will and power, and according to our own choices. It feels as though we have the power.

Our responsibility, therefore, is to live in obedience to Jesus. If we do this we are saved. If not, we find our happiness in things that are not the things of heaven. This alternative is not salvation.
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Even our choice to accept is not from us, and so we have no merit, but yet God attributes it to us.

So we can choose not to accept. The choice is ours because God gives it to us.

That is the reality. The appearance to us, however, and I'm sure that this is everyone's experience, is that we act or don't act, from our own will and power, and according to our own choices. It feels as though we have the power.

Our responsibility, therefore, is to live in obedience to Jesus. If we do this we are saved. If not, we find our happiness in things that are not the things of heaven. This alternative is not salvation.

---

Ahh okay. This is a much better line of discussion that actually seems like it could have resolution. (Nothing but respect for you, Freddy )

So all choices and freedoms are a gift from God, and even our choice to accept him is given to us as a gift, but God allows us to believe or to at least feel like we are making that decision, right?

Two questions follow for me.

1) To what end does God give us this feeling? It would seem like this would only elicit pride, whereas if we didn't have that feeling to muck up our insides we would not be tempted to believe that it was us who saved ourselves.

2) Why does God only give this gift of choosing him to some people and not all? Or does he give it to all people?

Let me add that the answer to any of these questions could very well be "I don't know" or "I'm not sure why but it's how it seems God wanted to do it" and those would be perfectly acceptable answers to tough questions like this.

I'm just wondering if you have more to this that I'm still not getting.


Respectfully,
Digory
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
If I were to offer you a cheque for a million pounds (assuming I had the money) and you took it off me and paid it into your bank, would you think you'd earned a million quid? And if you didn't take it, would you have a million quid?

---

You give humans far too much credit.

The metaphor would have to be played out a little further, I think. One extremely rich man would have to be offering an entire town full of people this million pound sum, if they come to collect the check (or cheque as you crazy foreigners write ) So five or six of the townspeople accept their checks but many don't because they don't trust that it's true, or they don't particularly like what they've heard about the benefactor, etc. Well, then the people who have accepted the check start telling everyone around the town that they have a group of "Check Acceptors" that you can join if you've accepted your million pounds. They begin to tell everyone that they, too, can be rich if only they will accept the check! "Lucky for us we've already accepted it, but you can be rich like us if you will do what we have done! If you want to be in our group, just follow these rules and do these traditions, etc etc and then we'll tell you how to get your check! Or maybe we'll just go get everyone's checks and we'll keep them here and you can come here and accept them" ....

You get my point. At some point the benefactor might say, "Why did I even make acceptance of the check part of the deal? It's completely taken the focus off of the real joy of the thing I've done for these people!" I think you'd agree that it'd be far easier to simply make a direct deposit of a million pounds into everyone's account. That way, everyone is already rich--they can choose to ACCEPT if they are rich or not, but that will not change the fact that they ARE rich. Just whether or not they live like it, using their potential or not.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
1) To what end does God give us this feeling? It would seem like this would only elicit pride, whereas if we didn't have that feeling to muck up our insides we would not be tempted to believe that it was us who saved ourselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
2) Why does God only give this gift of choosing him to some people and not all? Or does he give it to all people?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
God gives us this feeling because He is all about love, and love is connected with ownership. People love things that they feel a connection to. People are motivated by a sense of ownership. If people did not feel that it was they themselves that acted, believed, refrained from evil, and did good things - they would not do these things. We are not robots.

---

quote:

---

So God gives everyone the power to choose happiness on their own terms. The power comes from God, but the choice is given to the person. It is not that God chooses for the person, otherwise He would choose for everyone to love God and the neighbor above all things.

A teaching of my denomination, however, is that everyone is actually pre-destined to heaven. Everyone is free, and so in the short run this means that many people will seek their happiness in places other than heaven. But in the long run the forces leading people to heaven are stronger than those leading in the other direction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
You get my point. At some point the benefactor might say, "Why did I even make acceptance of the check part of the deal? It's completely taken the focus off of the real joy of the thing I've done for these people!"

---

quote:

---

I think you'd agree that it'd be far easier to simply make a direct deposit of a million pounds into everyone's account. That way, everyone is already rich--they can choose to ACCEPT if they are rich or not, but that will not change the fact that they ARE rich. Just whether or not they live like it, using their potential or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
This is a good analogy for universalist theology but not so hot if there's a possibility that some will be lost, and my understanding (limited as it is) of Lutheran theology is that they're not universalists.

---

quote:

---

I also find it highly ironic that for a person who claims to be highly influenced by judaism, to essentially fall back on Hellenistic concepts, and by ultimately appealing to how God must be in essence, a textbook example of how Greeks would argue contra Hebrew. Scotism is ultimately platonic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The simplicity of the immediacy between God and us where we can throw ourselves on His mercy whenever we stray from the divine image implanted in every one of us, is what makes it, for me, so much more powerful than the enormous mental gymnastics contained in Christian soteriology.

---

quote:

---

It would seem that some people's "no" to this overrides God's "yes"; that in the scheme of things their God-antagonistic human nature wins out over God's intitiating action in their lives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
The simple answer is that good people find happiness and bad people don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

Basically at the judgment, all will appear before the judgment seat and those not known by him will go to hell and those who are known to him and whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life will be welcomed into his kingdom.

There will be many whose names are not there and they will be turned away.
There is no second chance neither is there any gift of faith given at this judgment seat that will allow those who lived as unbelievers to have a place in the kingdom.

And no preacher should preach that without a heavy heart.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If what I wrote came across as a Hellenistic concept I didn't explain myself very well. My reason for not seeing the need for a redeemer is because the Lord is my redeemer, and I can't understand why we need another tier of soteriology in the form of the Son. If sin is forgiven when we repent, which both Christians and Jews believe, why isn't repenting to the Father sufficient?

---

quote:

---

My whose gripe against Christian theology is that it is so complex.

---

quote:

---

When the early church decided that Jesus was the unique Son of God it required a miraculous nativity story.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Tell me, what do you think we are saved from?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Freddy, instead of accusing me of not proclaiming the Gospel, I'd suggest that you concern yourself with working out the particulars of your own faith life. Unless you'd like a ticket to Hell (the Ship version).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
The simple answer is that good people find happiness and bad people don't.

---

But that raises the question of who is good and who isn't.

---

It doesn't if we're keeping it simple.

Considering that God sees our hearts, the question is whether we are ruled by love of self and the world, or love of God and the neighbor.

I always notice that when viewing movies it is remarkably easy to make judgments about who is good and who is bad. Even "bad" people can be portrayed as sympathetic characters, so that you easily perceive that they really mean no harm. No matter how complex the writers make a character, almost any viewer can slice through the complexities and form a conclusion about their "real" character.

Admittedly this is much harder in real life, but we're not supposed to judge other people anyway. My point is that I think most people in the world know the difference between right and wrong. If you start from the assumption that God is completely fair, then people will be happy in the exact measure of the goodness of their heart.

But I'm not especially wanting to keep it simple. I was just responding to Paul.
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gauk:
I've asked this question before and no-one likes to answer it. How does hell (as you see it) fit in with any modern conception of jurisprudence? What you are saying here is that unbelievers will be locked up in hell and the key thrown away. For what crime would that be justified on earth? Is there any crime for which you, yourself, personally, would consider eternal punishment a fitting reward for someone? If you had a button to press that would send someone known to you to such a fate, would you press it?

And if not, are you saying that God would?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:

quote:

---

I also find it highly ironic that for a person who claims to be highly influenced by judaism, to essentially fall back on Hellenistic concepts, and by ultimately appealing to how God must be in essence, a textbook example of how Greeks would argue contra Hebrew. Scotism is ultimately platonic.

---

If what I wrote came across as a Hellenistic concept I didn't explain myself very well. My reason for not seeing the need for a redeemer is because the Lord is my redeemer, and I can't understand why we need another tier of soteriology in the form of the Son. If sin is forgiven when we repent, which both Christians and Jews believe, why isn't repenting to the Father sufficient?

My whose gripe against Christian theology is that it is so complex. When the early church decided that Jesus was the unique Son of God it required a miraculous nativity story. When the Western Church formulated the doctrine of original sin, it needed the Immaculate Conception, on pain od torture and excommunication to shore up its latest ridiculous addition to required beliefs.

The simplicity of the immediacy between God and us where we can throw ourselves on His mercy whenever we stray from the divine image implanted in every one of us, is what makes it, for me, so much more powerful than the enormous mental gymnastics contained in Christian soteriology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Mudfrog

How does that - your one dimensional exegesis of Dan'l 12:2 - invalidate any one getting their FIRST chance? Some Jews, Moslems, atheists, gay radicals, neanderthals will obviously come through the process of judgement in to eternal life and some Baptists, Pentecostals, Lutherans, Calvinists, Presbyterians, United Reform will obtain even more opprobrium than they do already.

And by the way, Matthew 10:15 demonstrates that Judgment Day isn't what you think it is.

Unless your God is a racist, sexist, homophobic, elitist, etc, etc, scumbag.

Unless God is Satan?

Any 'preacher' who condemns 99% of humanity to everburninhellfire wouldn't know the gospel if it bit him in the arse.

The ignorance and fear is laughable and will be forgiven as such in the resurrection, despite the harm that it has done.

The worst case scenario is that such so called Christians will be so offended at God's grace that won't be able to forgive Him and would rather cease to exist than share heaven with sinners.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Mudfrog - who said any thing about modern jurisprudence?

And, of course, you are diametrically biblically wrong on hell not being punishment - Matthew 25:46 - and heaven not being a place of reward - Matthew 5:12, 6:1, 10:42 etc.

And I have no objection whatsoever to Sodomites literal and metaphoric having an easy time in the resurrection.

You do, with a heart heavy with schadenfreude - not hypocrisy, irrational terror and ignorance - of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Your becauses don't follow. Hell is eternal punishment without qualification. Not eternal punishing of course. That would be obscenely insane.

You MUST object to Sodomites having a resurrection to eternal life because none of the literal ones were decent let alone received the gospel 2000 years before its delivery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Usually, this answer goes something like: "If God is infinitely worthy, than any offense against him is automatically infinite, and deserving of infinite punishment. Using earthly or human standards of judgment and punishment are inaccurate, because they do not take into account the intensity of offending the Ultimate Good.

In some ways I can pardon this argument as it does its best job at explaining the problem away in somewhat logical terms. ...

I don't know though, what do you think, Gauk? (Or others?)

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
"I've asked this question before and no-one likes to answer it. How does hell (as you see it) fit in with any modern conception of jurisprudence? "

Sorry Martin, Gauk said it.
I wrongly ascribed it to you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonaventura:
The nativity story was used by 19th century protestants as proof of the godhood of Christ, whereas it was used by the ancient church fathers as primarily a proof of the humanity of Christ.
ironic isn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonaventura:
IMHO, Christianity is about the dialectic between God and humanity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gauk:
I would say that it isn't logical at all. If God is infinitely worthy it doesn't follow that any offense is automatically infinite. The magnitude of any offense is due to what the offense is, not who is offended. If you kicked a bishop and a priest, I would dispute that kicking the bishop was worse.

---

quote:

---

In fact, it's debatable if an "infinite offense" has any meaning. And I certainly don't see any logical argument that if "infinite offense" DOES have any meaning, that it justifies infinite punishment. It might for the G&S Mikado, but a loving God is not mandated to impose infinite punishment on anyone, by logic or anything else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The good news is that in Jesus there is One.

---

quote:

---

By no other name are we saved from eternal punishment for having passively acquired a sinful nature from our disobedient ancestors, who damned us for all time, and by no other means are we saved than the blood, without which there is no remission of sin, correct?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimmyT:
Not nearly so ironic if one asks what the use was of the nativity stories by later gospel writers after Mark. Mark presents the most human Jesus, with no virgin birth and an ambiguous but possible denial of his divinity with, "Why do you call me good? They could have left Jesus human and ambiguously divine, but instead they made him undeniably God and ambiguously human. I cannot see how their intent can be inferred as anything but this.

---

wow there is a lot to unpack here, which would deserve another thread. Generally I do agree with you that there in the history of ideas in the church the divine element in Christ has been emphasised at the expense of the human. When it comes to the use of the virgin birth as proof text of divinity I would recommend you to check Colin Gunton who has written on this topic. I have to leave for a coffee break now...

But rest assured, you are not likely to convert.

quote:

---

I really, really like this. Reminds me of Process Theology, about which I know almost nothing but am favorably disposed. Reminds me as well of a quote from Victor Frankl that goes something like, "Should we be surprised if we find after all these years that when we were talking to ourselves we were really talking to God?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Lesser Weevil:
Jimmy,

What if, instead of the judicial model of punishment and forgiveness, we consider Jesus' death and resurrection on the analogy of real magic? Not the "magic" of the illusionist, but the powerful stuff of (dare I say it) Harry Potter. What if, due to structures in reality so deep not even God can change them, the blood of an innocent can transform sinners into saints? What if sin is not the transgression of an arbitrary rule, a rule that might just as easily be the other way, but a twisting away from essential Reality that finally removes any reality from the person so twisted? Might that cast a different light on the situation?

---

In my view, it casts a generally wholesome light on the situation so long as the "magic" comes from a mystery in the fact itself, and not from the twin mechanisms of:

1. A God who, in response to the emergence of sin as an unanticipated or anticipated disease or willful rebelliousness against good, intentionally "requires" blood as "payment in full" from passive inheriters of the disease or proclivity

and

2. The "magic" is not dispensed individually on the condition of belief in said magic and specific mechanism.

The fact that a Jesus would sacrifice his life for the sins of the whole world, for eternity, not bowing either to military pressure to violently throw off Roman occupation, nor to religious authority requiring adherence to supposedly divine commandments of behavior not directly related to true goodness and badness, seems in my mind to have planted a seed in the metaphysical world of thought, feeling, emotion, and spirit where we really live as human beings; a seed that has blossomed into a Christianity completely divorced from the sqabbling gospel writers, disciples, and apostels. That I am unable to deny, and it has no unhealthy side effects that I can see. It even has an element of some kind of "faith" pathetic though it may be in realtion to those whose "faith" is so great they can at a snap of their mental fingers posit a bellybuttonless Adam willfully disobeying a human-like God at the temptation of a rib-made woman deceived by an upright snake.

But it's something. And it's what keeps me going and Purgatorially ranting against Old and New Testament literalism when I ought to be writing my dissertation.

On nothing having to do with relgion!

Sheesh what's wrong with me?!?

Pyx_e: right back atcha, ya big lug.
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimmyT:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The good news is that in Jesus there is One.

---

But you must believe that it is "Jesus" and not anyone else, and the blood of Jesus and not anything else. That is the bad news, isn't it?

By no other name are we saved from eternal punishment for having passively acquired a sinful nature from our disobedient ancestors, who damned us for all time, and by no other means are we saved than the blood, without which there is no remission of sin, correct? The Jews of Jesus time, steeped in traditions of blood sacrifice were speaking literally to non-Jews and all of humanity for all time, correct? This was so that all future humans from any tradition could, in contrast to being eternally punished for their passively-inherited nature, might eternally worship the blood-requirer and Son-sacrificer who would be known as "Satanic" if he were human but as "God Himself" to literal Bible-believing Christians who accept that Divine Goodness is beyond human comprehension, correct? That is the way you seem to describe it and the way I always heard it, once the varnish is peeled back and one can see the grain underneath.

You know, what I always hear after this is, "yes, sadly that's true, but try to forget about it and think about how much God must love us given that he became like us and suffered like us." It doesn't wash. "Try to forget it" or "just accept it" just does...not...wash. God will have my respect for Who He Tells Me He Is or I will withhold it. In this life and the next. He can not take a shortcut and offer me the carrot of eternal bliss at my mouth and the barbed wire whip of eternal punishment across my ass, all for inheriting my current state through his creation of all that is, and the fabled disobedience of my fabled first parents. So that I may worship Him eternally? He's got to be joking.

Let Him try though if he is determined. I will gladly scream execrations at Him for Eternity from Hell. That's an eternal promise. And the really nasty, mean, vicious part of me, which came from hearing this crap from the womb, almost hopes I get the chance. That's what it's done for me, and that is perhaps the saddest part of all.

But perhaps I will only get to sit in a corner by myself, as Gordon believes. I'll just scream in the hope He hears me. I'll still have hope.

No one can ever take that from me, ever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
So we're back to where we started, which is that nobody deserves Heaven, nobody can earn their way into it to compel God by arguments of justice, so if any get in it's through mercy, and we get essentially Calvin vs the complication of free will if any don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gauk:
Equally, no-one deserves Hell in the way that it is traditionally depicted, as eternal torment.

---

quote:

---

I used to know an Evangelical who had a different take on things. His view was that those whom God saved went to Heaven, everyone else was simply annihiliated as being of no account and not worth preserving. This I find a much more morally acceptable viewpoint.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Me at Pearly Gates: "Is my son in there?"
St Peter: "Who? Oh, that worthless nonentity that God made by mistake. What do you love him for? Even God can't be arsed with him. He could have saved him technically but he couldn't be bothered. He's been obliterated. No, he wasn't a person as such, just window-dressing. What are you sobbing about?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gauk:
Equally, no-one deserves Hell in the way that it is traditionally depicted, as eternal torment.

---

At this point I usually get into a battle about whether it is better to exist perpetually in a state of less than perfect bliss, or to cease to exist altogether.

---

As I have said elsewhere, I think a big problem here is "the way that Hell is traditionally depicted." How does anyone know that this is what Hell is like? Does this depiction really make sense? Why do people so completely buy into it?

My denomination teaches that Hell is the unhappiness inherent in selfish and worldly desires. The more people pursue these, the more unhappy they become.

This is true after death as well as in this world.

Repeated experience does lead many people to see that immoral and self-centered pleasures are ultimately empty and joyless. Others, however, persist in looking for happiness in those things - and these things do have their own delights.

The thing that I like about this model is that it moves the whole system very far from any kind of juridical approach. God doesn't punish. No one is condemned to Hell. There is no Hell fire. It is simply that people do what they want, and the biblical imagery is a way of describing the relative joys involved. Hellish pleasure is really no pleasure at all. Heavenly joy is extremely joyful.

This to me makes sense of the whole scenario that is described in the Bible. People don't literally burn in Hell - the "fire" is the fire of their own self-defeating, self-centered, desires. People aren't literally cast into hell - hell is the environment that they create for themselves through their choices. People aren't literally condemned to stay in hell forever, rather, they chose to stay because this is what they consider to be joy - heaven holds no appeal for them.

Not that, objectively speaking, hell is enjoyable for anyone, it's just that there is no accounting for taste.

This is what the Bible describes - but it puts it into imagery that makes sense at a universal, very simplistic, level.

I like the idea that these universal, simplistic pictures describe a more complex and familiar reality. To my way of thinking this solves all of the problems that people have with the idea of hell and who God will show mercy to.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
The problem seems to be that we are looking at hell through the spectacles of a medieval Christendom IMHO that has crossed into popular thinking.

Thus we have the idea that hell is a place of little red imps with pitchforks feeding the eternal flames with the never-consumed flesh and bones of the wicked, the heretic, the lazy, the gluttonous, the perverted, etc, etc.

Heaven, likewise is populated by paper-winged, tinsel-haloed, white robed spirits who seem to having to do but gaze wistfully at the nearest passing cloud...

And that all the above is designed and directed by a wrathful, God who loves to punish and destroy anything that offends even the slightest decent thought or deed.

The judgment is seen as the the day when a decision is made as to which one destination you are sent. The scales are weighed (isn't that Egyptian?), the good deeds are counted against the bad, etc, etc.

The inference is that we are neutral until judgment day, that no one can possibly know which way they are going until they stand before the throne and hear the Heavenly Simon Cowell says, "Get Out, you're awful" or "You're through to the next round."

Were it true that the hall of judgment will be filled with the screams of those people shouting "That's not fair, I did my best!" and the audible sighs of relief of those who are thinking "Well, I didn't think I was going to make it but someone over there must like me..."
Then I too would not want to believe it.

I certainly wouldn't want to hear about eternal agony for people who missed the pearly gates by three sins.


But this is a gross caricature. It's not what the Scripture teaches.

We will not stand before throne after a lifetime of "Will I get to heaven, won't I get to heaven."
No one is looked upon as neutral and "We'll decide when we get you up there, so just do your best!"

The truth is that heaven is not our natural destination and were it not for the atonement, NO ONE would be going to heaven at all. The fact that ANYONE will be welcomed into the Kingdom of God is entirely due to the fact that God would want hell totally empty and heaven open to absolutely everyone - the Bible even says as much.

The problem is this - justice.
Oh, and there's another one - sin.

Are we to say that God in Christ should unilaterally ignore the laws of justice and the privilege of free will and just sweep everyone into a pure and perfect heavenly realm regardless of what they have believed, thought, done, etc?

Don't you think he would have done it if he could?

So, if heaven is NOT our default destination, if justice and sin have to be dealt with and satisfied, and if God himself, through the atonement, has provided all the remedy that was needed, (indeed the only remedy that was sufficient), then what is the problem with the idea that there will be many who will not avail themselves of the alternative destination that is now available and still end up, against the heart-felt wishes of God, going to hell - the place they were going anyway regardless of whether they were axe-murderers or atheistic but loving little old ladies?
 

---

Posted by Gauk (# 1125) on :
 
I have always liked the following story:

A minister dies and presents himself at the Pearly Gates. St Peter congratulates him on being among the blessed, and invites him in.

The minister explains he has an unusual request. He has spent so much of his life preaching about Hell, he would like to see what it actually IS like - if he could just have a little look?

St Peter thinks this is irregular, but nothing is spared the blessed, so he phones Satan and explains the situation and asks Satan to make arrangements.

So the minister descends to Hell as the first ever infernal tourist.

A devil welcomes him in. "Come in - you're just in time for dinner!"

The scene is now a banqueting hall in Hell. There are tables piled high with lovely food. This is not what the minister is expecting.

Says the devil, "I can see what you're thinking. Watch what happens when the sinners come in. The rules are that they have to eat with six-foot long chopsticks."

So the sinners come in, line up either side of the tables with their chopsticks. They can pick the food up easily, but as each sinner can't reach his mouth with the huge chopsticks, they try to drop the food into their mouths from above, without much success. So over the course of the dinner, the food is gradually transferred from the tables to the floor, and the sinners eventually go away groaning with hunger.

The minister is satisfied that they are under torment, and returns to Heaven.

An angel welcomes him in. "Come in - you're just in time for dinner!"

The scene is now a banqueting hall in Heaven. There are tables piled high with lovely food. It looks very like Hell. It looks EXACTLY like Hell. The minister is a bit worried as to where he is.

Says the angel, "I can see what you're thinking. Watch what happens when the blessed come in. The rules are that they have to eat with six-foot long chopsticks."

The minister is now very alarmed.

So the blessed come in, line up either side of the tables with their chopsticks. They can pick the food up easily, but as each person can't reach his mouth with the huge chopsticks, they feed each other.
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Would we find it better to hear the answer, "Who? Oh that sad soul that God made to display his wrath."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Would we find it better to hear the answer, "Who? Oh that sad soul that God made to display his wrath."

---

Of course not, but then I'm not a Calvinist.

---

Touche, GreyFace. Good point.

(Although the Free-Will Version[TM] is probably not much more easily swallowed.)
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gauk:
I have always liked the following story:

---

I have always loved that story as well.

The message, I think, is the idea that the evil and the good face the same conditions in the next life. The difference is in how they respond to them. The "punishment" is not what anyone does to them, but what they do to themselves. Nice message.
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
The message, I think, is the idea that the evil and the good face the same conditions in the next life. The difference is in how they respond to them. The "punishment" is not what anyone does to them, but what they do to themselves. Nice message.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
The message, I think, is the idea that the evil and the good face the same conditions in the next life. The difference is in how they respond to them. The "punishment" is not what anyone does to them, but what they do to themselves. Nice message.

---

The only thing that this version must include then, by default, is the ability for those in hell to leave whenever they so choose. As someone may have said, this is suggested in The Great Divorce by Lewis, but it is an idea that many are strictly opposed to.

My question is, why? Freddy, I think you and I and quite a few others from this thread are probably all in agreement on how we feel on this point, but yet there are a few others I can think of here and MANY from the churches I am involved with that would be vehemently opposed. Why is this notion of mercy being extended to people beyond the grave so easily rejected when I'm not sure there is an incredible amount of Scripture to refute it?

In other words, WHEN will God show mercy?


-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
then what is the problem with the idea that there will be many who will not avail themselves of the alternative destination that is now available and still end up, against the heart-felt wishes of God, going to hell - the place they were going anyway regardless of whether they were axe-murderers or atheistic but loving little old ladies?

---

They will be lost.


Plus, God will know. And so will we. So ain't *nobody* gonna be happy.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
So you are saying that to spare the feelings of the redeemed, all the non-believers should be allowed in to heaven as well?

Where is justice in that?

Indeed, what's the point of grace through faith, religious devotion and morality?

Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die and all end up in heaven regardless?

I don't think so.

What a non-Gospel that is - and what a tragedy for Jesus of Nazareth who died for nothing. He may as well have stayed dead.

[ 03. September 2005, 08:42: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
And you seem to be saying that, to spare the feelings of the redeemed, all the non-believers should go to hell. "I spent my life trying to follow You, and You let X into heaven? Do you know what kind of person X is? Heck, why did I bother?"

I'm saying that God's love is, I hope, bigger and deeper and more wonderful than that. Everyone goes Home, no matter what healing, restitution, or learning they need. (And we're ALL going to need some!) Everyone and everything will be healed. No suffering in hell, no weeping in heaven over the lost. Everyone lost will be found.

Mudfrog, a question for you to chew on, and you don't have to give an answer:

Let's say you get to Heaven. All your beliefs turn out to be right, and you get in.

But the person you love most in the world goes to hell, whatever hell is.

Would heaven still be heaven for you?
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
The only thing that this version must include then, by default, is the ability for those in hell to leave whenever they so choose. As someone may have said, this is suggested in The Great Divorce by Lewis, but it is an idea that many are strictly opposed to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Let's say you get to Heaven. All your beliefs turn out to be right, and you get in.

But the person you love most in the world goes to hell, whatever hell is.

Would heaven still be heaven for you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

I used to know an Evangelical who had a different take on things. His view was that those whom God saved went to Heaven, everyone else was simply annihiliated as being of no account and not worth preserving. This I find a much more morally acceptable viewpoint.

---

I used to. I don't know now. Why would God create someone of no account?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gauk:
Non-existence is not that bad; it is a complete relief from suffering.

The reason more people in terrible circumstances don't kill themselves to get out of it, are (a) strong cultural taboos against it; (b) consideration for others; (c) they may still hope that things will get better; (d) they may be used to living in such terrible circumstances.

---

quote:

---

As far as the need for Jesus well, I agree with you that God is the redeemer and I understand your question why do we need another tier of soteriology in the form of the Son. Well the idea is that Jesus is part of the same 'tier' that we see in the OT. He is part of the sacrificial system set up by God. God obviously doesn't need to have lambs with their throats cut in order to forgive us, but we do - in that we need a symbol to remind and confirm our atonement with him. Jesus is simply the culmination of that. He wasn't sent to be another way of salvation, he was the pinnacle of the existing one - being the lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world. I often think that if Jesus was indeed already slain for us in the heart of God, the only reason for Jesus to exist historically was as a 'sacrament' of what was already true. Calvary therefore is the perfect enactment of what is etrenally true, that there is a life given on our behalf that we might be atoned. Indeed, that is the only basis on which the OT sacriofices were valid and efficacious I like that word).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Let's say you get to Heaven. All your beliefs turn out to be right, and you get in.

But the person you love most in the world goes to hell, whatever hell is.

Would heaven still be heaven for you?

---

This situation cannot happen.

First off, it doesn't especially matter if beliefs are "right." The basis of heaven is love, so the question is whether you love God and the neighbor, or whether you love what Jesus taught. The only point of having "right" ideas is to help you to develop into a loving person who loves and trusts Jesus, or who truly has faith.

Secondly, since the basis of heaven is love, you will be with whoever you love. However, you will love people on the basis of what you have in common. You may love someone who is actually full of hatred, but in the other life that person would not return your love and would move away from you. And if they did love you in return it would be because they were not actually full of hatred.

Heaven would not be heaven if the people there were pining away for lost relatives. But even in this world family members who have little in common drift apart, because love is the basis for long term relationships. This is why Jesus said that "whoever does the will of My Father is My brother and My sister and mother" (Mark 3.35).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Freddy, IMHO, you present a very narrow definition of love. Frankly, it gives me the creeps. Differently from Mudfrog's beliefs, but nearly as strongly.

ISTM your ideas tie up everything as nicely and neatly as Mudfrog's do, with the same result: people are lost, and it doesn't really matter, and no one will mourn for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

I am happy to assert that I know for certain what will happen in those cases. No need to believe me, but I am quite sure that this is how it is.

A person who kills himself wakes up the next life with the same problems that led him to kill himself in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And we're not talking about hurting someone else here either. We're talking about something as inoccuous as worshipping God with an inaccurate theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gauk:
But as a matter of fact, I can inform you that a very large number of people are quite convinced in the non-existence of any afterlife.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
So, if my weak huamn love is enough to show mercy to all creatures, is God's far superior love going to condemn anyone to hell? Think on!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Mudfrog, you are a Satanist. You DENY mercy, you deny the bible, you deny grace, you deny God. You LIE about post-mortem grace.

Don't worry, your utterly perverted belief will fall from your eyes when YOU receive grace, not some insane 'belief', for the FIRST time, in the Resurrection, with the Sodomites.

JimmyT - God bless you and keep you my friend, you have my tears and where you will go I will go. By His grace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
The only thing that this version must include then, by default, is the ability for those in hell to leave whenever they so choose. As someone may have said, this is suggested in The Great Divorce by Lewis, but it is an idea that many are strictly opposed to.

---

Yes, in "The Great Divorce" Lewis does a good job of explaining this system. But note that he only "suggested" that people in hell can leave.

In this system the catch is that, although they can leave at any time, they do not want to leave. They do not perceive themselves as burning in eternal punishment. They cannot bear the things that people in heaven enjoy. They see themselves as ordinary people living a life that is fundamentally unfair, but one that they prefer compared to the alternatives. They can leave hell any time they like, but the problem is finding a place where they will be happy.

Essentially this means that hell is eternal. Not that people's situations do not change, but that those situations must always be what they themselves have chosen. God cannot make people choose to love Him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Mudfrog, you are a Satanist. You DENY mercy, you deny the bible, you deny grace, you deny God. You LIE about post-mortem grace.

Don't worry, your utterly perverted belief will fall from your eyes when YOU receive grace, not some insane 'belief', for the FIRST time, in the Resurrection, with the Sodomites.

JimmyT - God bless you and keep you my friend, you have my tears and where you will go I will go. By His grace.

---

Here's what I have to say about all of this. I don't want to be in a heaven that doesn't include Mudfrog, JimmyT AND Martin PC. It better have all three of you there or else I'd rather not be there. And yes, it better have the Jewish baby. And the Nazis.

Mudfrog, I understand your position. It's been the accepted position of most Christianity for over a thousand years, and has developed quite the apologetic based in Scripture. I just think that you need to at least understand that part of it--the apologetic that you and I both know so well has been developed, refined, and heavily defended for centuries. But this does not guarantee its truth. (Neither does it guarantee its error, I concede.)

That being said, I just wanted to encourage you to continue in this discussion because I think your opinions are thought-out and therefore I highly value them, even if I disagree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Isn't God going to miss and mourn for people who are in hell? If so, She condemns *Herself* to eternal suffering if she condemns even one person.

---

That's an interesting point.

However, we need to recognise yet again that God does not condemn.

He is infinite love and he has done all he can to provide the way out of the situation that mankind finds itself in. We are lost humanity - even at our best and most noble and lovely - and God's answer to that is not simply to dismiss it all and say, 'who cares, let's save you all automatically', but to suffer with and on behalf of humanity so that whosoever believes may be saved/found/healed/welcomed/blessed.

What can God do about those who ignore or reject his provision of total salvation? Well, nothing really - not without breaking the laws of justice, withdrawing the privilege of free will and making grace of no effect.

It is so true that Jesus is the shepherd who doesn't rest until he finds the lost sheep and brings him back to the flock. But it's also true that God is the loving father who waits for the repentant return of the wayward son. What if the son never decides to return? The father waits still at the gate in the agony of love that is not returned.

What about those who never heard or heard the message of Jesus imperfectly? Then of course, 'the heart of the eternal is wonderfully kind' and the grace that can be received willingly by those who have heard the message can be applied by God to those whose hearts have received no light.

As to the question as to whether God suffers eternally, well yes I believe he does. God suffers constantly - isn't that the message of the crucifix?

The Bible tells us that Jesus is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world - which means, for me that although Jesus lives, he is also always the crucified Saviour, his purpose is to suffer eternally for the sins of the world. Calvary wasn't just a three day event - it's an eternal experience in the heart of God.

The hymn says:
In every insult, rift and war,
Where colour, scorn or wealth divide,
He suffers still, yet loves the more,
And lives, though ever crucified.


I read a book once - a very fundamentalist book that I would not recommend - that describes the literalist view of the day of judgment (which I don't necessarily subscribe to - eg there will be no physical thrones, etc) but which has a bearing on what goes on in the heart of Christ on judgment day.

The writer tells of the day when a man stands before Christ whose nail-scarred hands search the Book of the Law, the Book of Works and the very last one, the Lamb's Book of Life for the man's name, wishing it could be there. Tragically, says the author, the name can't be found on any page, and with great reluctance God slowly closes that last book of judgment and says with great reluctance words that confirm the man's eternal destiny.


Does anyone really and truly believe that God is eager to consign his creation to a destiny without him? No we don't.
Do we not say that God loves all that he has made? Of course we do.

It is horrible to believe that evangelicals will almost be standing in the background in the judgment hall gleefully watching God sternly and vengefully condemning weeping men and women to eternal furnaces.

This is not what most of us believe.
And don't forget, this is the medieval Catholic view, not modern evangelicalism.


The liturgy talks about God 'whose nature is always to have mercy...'

But that mercy - his lovingkindness, conveyed to us by grace through faith in Jesus - must be received.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Mudfrog--

Or perhaps God's mercy will be greater than we imagine?

CS Lewis has been quoted as saying, "To be a Christian is to believe that the rules will be fair, and that there will be wonderful surprises".


 

---

Posted by Demas (# 7147) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What can God do about those who ignore or reject his provision of total salvation? Well, nothing really - not without breaking the laws of justice, withdrawing the privilege of free will and making grace of no effect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Mudfrog--

Or perhaps God's mercy will be greater than we imagine?

CS Lewis has been quoted as saying, "To be a Christian is to believe that the rules will be fair, and that there will be wonderful surprises".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What can God do about those who ignore or reject his provision of total salvation? Well, nothing really - not without breaking the laws of justice, withdrawing the privilege of free will and making grace of no effect.

---

Are the laws of justice greater than the lawmaker?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What can God do about those who ignore or reject his provision of total salvation? Well, nothing really - not without breaking the laws of justice, withdrawing the privilege of free will and making grace of no effect.

---

Are the laws of justice greater than the lawmaker?

---

What sort of God would set up laws and then arbitraily break them - especially the law that is basic to existence itself. Why have justice at all when the greatest test of it can be just dismissed out of hand.

Yes, I believe God is bound by his laws.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What can God do about those who ignore or reject his provision of total salvation? Well, nothing really - not without breaking the laws of justice, withdrawing the privilege of free will and making grace of no effect.

---

Are the laws of justice greater than the lawmaker?

---

What sort of God would set up laws and then arbitraily break them - especially the law that is basic to existence itself. Why have justice at all when the greatest test of it can be just dismissed out of hand.

Yes, I believe God is bound by his laws.

---

In my less serious moments, I am a lawyer.

In your theology, I recognise all the thought processes of the legal mind. The overiding and unchangable underlying text, the glosses and interpretations layered on top of that, the careful use of wording so that, for example, choosing not to punish people for a breach of the Law would be 'arbitarily breaking it' whereas not punishing them because of the actions of grace is showing mercy - Grace reduced to a formalisation, like Equity overriding the Common Law.

Law is about ensuring fairness and restraining arbitary government action in an imperfect world. No one needs to restrain God, not even himself.

You say that God has already provided one mechanism to avoid just punishment for our breach of the Law - the saving Grace of believing in Christ. Why is that not 'arbitarily breaking' the immutable laws that bind God, and render him unable to reduce the suffering of the condemned?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The penalty was paid because God could not simply and arbitrarily forget justice and save everyone because he loves them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The penalty was paid because God could not simply and arbitrarily forget justice and save everyone because he loves them.

---

Why not? What force, greater than omnipotent God, stays his hand?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The penalty was paid because God could not simply and arbitrarily forget justice and save everyone because he loves them.

---

Why not? What force, greater than omnipotent God, stays his hand?

---

He's a God of mercy - so he cannot be anything other than merciful.

He's a God of love - so he cannot be anything other than loving.

He's a God of justice - so he cannot be anything other than just.

He cannot change his nature.
He cannot deny himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The penalty was paid because God could not simply and arbitrarily forget justice and save everyone because he loves them.

---

Why not? What force, greater than omnipotent God, stays his hand?

---

He's a God of mercy - so he cannot be anything other than merciful.

He's a God of love - so he cannot be anything other than loving.

He's a God of justice - so he cannot be anything other than just.

He cannot change his nature.
He cannot deny himself.

---

So it is not that he is bound by his Law, but that he does not want to 'unjustly' let people off as it would go against his nature as God of Justice.

Why couldn't I say "God is unable to condemn us to hell, for he is a God of Mercy and Love, and he cannot change his nature or deny himself"?

Why out of Justice, Mercy, Love does Justice triumph?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What is so wrong with justice?

---

quote:

---

And anyway, if justice is so bad, why is it able to recognise the love of God and allow Christ's death to fulfil its demands and allow for redemption.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What is so wrong with justice?

---

I'm using your definitions - under which it is just to condemn us to Hell for failing to live sinless lives. If there is nothing wrong with this justice, why did God choose to vary it?

quote:

---

And anyway, if justice is so bad, why is it able to recognise the love of God and allow Christ's death to fulfil its demands and allow for redemption.

---

You make justice sound like a deity that God Almighty has to go before and plead for it to "allow Christ's death to fulfil its demands"!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What is so wrong with justice?

---

I'm using your definitions - under which it is just to condemn us to Hell for failing to live sinless lives. If there is nothing wrong with this justice, why did God choose to vary it?

quote:

---

And anyway, if justice is so bad, why is it able to recognise the love of God and allow Christ's death to fulfil its demands and allow for redemption.

---

You make justice sound like a deity that God Almighty has to go before and plead for it to "allow Christ's death to fulfil its demands"!

---

ah, here's the difficulty. It's terms again. Let us be very clear what sort of justice we are speaking about.

You said this, talking about justice: "under which it is just to condemn us to Hell for failing to live sinless lives."

Nowhere have I said that.
Nowhere does Scripture teach that.

It is not what we do that makes us sinners, it's the fact of who we are that makes us sinners.

---

quote:

---

If we see hell as the condemnatory punishment for our sinful nature, then of course it seems unjust. But if we see hell (however you perceive it) to be the eternal consequence of our natural alienation from God, then it ceases to be a pounishment that is meted out at the judgment by a wrathful God, and becomes what I believe Scripture speaks of, a destiny that God, in mercy, offers to rescue us from.

---

quote:

---

However, we are not blameless and by our sins we have called upon ourselves the weight of justice that demands that the soul that sinneth must die. (however you interpret the word 'die'). It is this law that must be satisfied because God cannot allow rebellion, transgression and iniquity to go overlooked. Justice does not allow it.

---

quote:

---

So Christ died to satisfy the law of justice - God in Christ reconciling the world to himself, etc, etc. The price is paid, justice is satisfied, we are justified (a legal term, as you know) and we go free.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But I would strongly suggest that we don't get to heaven by living better lives, and we don't get sent to hell if we sin above a certain cut-off point in comparison to others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Dear Mudfrog

I apologise for any harsh words used. I have very painful personal memories of condemnatory Christianity that brought me to a nervous breakdown at the age of 15. But none of what you say seems like justice to me for one cardinal reason: Our sinful natures and consequent alienation from God are not our fault.

I don't subscribe to the Augustinian idea of original sin, but any sin imputed to us by our ancestors is something we are unable to avoid. Your scheme implies that God got it wrong, but is willing to see us suffer eternally for it. I don't accept that. What's more, you say that salvation comes from "believing" in Jesus. Believing what? That he walked on water ans was born of a virgin? That he rose from the dead in a physical body?

To assign salvation to a theological assent to a certain doctrine is ludicrous. Many times Jesus is quoted as saying that salvation comes from doing the will of the Father which is to love God and neighbour. I can't accept that a mere belief has any part in it.

---

Apology accepted

I can't accept that mere belief has anything to do with it either.

It's not belief ABOUT Jesus that saves, but believe IN him - in other words, believing that he is 'authorised', willing and able to redeem you.

If you believe in (and trust your soul) to that - and that's all you can believe, then it's enough.

God's grace does most of it, the slightest hint of faith on your part is enough to get the father rushing to meet the prodigal.

If a degree in all the theological niceties is what's required, then I won't be going!

As far as the things we believe about Jesus, I would say that God is not going to castigate yiou because you might find it naturally difficult to believe in certain things - lets use the Virgin birth as an example - but what I think doesn't help is where honest doubt becaome deliberate and hostile anti-belief.

There is a difference between "I cannot believe" (which is a humble view) and "I will not believe" which is an arrogant view).
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Mudfrog

The attack was on the vile 'theology' you have since back-pedalled on, which is infinitely more vicious.

I have NO problem whatsoever with God's justice and its requirements, met in full in Christ and to be meted out in the Resurrection.

IF I was wrong to infer that you were condemning holocaust Jews and beatitifying their Nazi murderers, on the basis of what you had said on this thread up to your invoking grace in Lewis' Carlomene soldier, THEN I apologize unreservedly but would like to ask where I went wrong in my reasoning.

And of course God's grace is not only great enough to instantaneously convert and assimilate the murdered Jews but also their Nazi murderers.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But I would strongly suggest that we don't get to heaven by living better lives, and we don't get sent to hell if we sin above a certain cut-off point in comparison to others.

---

I am quite sure that Jesus says that people go to heaven by living better lives, and that they go to hell by living worse ones.

Are you quite sure that He doesn't say this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Mudfrog

The attack was on the vile 'theology' you have since back-pedalled on, which is infinitely more vicious.

I have NO problem whatsoever with God's justice and its requirements, met in full in Christ and to be meted out in the Resurrection.

IF I was wrong to infer that you were condemning holocaust Jews and beatitifying their Nazi murderers, on the basis of what you had said on this thread up to your invoking grace in Lewis' Carlomene soldier, THEN I apologize unreservedly but would like to ask where I went wrong in my reasoning.

And of course God's grace is not only great enough to instantaneously convert and assimilate the murdered Jews but also their Nazi murderers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I am quite sure that Jesus says that people go to heaven by living better lives, and that they go to hell by living worse ones.

---

Scripture references for your position?

Jesus uses words like repent, believe, be born again as an addition to words like follow, obey, do the will of...

---

quote:

---

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22“Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Matthew 7.21-23

Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” 17So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18He said to Him, “Which ones?” Jesus said, “ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” 20The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?” 21Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” Matthew 19.16

For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35“A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. 36“But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. 37“For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Matthew 12.33

“You are My friends if you do whatever I command you." John 15.14

““Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of the heavens.” Matthew 5:20.

“If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7“If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8“By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples. 9“As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. 10“If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love. John 15.6-10

“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.” 14Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie. Revelation 22.12-15

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I agree with KLB. People don't reject God or reject Jesus, they simply don't believe everything the curch teaches. I in no way reject Jesus. I believe that following him and obeying him are salvific. I just don't believe that the man, Jesus of Nazareth was God Himself, though I am open to an adoptionist position following his baptism.

Now according to Mudfrog's theology that would be a rejection of Christ which could only be dealt with by eternal damnation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silent One:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And we're not talking about hurting someone else here either. We're talking about something as inoccuous as worshipping God with an inaccurate theology.

---

I guess it would only actually be innoccuous if it didn't make a difference. But it seems to me that the entirety of the Bible suggests that it actually does make a difference--so therefore it actually must matter.

I mean, if God went to all the trouble of sending Jesus to say "hey you can't earn your way into Heaven, it just isn't possible, so I've provided a way, trust in my Son Jesus and follow Him"--maybe to God that's just a wee bit more important than what you suggest?

And, if Jesus says I am the Way, the Truth, the Life, no one comes to the Father except through Me...is it really inconsequential to say--yes, well, that's what you say--but I'm sure Buddha will work just fine?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle:
Looking back at Genesis to the story where Cain and Abel bring their respective offerings and Cain's does not find favour, we see Cain sulking and fuming over his rejection. What does God say to him? If you do right will you not be accepted? That may be pretty fearsome shorthand for what doing right entails, but it indicates to me that there is a way back from wrongdoing that was available to humanity from the very beginning.

---