Grace (and/or) Belief/Faith (and/or) Works?

[POI]

Seems there exists an unresolved topic amongst Christians... Seems as though the way to salvation is not unified among the many in which I engage. I'd wager they all have a case to support their position(s).?.?

For debate: How does one get to Heaven? What is God's criteria for His selection process? Is it by grace alone, belief/faith alone, works alone; or it is a combination of the three? Or is it maybe other? Please, not only present your case, but please also explain why the other asserted methods are incorrect.

[Capbook]

Answer key:

A) Unconditional grace - (Jesus already did all the dirty work, everyone goes now since he had to die for all, as all fall short)
B) Faith/belief - (accept him as your savior, ask him for guidance, apply trust in him)
C) Works - (necessary additional acts or tasks in which Jesus also deems 'good')
D) Both B) and C)
E) No one goes, no one is worthy
F) Other, which does not already include the topics of B) and/or C)

Yes, faith is my belief that Jesus died for me a sinner. Giving us a hope to once again get connected to God.

Recap:

If you have ever heard of Jesus, answer B) is required, and that is all that is necessary?
If you have never heard of Jesus, answer C) is required, and that is all that is necessary?

There is also evidence from ancient sources, such as the writings of Josephus, that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure who was crucified by the Romans.

Even if this were true, while also knowing the 'golden paragraph' was plagiarized in his writings, all this would verify is that Jesus lived and was killed. Nothing more....

Grace of God, a gift to undeserving sinners specially to those who were not able to hear His word.

Answer A)? No one deserves it, according to the Bible. Which means He assigns unconditional grace for all.

Laws of God clearly define what is good and what is bad. Morality does not even know what sin is.

Please explain when you state what you stated above in bold?

God judges us by our works.

Answer C) then is required for all? But the Bible states our works/deeds will always fall short.

First of all, I am sorry that my belief is not confined to your made choices.

Another evidence that Jesus existed. "Today scholars agree that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in the Herodian Kingdom of Judea and the subsequent Herodian tetrarchy in the 1st century CE, upon whose life and teachings Christianity was later constructed,[note 1] but a distinction is made by scholars between 'the Jesus of history' and 'the Christ of faith'. (from Wikipedia)

Yes no one is deserving of God's grace, that is why I say "undeserving sinners".

Can an atheist who believe in secular morality know and believe sin?

All works/deeds always fall short before of God, Yes, but God's grace is immeasurable.

Dear dear, you quite skipped over this: 'but a distinction is made by scholars between 'the Jesus of history' and 'the Christ of faith'. (from Wikipedia) Which means there was an actual Jesus, but he is not like the Jesus of Christianity.

I do credit a real Jesus as more likely than an invented one. But is totally different from the gospel Jesus which (I argue) is based on Paul's teachings, not Paul being based on Jesus'teachings. This is of course open to debate.

Well if God's grace was so immeasurable, He'd just forgive us all and make us saved. Wouldn't he? Cue excuses.

An atheist (or this one) does not recognise the Christian idea of sin, but I (and we) are of course aware of behavioural problems and an ideal better situation we can aspire to but find it difficult to work towards.

But I don't accept that religion is the answer, if anything secular morality has made for a generally better human situation. I know it doesn't seem like it :)but it is compared to say 200 years ago where atheism was hardly argued about. If anything religion made things worse. No, the morality argument does not make a case for God and hasn't ever since the debate started on the internet around the 80's.

He is the Jesus in the NT per Ehrman book. (from Wikipedia)
Ehrman examines the historicity of Jesus and includes some criticism of Christ mythicists. As he does in other works such as Forged and Jesus, Interrupted, he disregards an apologetics-based or otherwise religiously-charged approach to aim at looking at the New Testament using historical-critical methodology. He argues that a specific historical Jesus really existed in the 1st century AD. Even as accounts about that figure later on brought in additional misinformation and legendary stories, Ehrman states, multiple reasons still remain to see things as framed around a flesh-and-blood actual person.

God's grace is measurable to those who repented or regrets for those unable to hear Him.

You can't define sin?
Is it because "if God does not exist, then all is permissible"?

So my friend is correct. He reasoned that he box a schoolmate because he step on his shoe.

[POI]

First of all, I am sorry that my belief is not confined to your made choices.

Your given sorry is irrelevant here in the exchange. Your responses present conflict. Which one of them is true?

A) Since all need saving, and all deeds fall short of God's standard, maybe the answer is unconditional grace for all? If so, we can discuss.
B) Since we all apparently need to apply 'faith' in him, since Jesus is the only one worthy upon his own merits, and some can't apply faith in him, due to never hearing of him, maybe those folks are purely SOL? If so, we can discuss.
C) Since our deeds will always fall short, and yet some are still judged by their deeds, because they cannot apply faith in him, how exactly does that work? If you select this option, we can discuss.
D) Since we need faith and deeds, how much 'faith' and how many deeds? I mean, does the amount <and/or> number of deeds you commit directly reflect your true 'faith'? If you opt for this selection, we can discuss.
E) If no one is worthy and no one is selected, then game over. But no Christian has elected this option yet so I guess we can move on to the next.
F) If you opt for some other selection, which does not already touch upon one of the above, please elaborate. Yet, I have not yet seen one?

Another evidence that Jesus existed.

This topic is not to debate whether or not Jesus existed. This topic is to instead ask how one is selected/elected to enter into Heaven. Whether you are a believer, or not, if you read the Bible in earnest, the path is not clear, as you will find other verses which will conflict with the said path in which you decide to plant your flag upon.

Yes no one is deserving of God's grace, that is why I say "undeserving sinners".

Does this mean you are opting for answer A)?

[Capbook]

First of all, I am sorry that my belief is not confined to your made choices.

Your given sorry is irrelevant here in the exchange. Your responses present conflict. Which one of them is true?

A) Since all need saving, and all deeds fall short of God's standard, maybe the answer is unconditional grace for all? If so, we can discuss.
B) Since we all apparently need to apply 'faith' in him, since Jesus is the only one worthy upon his own merits, and some can't apply faith in him, due to never hearing of him, maybe those folks are purely SOL? If so, we can discuss.
C) Since our deeds will always fall short, and yet some are still judged by their deeds, because they cannot apply faith in him, how exactly does that work? If you select this option, we can discuss.
D) Since we need faith and deeds, how much 'faith' and how many deeds? I mean, does the amount <and/or> number of deeds you commit directly reflect your true 'faith'? If you opt for this selection, we can discuss.
E) If no one is worthy and no one is selected, then game over. But no Christian has elected this option yet so I guess we can move on to the next.
F) If you opt for some other selection, which does not already touch upon one of the above, please elaborate. Yet, I have not yet seen one?

Another evidence that Jesus existed.

This topic is not to debate whether or not Jesus existed. This topic is to instead ask how one is selected/elected to enter into Heaven. Whether you are a believer, or not, if you read the Bible in earnest, the path is not clear, as you will find other verses which will conflict with the said path in which you decide to plant your flag upon.

Yes no one is deserving of God's grace, that is why I say "undeserving sinners".

Does this mean you are opting for answer A)?

My belief does not present conflict. You want me to chose just one that is true but the Bible does say chose one.

A) Since all need saving, and all deeds fall short of God's standard, maybe the answer is unconditional grace for all? ........ Only to those who repent (believers) and regret for those unable to hear the gospel.
B) What is the meaning of SOL?
C) Since our deeds will always fall short, and yet some are still judged by their deeds, because they cannot apply faith in him, how exactly does that work? .......I believe that their regrets God can grant grace.
D) Since we need faith and deeds, how much 'faith' and how many deeds? I mean, does the amount <and/or> number of deeds you commit directly reflect your true 'faith'? .......No amount of deeds, just a repentant sinner that spiritually grow.
E) If no one is worthy and no one is selected, then game over. But no Christian has elected this option yet so I guess we can move on to the next.......ok
F) If you opt for some other selection, which does not already touch upon one of the above, please elaborate. ......You can read my answers above.

My answer about Jesus existence I believe was for Transponder.

[POI]

My belief does not present conflict.

You will soon find that any option you choose will present conflict. It's inevitable.

A) Since all need saving, and all deeds fall short of God's standard, maybe the answer is unconditional grace for all? ........ Only to those who repent (believers) and regret for those unable to hear the gospel.
B) What is the meaning of SOL?
C) Since our deeds will always fall short, and yet some are still judged by their deeds, because they cannot apply faith in him, how exactly does that work? .......I believe that their regrets God can grant grace.
D) Since we need faith and deeds, how much 'faith' and how many deeds? I mean, does the amount <and/or> number of deeds you commit directly reflect your true 'faith'? .......No amount of deeds, just a repentant sinner that spiritually grow.
E) If no one is worthy and no one is selected, then game over. But no Christian has elected this option yet so I guess we can move on to the next.......ok
F) If you opt for some other selection, which does not already touch upon one of the above, please elaborate. ......You can read my answers above.

A) Does the believer need to repent of all sin, right up to the point of natural death, making sure to not leave even one sin unrepented for prior to their death? Meaning, if they repent of all passed sin, but then commit a new sin and then die immediately afterwards without having time to repent. Are they then still saved or condemned? This goes the same for the unbeliever. Except you replace the word repent with regret. They do not have time to regret one new bad act prior to death. Are they still saved or condemned? If they are still saved, then isn't it still unconditional grace, being neither the believer nor unbeliever fulfilled their necessary task(s)? Otherwise, seems virtually no one could possibly fulfill this task. Only by continuously repenting and/or regretting perpetually, could this be fulfilled, being we are deemed imperfect and have an inherently sinful nature.

B) $h1+ outta luck The Bible tells readers that faith/belief is required. Can we just ignore these verses? If so, why?

C) See response A). Does regret merit NO exception(s)? (i.e.) How about a serial child rapist who truly repents of raping and murdering dozens of children, and then immediately dies fully repented up (vs) an unbeliever who regrets all 'bad' acts, except for harming the serial child rapist, and then the unbeliever dies without having time to regret?

D) See responses A) and C).

E)

F) Unnecessary to respond.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's a good point. But another one to add to the practical problems with salvation, aside from 'why not (a) convince us all (b) forgive us all', let alone make us all sinful in the first place.

Heaven or hell is unworkable because of 'where is the cut off?' One person who donated a dollar less than the next person otherwise equal. One goes to heaven the other to hell. Stupid system. Forgiving anyone who never heard of the Bible or Jesus. They get to go to heaven sin and all. So why not let anyone (given reasonably good works) go to heaven even if they disbelieved?

"Surprise, sucker! I exist." "Well ...guess I was wrong." "Good. Peter, let this one in..."

No, Religious exclusivism does not work that way. Non - believers must be kept out, but those in ignorance somehow have to buck the system, because it looks unfair..which it is. It is intended to be unfair. Only those in the club get saved.

There is the 'God does not want robots' apologetic for why God doesn't make us all believe (excuse for a non intervening god...not so you can prove it). "I refuse to prove I exist, because proof would nullify faith and without Faith, I am nothing". But the babel fish is a dead give away.

That is, sci -fi jokes aside, ID (etc.) supposedly proves that God is real, but only if you have Faith because the evidence cannot be proof that doesn't need Faith or the belief would not be faith - based and Faith - based belief saves but evidence - based belief nullifies faith. That is the doctrine that excuses god for not making us all believe. We have to have the choice and to choose Faith without clear proof, even if the believers swear the proof is there - doctrinally, it cannot be. But the point is actually that heaven contradicts 'no robots. The dogma is that we have free will but chose to believe and we may be good enough to be saved without being mind - controlled by God. That is the only reason God doesn't do it and save everyone. We have to be able to choose but choose right anyway. To take away the choice makes us unfit to be with God at all.

But IF we get saved, God has to blot out minds anyway as how could we endure eternity otherwsise? Ok, one poster suggested a day at a time. Well, I think I'd choose oblivion, even though eternity and all knowledge might be tempting. But the kicker is, nobody could last a week in heaven knowing the rest of humanity were burning in hell. Not unless they were totally psychotic. Heaven cannot work unless there is no hell or anyone suffering OR our minds are so blanked, it punctures the doctrine of 'no robots'. Only 'Robots' could survive eternity in heaven.

Which I guess is why some opt for UR; universal redemption. No Hell. Everyone gets saved. Very nice, and gets around hell and even saves those who didn't know.
But it also saves those who didn't believe. It saves unbelievers and wrong believers. So religion isn't needed. It becomes a hobby that achieves nothing. UR is like cafeteria Christianity. Dismissing anything they don't like gets over those problems where they used to need blinkered denial, But it slides toward no reason to believe any of it. Especially as Bible criticism dismantles more and more of its' credibility.

[POI]

Heaven or hell is unworkable because of 'where is the cut off?' One person who donated a dollar less than the next person otherwise equal. One goes to heaven the other to hell. Stupid system. Forgiving anyone who never heard of the Bible or Jesus. They get to go to heaven sin and all. So why not let anyone (given reasonably good works) go to heaven even if they disbelieved?

Yes, what is the point of being a Christian? If some unbelievers get in too, and both believers and unbelievers are sinners, then what's really the difference? There isn't. Further, as I told Mae Von in post 848, all would need to be made 'anew' anyways. If Heaven is a perfect place, all need to be 'restored' or 'transformed', as all are imperfect. So just let all in.

Further, the presented dichotomy between Heaven and eternal torment/Hell/other seems odd. Maybe this is why the Catholics invented "purgatory". And the Mormons later invented differing levels of Heaven, etc....?

I'll stop here. But, as I also told Capbook, regardless of the position you hold as a Christian, conflict is inevitable.

[Capbook]

My belief does not present conflict.

You will soon find that any option you choose will present conflict. It's inevitable.

A) Since all need saving, and all deeds fall short of God's standard, maybe the answer is unconditional grace for all? ........ Only to those who repent (believers) and regret for those unable to hear the gospel.
B) What is the meaning of SOL?
C) Since our deeds will always fall short, and yet some are still judged by their deeds, because they cannot apply faith in him, how exactly does that work? .......I believe that their regrets God can grant grace.
D) Since we need faith and deeds, how much 'faith' and how many deeds? I mean, does the amount <and/or> number of deeds you commit directly reflect your true 'faith'? .......No amount of deeds, just a repentant sinner that spiritually grow.
E) If no one is worthy and no one is selected, then game over. But no Christian has elected this option yet so I guess we can move on to the next.......ok
F) If you opt for some other selection, which does not already touch upon one of the above, please elaborate. ......You can read my answers above.

A) Does the believer need to repent of all sin, right up to the point of natural death, making sure to not leave even one sin unrepented for prior to their death? Meaning, if they repent of all passed sin, but then commit a new sin and then die immediately afterwards without having time to repent. Are they then still saved or condemned? This goes the same for the unbeliever. Except you replace the word repent with regret. They do not have time to regret one new bad act prior to death. Are they still saved or condemned? If they are still saved, then isn't it still unconditional grace, being neither the believer nor unbeliever fulfilled their necessary task(s)? Otherwise, seems virtually no one could possibly fulfill this task. Only by continuously repenting and/or regretting perpetually, could this be fulfilled, being we are deemed imperfect and have an inherently sinful nature.

B) $h1+ outta luck The Bible tells readers that faith/belief is required. Can we just ignore these verses? If so, why?

C) See response A). Does regret merit NO exception(s)? (i.e.) How about a serial child rapist who truly repents of raping and murdering dozens of children, and then immediately dies fully repented up (vs) an unbeliever who regrets all 'bad' acts, except for harming the serial child rapist, and then the unbeliever dies without having time to regret?

D) See responses A) and C).

E)

F) Unnecessary to respond.

A) God knows our heart, and sees your faith and if we commit unrepented mistakes just like Moses, he sinned by hitting the rock instead of just saying it and he was not able to enter the promised land but you can read his name in Hebrews 11. I believe the same as those who were unable to hear God, commit unregretted mistakes but troubled by conscience. God sees it and I believe God will grant grace just like to Moses.

B) Why ignore Ephesians 2:8-10?

C) Greatest sinners and true believers I believe have the same distance to God through true repentance.
The unbeliever who regrets but harbor hate/anger to another I believe falls short of God's grace.

D) Also see my responses to A and C

E) No response.

[1213]

It's a good point. But another one to add to the practical problems with salvation, aside from 'why not (a) convince us all (b) forgive us all', let alone make us all sinful in the first place.

I think all has been forgiven. The problem comes from, if you continue after that in sin. Forgiveness is like cleaning your clothes. It is not useful, if you mess up again after that. That is why Jesus said:

… "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way. From now on, sin no more."
John 8:11

Heaven or hell is unworkable because of 'where is the cut off?' One person who donated a dollar less than the next person otherwise equal. One goes to heaven the other to hell. Stupid system. Forgiving anyone who never heard of the Bible or Jesus. They get to go to heaven sin and all. So why not let anyone (given reasonably good works) go to heaven even if they disbelieved?

Bible promises eternal life only for righteous. I believe the reason is, if everyone would get it, the unrighteous people would turn it into eternal suffering for all. That is why I believe all will not live eternally.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Matt. 25:46
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

There is the 'God does not want robots' apologetic for why God doesn't make us all believe (excuse for a non intervening god...not so you can prove it). "I refuse to prove I exist, because proof would nullify faith and without Faith, I am nothing". But the babel fish is a dead give away.

Bible tells even demons believe that God is real. Do you think it helps them?

You believe that God is one. You do well. The demons also believe, and shudder.
James 2:19

But IF we get saved, God has to blot out minds anyway as how could we endure eternity otherwsise? Ok, one poster suggested a day at a time. Well, I think I'd choose oblivion, even though eternity and all knowledge might be tempting. But the kicker is, nobody could last a week in heaven knowing the rest of humanity were burning in hell. Not unless they were totally psychotic. Heaven cannot work unless there is no hell ...

What if the hell is exactly what the people want, eternal separation from God?

I don't think people in hell are alive and feeling anything. But, if I am wrong, I believe the suffering comes from themselves.

[POI]

A) God knows our heart, and sees your faith and if we commit unrepented mistakes just like Moses, he sinned by hitting the rock instead of just saying it and he was not able to enter the promised land but you can read his name in Hebrews 11. I believe the same as those who were unable to hear God, commit unregretted mistakes but troubled by conscience. God sees it and I believe God will grant grace just like to Moses.

B) Why ignore Ephesians 2:8-10?

C) Greatest sinners and true believers I believe have the same distance to God through true repentance.
The unbeliever who regrets but harbor hate/anger to another I believe falls short of God's grace.

D) Also see my responses to A and C

E) No response.

A) The plot thickens. Then what you stated about (repentance for the believer and regret for the unbeliever) are not the standard/criteria after all.

B) Well, in your cited verses, as well as others, faith is required. If it's required, then ANYONE who does not have faith is SOL. Is this actually the case or can we just go ahead and ignore these passages, as well as others which states the same thing?

C) But you already confirmed repentance and regret are not what saves, God judging the 'heart' does.

****************

As stated prior, the more we dig, the more convoluted it becomes.

Follow up Q: If non-Christians can be selected and all commit sin regardless, then what exactly is the reason to become a Christian?

[TRANSPONDER]

Answer key:

A) Unconditional grace - (Jesus already did all the dirty work, everyone goes now since he had to die for all, as all fall short)
B) Faith/belief - (accept him as your savior, ask him for guidance, apply trust in him)
C) Works - (necessary additional acts or tasks in which Jesus also deems 'good')
D) Both B) and C)
E) No one goes, no one is worthy
F) Other, which does not already include the topics of B) and/or C)

Yes, faith is my belief that Jesus died for me a sinner. Giving us a hope to once again get connected to God.

Recap:

If you have ever heard of Jesus, answer B) is required, and that is all that is necessary?
If you have never heard of Jesus, answer C) is required, and that is all that is necessary?

There is also evidence from ancient sources, such as the writings of Josephus, that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure who was crucified by the Romans.

Even if this were true, while also knowing the 'golden paragraph' was plagiarized in his writings, all this would verify is that Jesus lived and was killed. Nothing more....

Grace of God, a gift to undeserving sinners specially to those who were not able to hear His word.

Answer A)? No one deserves it, according to the Bible. Which means He assigns unconditional grace for all.

Laws of God clearly define what is good and what is bad. Morality does not even know what sin is.

Please explain when you state what you stated above in bold?

God judges us by our works.

Answer C) then is required for all? But the Bible states our works/deeds will always fall short.

First of all, I am sorry that my belief is not confined to your made choices.

Another evidence that Jesus existed. "Today scholars agree that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in the Herodian Kingdom of Judea and the subsequent Herodian tetrarchy in the 1st century CE, upon whose life and teachings Christianity was later constructed,[note 1] but a distinction is made by scholars between 'the Jesus of history' and 'the Christ of faith'. (from Wikipedia)

Yes no one is deserving of God's grace, that is why I say "undeserving sinners".

Can an atheist who believe in secular morality know and believe sin?

All works/deeds always fall short before of God, Yes, but God's grace is immeasurable.

Dear dear, you quite skipped over this: 'but a distinction is made by scholars between 'the Jesus of history' and 'the Christ of faith'. (from Wikipedia) Which means there was an actual Jesus, but he is not like the Jesus of Christianity.

I do credit a real Jesus as more likely than an invented one. But is totally different from the gospel Jesus which (I argue) is based on Paul's teachings, not Paul being based on Jesus'teachings. This is of course open to debate.

Well if God's grace was so immeasurable, He'd just forgive us all and make us saved. Wouldn't he? Cue excuses.

An atheist (or this one) does not recognise the Christian idea of sin, but I (and we) are of course aware of behavioural problems and an ideal better situation we can aspire to but find it difficult to work towards.

But I don't accept that religion is the answer, if anything secular morality has made for a generally better human situation. I know it doesn't seem like it :)but it is compared to say 200 years ago where atheism was hardly argued about. If anything religion made things worse. No, the morality argument does not make a case for God and hasn't ever since the debate started on the internet around the 80's.

He is the Jesus in the NT per Ehrman book. (from Wikipedia)
Ehrman examines the historicity of Jesus and includes some criticism of Christ mythicists. As he does in other works such as Forged and Jesus, Interrupted, he disregards an apologetics-based or otherwise religiously-charged approach to aim at looking at the New Testament using historical-critical methodology. He argues that a specific historical Jesus really existed in the 1st century AD. Even as accounts about that figure later on brought in additional misinformation and legendary stories, Ehrman states, multiple reasons still remain to see things as framed around a flesh-and-blood actual person.

God's grace is measurable to those who repented or regrets for those unable to hear Him.

You can't define sin?
Is it because "if God does not exist, then all is permissible"?

So my friend is correct. He reasoned that he box a schoolmate because he step on his shoe.

That is a Leap of Faith and no mistake. From a case for a real Jesus (a view which I share) to we should all believe, repent and be saved, skips over the question whether the gospel accounts of Jesus are true. As time goes on, more and more doubts are raised. Not least the Gabriel stone that was mentioned recently that suggests that three day resurrection was a known messianic claim before Jesus even got started.