Can you explain the doctrine of salvation better than the Bible?Bible does?

[amortalman]

In a fairly recent thread, POI posted a new topic and I present it here as a preface to an offshoot topic of my own:

Grace (and/or) Belief/Faith (and/or) Works?
Post #1
Post by POI » Thu May 05, 2022 12:20 pm

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?

POI's follow-up post:

Re: Grace (and/or) Belief/Faith (and/or) Works?
Post #2
Post by POI » Tue May 10, 2022 4:48 pm

I find it odd that no Christian wants to chime in here? How does a Christian get to Heaven?

- Grace alone
- Grace by faith/belief alone
- Grace by faith/belief + works
- Other

After POI's second post a number of debaters jumped in with their favorite scripture verse or verses as to how a Christian can get to heaven. However, it didn't settle the issue definitively. And that is indicative of one of the major problems with the Bible. It just isn't that clear. In fact, it can be downright confusing. I think Dan Barker (atheist, speaker, debater, writer, and former evangelical preacher) was right when he said: Can you think of any book more confusing than the Bible?

In my humble opinion, God could have headed off all this confusion on this issue and dozens of others we find in the "holy book" by making them crystal clear. Maybe this would have prevented the splintering of Christ's church into a thousand denominations. It certainly wouldn't have hurt.

So, here is the debate question and challenge: How might the important doctrine of salvation have been presented in the scripture in a clear and coherent way that left little doubt as to the real meaning?
I am not asking for your exegesis of the relevant passages. That has been done in POI's thread. I'm asking for ideas as to how the relevant passages might have been more clearly presented so that each one separately does not confuse the whole.

By simply taking the options POI presented (and I have taken the liberty to slightly modify), How does a Christian get to heaven? Is it by grace alone, faith alone, works alone, grace+faith, grace+works, faith+works, or another way?

I have my own thoughts on this but I will reserve them for later. I want to hear your ideas.

So, if it were up to you, how might you relieve the confusion over this teaching?

[amortalman]

Can you think of any book more confusing than the Bible?

That's the point. The confusion of the bible is something we are meant to work our way through like the vale between us and God in the tabernacle. Which is to say, as literature the bible is didactic in form. It is written to teach us, which means challenging us with cryptic and ambiguous verses and stories.

IMO this is a very odd and ineffective way to teach something. Can you imagine trying to get through school when all your teachers used cryptic and ambiguous texts? It's counterproductive.

To get wisdom (as we are called to do) we must practice wisdom. Hence the bible is infused with questions of right and wrong and throws a whole bunch of stumbling blocks our way to challenge our discernment. This includes literary devices, like ambiguous terms and forms (song/psalms for example, or proverbs and parables...)

Stumbling blocks would be counterproductive to learning. Makes no sense.

Take the serpent of Genesis 3 for example. Is it the most crafty or most sensible of wild creatures? The original Hebrew includes that wide of a semantic range, which means it is intentionally / written to confuse us, and force us to think about the question and its many implications...

Sorry. You make it sound like some kind of cruel game. God playing hide and seek.

They need to be disambiguated to cut through the confusion and get deeper in wisdom.

Had an all-powerful, all-knowing, merciful God existed and been in control of his messages to mankind I think he might have been able to make it crystal clear to every generation to all people. This confusion and contradictions in these ancient texts did not, could not, have come from that kind of God. The Bible is exactly what you would expect to find from ancient superstitions and myths written by ancient, ignorant men.

[amortalman]

....according to my understanding and what the churches I attended taught is that salvation and eternal life are imparted at the same time by God. When one is "saved" (salvation) they receive eternal life at that moment. But here is the main point I want to make: your post and my reply above, taken together, is a good example of the confusion in the Bible. As you know, this is just the doctrine of salvation we're talking about There are dozens more in the NT that have resulted in people who understand the scriptures differently. Could not all the scriptures concerning salvation have been gathered together in one place like the 10 commandments are in the OT? God, who was in charge of writing his holy book could have done it, right?

For example in this case, Bible doesn't connect that way salvation and eternal life

In that case, you are in disagreement with tens of millions of Christians who do make the connection. Further proof of the confusion I posited.

[POI]

In a fairly recent thread, POI posted a new topic and I present it here as a preface to an offshoot topic of my own:

Grace (and/or) Belief/Faith (and/or) Works?
Post #1
Post by POI » Thu May 05, 2022 12:20 pm

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?

POI's follow-up post:

Re: Grace (and/or) Belief/Faith (and/or) Works?
Post #2
Post by POI » Tue May 10, 2022 4:48 pm

I find it odd that no Christian wants to chime in here? How does a Christian get to Heaven?

- Grace alone
- Grace by faith/belief alone
- Grace by faith/belief + works
- Other

After POI's second post a number of debaters jumped in with their favorite scripture verse or verses as to how a Christian can get to heaven. However, it didn't settle the issue definitively. And that is indicative of one of the major problems with the Bible. It just isn't that clear. In fact, it can be downright confusing. I think Dan Barker (atheist, speaker, debater, writer, and former evangelical preacher) was right when he said: Can you think of any book more confusing than the Bible?

In my humble opinion, God could have headed off all this confusion on this issue and dozens of others we find in the "holy book" by making them crystal clear. Maybe this would have prevented the splintering of Christ's church into a thousand denominations. It certainly wouldn't have hurt.

So, here is the debate question and challenge: How might the important doctrine of salvation have been presented in the scripture in a clear and coherent way that left little doubt as to the real meaning?
I am not asking for your exegesis of the relevant passages. That has been done in POI's thread. I'm asking for ideas as to how the relevant passages might have been more clearly presented so that each one separately does not confuse the whole.

By simply taking the options POI presented (and I have taken the liberty to slightly modify), How does a Christian get to heaven? Is it by grace alone, faith alone, works alone, grace+faith, grace+works, faith+works, or another way?

I have my own thoughts on this but I will reserve them for later. I want to hear your ideas.

So, if it were up to you, how might you relieve the confusion over this teaching?

I'll let you fight the good fight on this one. Just as an FYI, here is the current status update for (viewtopic.php?t=39327)

Progress update:

Post #11. JW states "the Bible translates itself". (My last response) - Great. Then the answer should be direct and simple, provided one is literate. Is the answer A), B), C), D), or E); and why?

Post #27. Eloi states "I have no time to answer all your questions". (My last response) - This is when I merely asked direct follow up questions to his response (i.e.):

1. Is baptism required? (yes or no)
2. By default, at birth or before natural birth, are humans deemed "righteous" or "unrighteous"? (righteous or unrighteous)
3. Must a person be free from all the said above to achieve salvation? (yes or no)

He apparently, all of a sudden, "has no time" to answer 3 (one-word-answer) questions? Which begs the question... But he has time to answer others in this thread there-after?.?.?.?

Post #49. Bjs1 alludes to 'morals' being irrelevant to salvation. My follow up question remains:

If everyone, for which He selects is undeserving of His selection, and the elected are the ones which will accept it, does this mean 'morals' are irrelevant?

Post #115. 1213 states only the "righteous" achieve salvation? However, the Bible tells it's readers that no one can achieve this on earth.

Post# 144. Tam might finally be acknowledging that we have a problem...?

[amortalman]

[Replying to POI in post #13]

I especially enjoyed your exchange with JW. It would be interesting to know why JW refused to answer your question, but we'll probably never know. I mean, why jump into a debate if you have no intention of addressing the question for debate? Unbelievable!

[JehovahsWitness]

There is absolutely no confusion amongst Jehovahs Witnesses on the question of Salvation: Salvation depends on faith in the true God Jehovah and Jesus Christ (see John 3:16 John 17:3). "Faith without works is dead" so naturally people of faith will produce works in line with their faith.


JEHOVAHS WITNESS

To learn more please go to other posts related to

SIN, SALVATION and ...REPENTANCE

[1213]

In that case, you are in disagreement with tens of millions of Christians who do make the connection. Further proof of the confusion I posited.

Now we just should know, what is the reason for them to make the connection? When it is not from the Bible, the reason for confusion is something else.

[theophile]

Can you think of any book more confusing than the Bible?

That's the point. The confusion of the bible is something we are meant to work our way through like the vale between us and God in the tabernacle. Which is to say, as literature the bible is didactic in form. It is written to teach us, which means challenging us with cryptic and ambiguous verses and stories.

IMO this is a very odd and ineffective way to teach something. Can you imagine trying to get through school when all your teachers used cryptic and ambiguous texts? It's counterproductive.

To get wisdom (as we are called to do) we must practice wisdom. Hence the bible is infused with questions of right and wrong and throws a whole bunch of stumbling blocks our way to challenge our discernment. This includes literary devices, like ambiguous terms and forms (song/psalms for example, or proverbs and parables...)

Stumbling blocks would be counterproductive to learning. Makes no sense.

Take the serpent of Genesis 3 for example. Is it the most crafty or most sensible of wild creatures? The original Hebrew includes that wide of a semantic range, which means it is intentionally / written to confuse us, and force us to think about the question and its many implications...

Sorry. You make it sound like some kind of cruel game. God playing hide and seek.

How are you going to learn how to discern right from wrong if you're spoon-fed the answers? If you don't have challenges thrown your way? If you don't actually wrestle with the questions? Sorry, there is no 'easy' button here. We need to confront real moral problems and work our way through them, if not in real life situations then in the literary situations that the bible sets up.

Like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Should God do it? What if there are some good people there?... These are the kinds of debates the bible is trying to engage us in. It's not trying to spoon-feed us the answers but force us to think through the right thing to do (because that's our God-given job, frankly).

They need to be disambiguated to cut through the confusion and get deeper in wisdom.

Had an all-powerful, all-knowing, merciful God existed and been in control of his messages to mankind I think he might have been able to make it crystal clear to every generation to all people. This confusion and contradictions in these ancient texts did not, could not, have come from that kind of God. The Bible is exactly what you would expect to find from ancient superstitions and myths written by ancient, ignorant men.

Who said God is all-powerful or knowing, or that God even wrote the bible? Please don't load the conversation with all these presuppositions. Pretty sure biblical texts were crafted by human hands, not God's. But again, I think we have completely different perspectives on this.

i.e., Can morality be spoon-fed? Or is it something you have to learn in situation? You seem to think a text book can make it clear as if we're talking entry level calculus or something. This is way more complex than that. As if the myriad of moral problems we can face in life can be codified and laid out in easy to consume answers.

[amortalman]

In that case, you are in disagreement with tens of millions of Christians who do make the connection. Further proof of the confusion I posited.

Now we just should know, what is the reason for them to make the connection? When it is not from the Bible, the reason for confusion is something else.

But it is from the Bible.The word salvation is used in different ways in the Bible. Two examples: the Hebrews supposedly were saved from bondage in Egypt. Noah, his family, and tons of animals supposedly were saved from the worldwide flood. A person can supposedly be saved from the penalty of sin which supposedly is eternal separation from God in hell. This is what is taught in most Christian churches.

Now here is the connection you asked about: Being saved (salvation) from the penalty of sin not only means that the person has escaped the penalty of sin but that the person now has eternal life. He has been saved from sin and death and he supposedly will spend eternity in a place called heaven with God. In the church denomination in which I spent about 15 years of my life here are the necessary steps for salvation that results in going to heaven:

1. Repent of sins
2. Confess that Jesus is the Son of God and died for your sins
3. Believe on Jesus to save you
4. Ask and receive Jesus Christ into your heart and life

Some evangelical churches add water baptism as a necessary step to salvation. Depending on which denomination you wind up in, many believe that the Bible teaches that once a person obtains salvation he cannot ever lose it. Many more believe that a person can lose his salvation after he gets it. Just more confusion because of conflicting verses.

Again, salvation from the penalty of sin is absolutely necessary for a person to obtain eternal life in heaven. That's the connection. I don't know of any other way to say it although it's been years since I was in church and believed that. Too much contradiction and confusion. The Bible must have been written by men.

[1213]

...Being saved (salvation) from the penalty of sin not only means that the person has escaped the penalty of sin but that the person now has eternal life....

Sorry, I don't think that is supported by the Bible.

[amortalman]

Can you think of any book more confusing than the Bible?

That's the point. The confusion of the bible is something we are meant to work our way through like the vale between us and God in the tabernacle. Which is to say, as literature the bible is didactic in form. It is written to teach us, which means challenging us with cryptic and ambiguous verses and stories.

IMO this is a very odd and ineffective way to teach something. Can you imagine trying to get through school when all your teachers used cryptic and ambiguous texts? It's counterproductive.

To get wisdom (as we are called to do) we must practice wisdom. Hence the bible is infused with questions of right and wrong and throws a whole bunch of stumbling blocks our way to challenge our discernment. This includes literary devices, like ambiguous terms and forms (song/psalms for example, or proverbs and parables...)

Stumbling blocks would be counterproductive to learning. Makes no sense.

Take the serpent of Genesis 3 for example. Is it the most crafty or most sensible of wild creatures? The original Hebrew includes that wide of a semantic range, which means it is intentionally / written to confuse us, and force us to think about the question and its many implications...

Sorry. You make it sound like some kind of cruel game. God playing hide and seek.

How are you going to learn how to discern right from wrong if you're spoon-fed the answers? If you don't have challenges thrown your way? If you don't actually wrestle with the questions? Sorry, there is no 'easy' button here. We need to confront real moral problems and work our way through them, if not in real life situations then in the literary situations that the bible sets up.

I don't think the Bible was meant to be a test. A mother tells her young child, "Tommy, don't touch the stove. You'll get burned." This is clear language the mother used. Tommy now has a choice to either obey his mother's command or touch the stove and see for himself. In your reasoning, the mother would have spoken to her son in ambiguous language, purposely trying to confuse the child. Does that make sense to you?

Like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Should God do it?

Why would anyone want to debate the issue and what difference does it make? God did it. In this instance, God has already stated why he was going to destroy it.

What if there are some good people there?... These are the kinds of debates the bible is trying to engage us in.

What if?...we already know the answer to that question. A Bible study class discussing this story to learn what lessons they might get from it is expected, but not to try to uncover some hidden message.

It's not trying to spoon-feed us the answers but force us to think through the right thing to do (because that's our God-given job, frankly).

Using discernment in Bible study is wise (I'm talking as if I'm still a Christian to make my points). But I have never heard or read of a seminary professor, preacher, or Bible teacher say that the Bible was written to confuse us on purpose for good reason: It makes no sense at all.

There will be challenges enough after the text is fully understood. People have wrestled with the precepts in the Bible for thousands of years. People who rely on this ancient text to learn how to get to heaven need more clarity.

They need to be disambiguated to cut through the confusion and get deeper in wisdom.

Had an all-powerful, all-knowing, merciful God existed and been in control of his messages to mankind I think he might have been able to make it crystal clear to every generation to all people. This confusion and contradictions in these ancient texts did not, could not, have come from that kind of God. The Bible is exactly what you would expect to find from ancient superstitions and myths written by ancient, ignorant men.

Who said God is all-powerful or knowing, or that God even wrote the bible? Please don't load the conversation with all these presuppositions. Pretty sure biblical texts were crafted by human hands, not God's. But again, I think we have completely different perspectives on this.

Wow! I didn't see that one coming. It just keeps getting stranger. To answer your question, the Bible makes those claims! I saw no hints that you believed the Bible was "crafted" (whatever that means) by human hands.
Sure, I assumed beforehand that you believed God was all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present, and oversaw the writing of his book to mankind, like all the Abrahamic religions of the world. I can’t read your mind.