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

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3249
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1537 times
Been thanked: 1045 times

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

Post #1

Post by 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.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3249
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1537 times
Been thanked: 1045 times

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

Post #91

Post by POI »

(YOU) Perhaps you could put it into a simple sentence then? You claim I have broken my own logic to resolve the riddle of salvation. So what logic of mine have I broken?

(ME) Unfortunately, I cannot sum up your belief about 'salvation' in one sentence. It's all over the place.

-- An atheist can apparently be saved. So why be a Christian?
-- A Christian's belief can achieve salvation, and exempt them from 'sin', or make sin irrelevant?
-- God/Jesus can pick whoever He wants, which means He could just simply save everyone, so does He?

(YOU) These are POI's personal definitions, but that does not make them true.

Grace is grace. Love is love.

Conditions or no conditions, grace is still grace and love is still love. Just as mercy is still mercy, even if you make it a condition that in order to RECEIVE mercy, you must SHOW mercy.

It is still mercy.

(ME) I trust you understand there exists many types of love alone. Love for a parent, for your spouse, for your child, for a friend, for possessions, etc... Many of which have conditions. If your husband raped you, you may fall out of love. But if your love it truly unconditional, you would love him THE SAME, no matter what he did/does to you over and over and over again.

So yes, love, mercy, grace, etc, can have many conditions.

Thus, I ask yet again, is God's grace conditional or not? If so, what are the criteria to receive His grace for salvation'? If no conditions exist for His grace, then case closed ----> all are saved ;)

Since you state all are not saved, then conditions apply for His grace. You have already admitted that we are 'condemned' by default. Thus, we need His grace/mercy/selection/other.

(YOU) Matt 25 pertains to those who are alive when Christ returns, and Romans 11 states that all Israel will be saved (that would include those who did not survive to birth). They just won't all reign as king-priests with Christ in His Kingdom (as the would have if they had accepted Him).

(ME) It does not matter about the timeline. Jesus states that you are judged by your works/deeds. This would also include the unborn. And the unborn cannot do such expressed works/deeds in Matt. 25. Further, I guess this means such unbelievers can ignore the preaching which has likely been presented to them.

Further, I'm speaking about Romans 10, not 11 ;)

(YOU) Why should that be the answer? How does that follow?

(ME) If God can select whoever He chooses, then just elect/select everyone ---> true-grace-style :)

(YOU) Yes, but then there is just no point in this conversation at all, is there? If you resort to 'prove God exists' (which would have to happen before someone could prove that every living breathing thing can praise Him), then there is no point in having a conversation about God to begin with. It is a cop-out. A fail-safe for when something does not go your way in an 'argument' about God.

(ME) I'm sorry you feel that way. Especially since you cannot prove it -- (even with your Psalms Verses). But the topic remains, (salvation is obtained by)? This question remains unanswered. Why? Because the Bible conflicts with itself about how He chooses one for salvation.

(YOU) the Bible does not make any mention at all of 'true grace' being unconditional and universal, and yet that is what you have pushed. So you're using an unbiblical concept to claim that the bible contradicts itself on the matter of grace/faith/works. Where is the logic in that?

The Bible does not say a lot of things. It is quite ambiguous, especially as it pertains to "salvation" apparently. Maybe this is why we have countless denominations, all of which claim conflicting ways to achieve "salvation".

(YOU) One thing that can be known is that the blood of Christ covers not just the Christian, but his/her entire household (the blood of the lamb protected the entire house in Egypt from the Destroyer); God saves entire households; the promise is for us and for our children. That too is from love.

(ME) So we are back to complete/unconditional grace again?
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6435
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 323 times
Contact:

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

Post #92

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
POI wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 1:17 am (YOU) Perhaps you could put it into a simple sentence then? You claim I have broken my own logic to resolve the riddle of salvation. So what logic of mine have I broken?

(ME) Unfortunately, I cannot sum up your belief about 'salvation' in one sentence. It's all over the place.
I didn't ask you to sum up my belief. I asked you to state what logic of mine I have broken.

Since you cannot, it is reasonable to dismiss the claim as unfounded.
-- An atheist can apparently be saved. So why be a Christian?
Love for Christ, for God.

(If you want to know the difference between what happens with a Christian versus a non-Christian who also receives eternal life, this has been pointed out numerous times in previous posts and on that link. If you read those, some of your confusion might be cleared up.)
(YOU) These are POI's personal definitions, but that does not make them true.

Grace is grace. Love is love.

Conditions or no conditions, grace is still grace and love is still love. Just as mercy is still mercy, even if you make it a condition that in order to RECEIVE mercy, you must SHOW mercy.

It is still mercy.

(ME) I trust you understand there exists many types of love alone. Love for a parent, for your spouse, for your child, for a friend, for possessions, etc... Many of which have conditions. If your husband raped you, you may fall out of love. But if your love it truly unconditional, you would love him THE SAME, no matter what he did/does to you over and over and over again.

So yes, love, mercy, grace, etc, can have many conditions.
Then there you go. What's the issue?

Thus, I ask yet again, is God's grace conditional or not? If so, what are the criteria to receive His grace for salvation'?


How many times do you want me to write out some of those conditions? Why do you keep asking as if this has not been answered?
(YOU) Matt 25 pertains to those who are alive when Christ returns, and Romans 11 states that all Israel will be saved (that would include those who did not survive to birth). They just won't all reign as king-priests with Christ in His Kingdom (as the would have if they had accepted Him).

(ME) It does not matter about the timeline. Jesus states that you are judged by your works/deeds. This would also include the unborn.


Says who?
And the unborn cannot do such expressed works/deeds in Matt. 25.


Matt 25 does not apply to the unborn. That is easily discernible in the parable.
Further, I'm speaking about Romans 10, not 11 ;)
I am aware. I am suggesting that you expand your knowledge base.
(YOU) Why should that be the answer? How does that follow?

(ME) If God can select whoever He chooses, then just elect/select everyone ---> true-grace-style :)
Ah... so it has nothing to do with anything being illogical or even contradictory. Basically you're just saying what you think should happen (never mind that some would use that to harm others and wreak havoc in the Kingdom - not just temporarily, but now for all eternity. Where is the wisdom in granting such ones eternal life, much less the LOVE for those to whom they would cause harm?)


(YOU) Yes, but then there is just no point in this conversation at all, is there? If you resort to 'prove God exists' (which would have to happen before someone could prove that every living breathing thing can praise Him), then there is no point in having a conversation about God to begin with. It is a cop-out. A fail-safe for when something does not go your way in an 'argument' about God.

(ME) I'm sorry you feel that way. Especially since you cannot prove it -- (even with your Psalms Verses).


I'm sorry, did you or did you not just finish saying that the OP was "created to try and follow what the Book says"? How then can it be irrelevant what that book says?
But the topic remains, (salvation is obtained by)? This question remains unanswered.
Sigh.
(YOU) the Bible does not make any mention at all of 'true grace' being unconditional and universal, and yet that is what you have pushed. So you're using an unbiblical concept to claim that the bible contradicts itself on the matter of grace/faith/works. Where is the logic in that?

The Bible does not say a lot of things. It is quite ambiguous, especially as it pertains to "salvation" apparently.
If it is so ambiguous, how can you possibly claim that it contradicts itself?
(YOU) One thing that can be known is that the blood of Christ covers not just the Christian, but his/her entire household (the blood of the lamb protected the entire house in Egypt from the Destroyer); God saves entire households; the promise is for us and for our children. That too is from love.

(ME) So we are back to complete/unconditional grace again?

There was a condition in there (though it might be described more as a merciful allowance).



Peace again to you.
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3249
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1537 times
Been thanked: 1045 times

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

Post #93

Post by POI »

(U) I didn't ask you to sum up my belief. I asked you to state what logic of mine I have broken.

Since you cannot, it is reasonable to dismiss the claim as unfounded.

(ME) My prior answer stands. You possess conflicting ideas/beliefs about the way to salvation. I also expressed the (3) bullet points demonstrated as such. So sure, you can dismiss it, but it does not make your problem go away.

(U) Love for Christ, for God.

(If you want to know the difference between what happens with a Christian versus a non-Christian who also receives eternal life, this has been pointed out numerous times in previous posts and on that link. If you read those, some of your confusion might be cleared up.)

(ME) Maybe instead provide a sentence or two about it. Sending a hyperlink, via 'Where's Waldo", for me to try and scavenge an answer is hardly helpful.

(Matt. 25) expresses it is the deeds/works one does which will please Jesus. In another spot, (Mark 16) suggests that if you have been preached to, you either accept or be condemned. In another spot(s), belief is required (via John 3 or Romans 10).

(U) Then there you go. What's the issue?

(ME) True grace would mean He saves everyone. Just like, in your example, true love would mean you love someone the same, no matter what, without any exception --- (even if they rape you over and over and over again). If God does not select/elect all, then it is not truly grace; it is conditional grace. And we are now exploring those 'conditions' of His provided limited grace?

(U) Says who?

(ME) Upon Jesus's return, where do the 3-week-old fetuses go, and how does Jesus judge them? We know they do not yet possess lungs for breath, via Psalms. So this would be wrong. We also know they have not fulfilled the necessary works, as laid out in Matthew 25. Is it then a free pass or true grace?

(U) I am aware. I am suggesting that you expand your knowledge base.

(ME) I noticed this seems to be the go-to trick when a passage is pointed out, which does not fit the Christian's believed narrative. There's plenty to unpack in the Chapter provided. Romans 10 suggests belief is necessary. Mark 16 also suggests belief is necessary. John 3 also suggests belief is necessary. However, Matthew 25 suggests all that is needed is works. How do you square this one contradiction alone -- (between belief vs works)?

(U) Ah... so it has nothing to do with anything being illogical or even contradictory. Basically you're just saying what you think should happen (never mind that some would use that to harm others and wreak havoc in the Kingdom - not just temporarily, but now for all eternity. Where is the wisdom in granting such ones eternal life, much less the LOVE for those to whom they would cause harm?)

(ME)
- It has everything to do with logic. If God was truly graceful (and/or) truly loving, He would provide salvation to all --- since no one is deemed worthy anyways.

- Heaven is a sinless place, right? All "sin" up to the point of their death. No one is apparently worthy. Some apparently earn His favor enough to get in anyways. No one could wreak havoc if Heaven is a sinless place. Thus, whether you are chosen or not, you are still a confirmed 'sinner'. But apparently, you stop sinning in Heaven. Hence, all could go.

(U)There was a condition in there (though it might be described more as a merciful allowance).

(ME) "Word play" does not solve your presented issue. If God saves entire households, why not just save all?
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6435
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 323 times
Contact:

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

Post #94

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
POI wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 4:10 am (U) I didn't ask you to sum up my belief. I asked you to state what logic of mine I have broken.

Since you cannot, it is reasonable to dismiss the claim as unfounded.

(ME) My prior answer stands. You possess conflicting ideas/beliefs about the way to salvation.
You have not backed up this claim.
I also expressed the (3) bullet points demonstrated as such.


Are you referring to your three questions?
So sure, you can dismiss it, but it does not make your problem go away.
You keep saying I have a problem POI. I do not.
(U) Love for Christ, for God.

(If you want to know the difference between what happens with a Christian versus a non-Christian who also receives eternal life, this has been pointed out numerous times in previous posts and on that link. If you read those, some of your confusion might be cleared up.)

(ME) Maybe instead provide a sentence or two about it. Sending a hyperlink, via 'Where's Waldo", for me to try and scavenge an answer is hardly helpful.
I have provided a sentence or two in the previous posts on this very thread; the link is just more detail clearly laid out. I cannot help it if you do not read the posts (the link is just there to assist, but I cannot help if you do not read that either).

Regardless, the REASON to be a disciple of Christ - to follow Him, to obey Him, to serve Him (and His Father) - is love.

(U) Then there you go. What's the issue?

(ME) True grace would mean He saves everyone.
This is just your 'made-up' definition of grace.
Just like, in your example, true love would mean you love someone the same, no matter what, without any exception --- (even if they rape you over and over and over again). If God does not select/elect all, then it is not truly grace; it is conditional grace. And we are now exploring those 'conditions' of His provided limited grace?
NO... that is YOUR example and YOUR meaning of true love.

It has nothing to do with anything I have said.

For some reason, you seem to think there should be no conditions placed upon God's love or grace. EVERYONE should get a free pass, even if they use that free pass to rape someone over and over again (and since they have received eternal life, that would mean they could do this for all eternity). You can keep that version of eternal life for yourself, thank you very much.
(U) I am aware. I am suggesting that you expand your knowledge base.

(ME) I noticed this seems to be the go-to trick when a passage is pointed out, which does not fit the Christian's believed narrative.


No, it is not a trick. I am pointing out that you are only taking part of the picture and ignoring the rest. The same person who wrote Romans 10 also wrote Romans 11.
There's plenty to unpack in the Chapter provided. Romans 10 suggests belief is necessary. Mark 16 also suggests belief is necessary. John 3 also suggests belief is necessary. However, Matthew 25 suggests all that is needed is works. How do you square this one contradiction alone -- (between belief vs works)?
Belief (faith) is necessary for a Christian, to come to Christ, to accept His invitation and follow Him. Such ones have the kingdom within them even now, such ones have no fear of the second death, such ones have LIFE in them, such ones are not judged, such ones are covered in Christ - and their households. That faith (and of course love) also compel works. So that there is both.

Seems simple enough.

**

Matthew 25 (the sheep from the sheep and the goats) is describing what happens to the people on the earth who are not Christian, when Christ returns. So this is referring to non-Christians, including atheists and agnostics. How then could it be about faith? These ones have proven that they are not enemies of Christ or the Kingdom, that they have the law (love) written upon their hearts. These are people who have done good (even unknowingly) to Christ. They are loved and blessed for having done these things, even if they did not realize they were doing them for Christ.

It is the exact opposite with the goats... and the goats are cast out into the darkness (outside the Kingdom).


There is no contradiction.

**

Most of the writers of the NT are writing to Christians (or at least to disciples of Christ, people who believe or have faith), so the letters are tailored to Christians, about matters that concern Christians. There is not much written about non-Christians. Paul touches on it some (Romans 2 - which corroborates what Christ said in Matt 25), and Revelation speaks of the resurrection of the dead (these are all non-Christians), wherein some receive judgement and the second death; and some receive LIFE.

(U) Ah... so it has nothing to do with anything being illogical or even contradictory. Basically you're just saying what you think should happen (never mind that some would use that to harm others and wreak havoc in the Kingdom - not just temporarily, but now for all eternity. Where is the wisdom in granting such ones eternal life, much less the LOVE for those to whom they would cause harm?)

(ME)
- It has everything to do with logic. If God was truly graceful (and/or) truly loving, He would provide salvation to all --- since no one is deemed worthy anyways.
Again, these are merely your personal definitions of grace and love. I have no reason to accept them. According to your definition, true love means a woman must love her husband the same no matter what, even after he rapes her over and over and over again. Absurd.
- Heaven is a sinless place, right? All "sin" up to the point of their death. No one is apparently worthy. Some apparently earn His favor enough to get in anyways. No one could wreak havoc if Heaven is a sinless place. Thus, whether you are chosen or not, you are still a confirmed 'sinner'. But apparently, you stop sinning in Heaven. Hence, all could go.
To the bold: because those who would wreak havoc, who would cause harm, are not invited IN. Indeed, Adam was cast out remember? Those who would use their eternal life to be enemies of God and of His Son, and the rest of God's children... will not receive eternal life.


(U)There was a condition in there (though it might be described more as a merciful allowance).

(ME) "Word play" does not solve your presented issue. If God saves entire households, why not just save all?
There was no word play. You claimed I was back to 'unconditional', but I was not.

As to your question, for one, the promise is for us (meaning the people who belong to God and to His Son) and our children. If you love someone, you also care for those THEY love. (If a person in the household did not WANT to enter though, as sad as I find that, their choice would not be violated.)

And again to your question, for two, see response just above after 'to the bold'.


Peace again to you.
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3249
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1537 times
Been thanked: 1045 times

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

Post #95

Post by POI »

(YOU) You keep saying I have a problem POI. I do not.

(ME) You, not acknowledging a problem, does not mean there is not a problem. Because there is a problem, as you will again see below.

(YOU) the REASON to be a disciple of Christ - to follow Him, to obey Him, to serve Him (and His Father) - is love.

(ME) Noted. Thank you.

(YOU) This is just your 'made-up' definition of grace.

(ME) I'm not 'making stuff up'. Must we trek back several posts?

Post #84:

grace - "grace, in Christian theology, the spontaneous, unmerited gift of the divine favour in the salvation of sinners" - google
unmerited - "not deserved or merited" - google

The Bible states that all will fall short. If this is the case, then He can certainly extend His <favour/grace/selection/election/choice> to ALL. This is just basic logic 101 here....

(YOU) NO... that is YOUR example and YOUR meaning of true love.

It has nothing to do with anything I have said.

For some reason, you seem to think there should be no conditions placed upon God's love or grace. EVERYONE should get a free pass, even if they use that free pass to rape someone over and over again (and since they have received eternal life, that would mean they could do this for all eternity). You can keep that version of eternal life for yourself, thank you very much.

(ME) Based upon your response above, you and I seem to agree that "love is not love". "Grace is not grace". There exists varying levels of each. Your criteria for offering <grace> may differ from mine.

So now, we may explore and see what Jesus's brand of 'grace' might actually be, if this is even possible??? Seems as though it differs, from populous to populous, at bare minimum?

(YOU) No, it is not a trick. I am pointing out that you are only taking part of the picture and ignoring the rest. The same person who wrote Romans 10 also wrote Romans 11.

(ME) Cool. So does this mean I need to read beyond John 3 and Mark 16 too? These two Chapters alone also tell the reader that belief is a requirement.

(YOU) Belief (faith) is necessary for a Christian, to come to Christ, to accept His invitation and follow Him. Such ones have the kingdom within them even now, such ones have no fear of the second death, such ones have LIFE in them, such ones are not judged, such ones are covered in Christ - and their households. That faith (and of course love) also compel works. So that there is both.

Seems simple enough.

(ME) Logic would dictate that belief in Jesus is already a prerequisite of defining one's self as a Christian. This would go without saying. ;)

But your response still has a large problem. Mark 16:15-16 tells the believer to preach and spread the Gospel to all. This would include unbelievers. What is to become of the ones, which receive this Gospel and remain unbelievers? ARE they condemned, or can they ALSO instead be saved via Matthew 25?

So I ask, yet again... If the ones being preached the Gospel do not believe, can they still be accepted by their deeds/works? This again puts Mark 16:15-16 directly against Matthew 25:31-46. It's a contradiction. Does Jesus judge the unbelievers by their faith or their works?

(YOU) Matthew 25 (the sheep from the sheep and the goats) is describing what happens to the people on the earth who are not Christian, when Christ returns. So this is referring to non-Christians, including atheists and agnostics. How then could it be about faith? These ones have proven that they are not enemies of Christ or the Kingdom, that they have the law (love) written upon their hearts. These are people who have done good (even unknowingly) to Christ. They are loved and blessed for having done these things, even if they did not realize they were doing them for Christ.

It is the exact opposite with the goats... and the goats are cast out into the darkness (outside the Kingdom).

There is no contradiction.

(ME) Yes, there is a contradiction. A BIG one.

Marks 16 - Preach to all. This would include unbelievers. If some do not believe, they will be condemned.

Matthew 25 - Jesus judges the unbelievers by their deeds alone.

Jesus is said to be speaking, first hand, in both cases. His message is INCONSISTENT. Is the criteria belief (or) works --> (Mark 16 vs. Matt. 25)?

(YOU) Most of the writers of the NT are writing to Christians (or at least to disciples of Christ, people who believe or have faith), so the letters are tailored to Christians, about matters that concern Christians. There is not much written about non-Christians. Paul touches on it some (Romans 2 - which corroborates what Christ said in Matt 25), and Revelation speaks of the resurrection of the dead (these are all non-Christians), wherein some receive judgement and the second death; and some receive LIFE.

(ME) I already touched on this above. He tells the Christians that unbelievers, who remain unbelievers after receiving the Gospel, will be condemned. He instead tells atheists they can be saved by works, and not belief. This is contradictory.

(YOU) Again, these are merely your personal definitions of grace and love. I have no reason to accept them. According to your definition, true love means a woman must love her husband the same no matter what, even after he rapes her over and over and over again. Absurd.

(ME) Again, "grace is not grace", and "love is not love". Such words must be expanded upon. In this case, what is God's version of "grace" and "love"? We have yet to find out.

Is His "grace" extended to humans by way of belief, and/or works, and/or both, and/or other? Seems as though He is not consistent in His distribution process; as He gives conflicting criteria to differing audiences, at differing times.

(YOU) To the bold: because those who would wreak havoc, who would cause harm, are not invited IN. Indeed, Adam was cast out remember? Those who would use their eternal life to be enemies of God and of His Son, and the rest of God's children... will not receive eternal life.

(ME) God hates all 'sin', right? All believers will sin, right? Hence, if God's criteria, for the Christians is belief, then we still have a huge problem. Why? All Christians, regardless of how devout they are, will remain imperfect and perform transgression(s) against God (i.e. "sin"). No one is worthy. All fall short of His glory. Any/All sin in Heaven would "wreak havoc", as Heaven is apparently a sinless environment. Hence, once the elected arrives in Heaven, something must change in them, to where they no longer have the ability to 'sin'. Thus, if this is the case, and all which arrive are transformed in some way to no longer sin, then just elect ALL :) Basic logic.

(YOU) If you love someone, you also care for those THEY love. (If a person in the household did not WANT to enter though, as sad as I find that, their choice would not be violated.)

(ME) Then send everyone, since God loves everyone. And I'm pretty confident, that given the dichotomy of eternal bliss vs eternal torment; most/all would choose the former. It's just that us atheists do not believe this scenario actually exists postmortem :)
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6435
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 323 times
Contact:

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

Post #96

Post by tam »

Peace to you,

Most of this post has just been a repetition of things that have already been answered. So on most issues, I am going to have to leave my previous posts to stand. Re-read if you wish (perhaps a bit more carefully), or not, as you choose.

POI wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 4:02 pm

(YOU) This is just your 'made-up' definition of grace.

(ME) I'm not 'making stuff up'. Must we trek back several posts?

Post #84:

grace - "grace, in Christian theology, the spontaneous, unmerited gift of the divine favour in the salvation of sinners" - google
unmerited - "not deserved or merited" - google

The Bible states that all will fall short. If this is the case, then He can certainly extend His <favour/grace/selection/election/choice> to ALL. This is just basic logic 101 here....
NONE of that supports your personal definition that "true grace" must be unconditional and universal.

Not to mention that fact that you have said in various times that this thread is about following what the bible says... but the bible never once makes the claim that 'true grace' must be unconditional and universal. The bible never once makes the claim that everyone "goes to heaven". Obviously then (basic logic 101), 'true grace' cannot mean what you are making up.

Grace can be conditional and still be grace. Just as love can be conditional, and still be love.

Therefore, there is no conflict. The only conflict that exists is the one you have made up.
(YOU) NO... that is YOUR example and YOUR meaning of true love.

It has nothing to do with anything I have said.

For some reason, you seem to think there should be no conditions placed upon God's love or grace. EVERYONE should get a free pass, even if they use that free pass to rape someone over and over again (and since they have received eternal life, that would mean they could do this for all eternity). You can keep that version of eternal life for yourself, thank you very much.

(ME) Based upon your response above, you and I seem to agree that "love is not love". "Grace is not grace".


That makes NO sense (plus I have said the exact opposite in my posts. I said love is love and grace is grace. How did you miss that?)
Your criteria for offering <grace> may differ from mine.

So now, we may explore and see what Jesus's brand of 'grace' might actually be, if this is even possible??? Seems as though it differs, from populous to populous, at bare minimum?
Grace is given to His people (the people in Him; Christians; His Bride, His Church).

Mercy and love may also be shown to others via the conditions as previously explained.

Simple enough.

(YOU) If you love someone, you also care for those THEY love. (If a person in the household did not WANT to enter though, as sad as I find that, their choice would not be violated.)

(ME) Then send everyone, since God loves everyone.
You seem to have sidestepped the point, but as to what you have said... is that really so?

Whoever has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and reveal Myself to him

"If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word. My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love.


"And I'm pretty confident, that given the dichotomy of eternal bliss vs eternal torment; most/all would choose the former. It's just that us atheists do not believe this scenario actually exists postmortem :)
This comment is supposed to mean what to me?

I realize you asked earlier, 'why be a Christian', and you expected my answer to be something along the lines of... 'to avoid eternal torment and attain eternal bliss'. But that is not the answer I gave you. The answer I gave you was 'love for Christ and His Father.'

So I'm not sure what point you think you are making with your comment.


As an aside, the choice is LIFE or DEATH. Not life or eternal existence in torment. That is a false teaching of man/religion (another thread perhaps).

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live,




Peace again to you.
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3249
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1537 times
Been thanked: 1045 times

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

Post #97

Post by POI »

(YOU) Most of this post has just been a repetition of things that have already been answered. So on most issues, I am going to have to leave my previous posts to stand. Re-read if you wish (perhaps a bit more carefully), or not, as you choose.

(ME) Though I agree this exchange has some "repetition", I feel you are not truly addressing my observations. We shall see, moving forward...

(YOU) NONE of that supports your personal definition that "true grace" must be unconditional and universal.

(ME) So God is incapable of unconditional grace? Is it that He can't do so, or won't do so? And why? Please remember, as I stated many exchanges ago, He is both the law maker, as well as the law enforcer. Much like a "mafia boss".

(YOU) Not to mention that fact that you have said in various times that this thread is about following what the bible says... but the bible never once makes the claim that 'true grace' must be unconditional and universal. The bible never once makes the claim that everyone "goes to heaven". Obviously then (basic logic 101), 'true grace' cannot mean what you are making up.

(ME) As I stated many exchanges ago, the Bible does not clarify many things. Maybe this is why we have countless denominations about how one is saved (i.e) A Unitarian vs. a Baptist, for example... They both read from the same Book ;)

And, yet again, "true grace" would mean He pardons/selects/elects ALL, SINCE NO ONE IS DESERVING :) This is logic. Just like I could allow the entrance of my bomb shelter to everyone. I doubt many would refuse, if they knew a bomb was really coming. But we know His grace/love has conditions; as I have also said more than once.

So, what are His condition(s)? And, are His condition(s) consistent?

(YOU) Therefore, there is no conflict.

(ME) Yes, there is...

His conditional 'grace' for unbelievers, in Mark 16:15-16, is that if they do not become believers, they are condemned.

His conditional 'grace' for unbelievers, in Matthew 25:31-46, is that they may be saved by their deeds.

You seem to be skipping this observation....?


(YOU) That makes NO sense (plus I have said the exact opposite in my posts. I said love is love and grace is grace. How did you miss that?)

(ME) I didn't missing anything here. Your responses have demonstrated that grace varies, love varies. So, we agree :) In God's case, we are at least trying to pinpoint what these condition(s) for 'grace' might actually be? So far, He lays out condition(s), but they are inconsistent between Mark 16 and Matthew 25?

(YOU) Grace is given to His people (the people in Him; Christians; His Bride, His Church).

Mercy and love may also be shown to others via the conditions as previously explained.

Simple enough.

(ME)

Rinse/repeat:

He tells the Christians that unbelievers, who remain unbelievers after receiving the Gospel, will be condemned. He instead tells atheists they can be saved by works, and not belief. This is contradictory.

Rinse/repeat:

Marks 16 - Preach to all. This would include unbelievers. If some do not believe, they will be condemned.

Matthew 25 - Jesus judges the unbelievers by their deeds alone.

Jesus is said to be speaking, first hand, in both cases. His message is INCONSISTENT. Is the criteria belief (or) works --> (Mark 16 vs. Matt. 25)?

(YOU) Whoever has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and reveal Myself to him

(ME) So again; doubters, dead young fetuses, and the uninformed are ALL screwed?

(YOU) This comment is supposed to mean what to me?

(ME) You stated "If a person in the household did not WANT to enter though, as sad as I find that, their choice would not be violated.". Skeptics do not reject because they would rather reside in eternal torment. They reject the request due to unbelief in the concept of eternal bliss vs. eternal torment. And apparently, according to Mark 16:15-16, I'm condemned --> (because I do not believe) ---- UNLESS you want to shoe-horn in Matthew 25 somehow? I'm still waiting for a proper explanation here?

(YOU) I realize you asked earlier, 'why be a Christian', and you expected my answer to be something along the lines of... 'to avoid eternal torment and attain eternal bliss'. But that is not the answer I gave you. The answer I gave you was 'love for Christ and His Father.'

(ME) Nice try :) I asked because it seems that being Christian is NOT NECESSARY. So why be one? You stated 'love'. I stated, "okay then". You do you boo :)

I also noticed you completely ignored the last part of my response, which applies logic to allowing all into Heaven. Why is that?

Rinse/repeat:

God hates all 'sin', right? All believers will sin, right? Hence, if God's criteria, for the Christians is belief, then we still have a huge problem. Why? All Christians, regardless of how devout they are, will remain imperfect and perform transgression(s) against God (i.e. "sin"). No one is worthy. All fall short of His glory. Any/All sin in Heaven would "wreak havoc", as Heaven is apparently a sinless environment. Hence, once the elected arrives in Heaven, something must change in them, to where they no longer have the ability to 'sin'. Thus, if this is the case, and all which arrive are transformed in some way to no longer sin, then just elect ALL :) Basic logic.

In conclusion:

He tells the believers that the unbelievers will remain condemned, because they are unbelievers. However, He tells the unbelievers that they will not be condemned -- by doing enough deeds. SO WHICH ONE IS IT?
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6435
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 323 times
Contact:

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

Post #98

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
POI wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 6:34 pm

(YOU) NONE of that supports your personal definition that "true grace" must be unconditional and universal.

(ME) So God is incapable of unconditional grace?


What does that have to do with the meaning of the word 'grace'? Or the fact that the definition you supplied does not support your personal definition that 'true grace' must be unconditional and universal?

(YOU) Not to mention that fact that you have said in various times that this thread is about following what the bible says... but the bible never once makes the claim that 'true grace' must be unconditional and universal. The bible never once makes the claim that everyone "goes to heaven". Obviously then (basic logic 101), 'true grace' cannot mean what you are making up.

(ME) As I stated many exchanges ago, the Bible does not clarify many things. Maybe this is why we have countless denominations about how one is saved (i.e) A Unitarian vs. a Baptist, for example... They both read from the same Book ;)
What does this have to do with my comment? Or is it just a deflection?
And, yet again, "true grace" would mean He pardons/selects/elects ALL, SINCE NO ONE IS DESERVING :) This is logic.
Sorry, but that is not a logical conclusion. Perhaps you should insert the words 'unconditional, universal' in place of the word 'true'. As it stands, it does not logically follow that grace can only be true if it is unconditional and universal.

Love does not cease to be love if there are conditions attached. Just as mercy does not cease to be mercy if there are conditions attached.

I guess I will just end by saying you have not proven that 'true' grace must be unconditional and universal.
But we know His grace/love has conditions; as I have also said more than once.

So, what are His condition(s)?


This question has been answered in posts 63, 64, 82, 85, 94.
(YOU) Therefore, there is no conflict.

(ME) Yes, there is...

His conditional 'grace' for unbelievers, in Mark 16:15-16, is that if they do not become believers, they are condemned.

His conditional 'grace' for unbelievers, in Matthew 25:31-46, is that they may be saved by their deeds.

You seem to be skipping this observation....?
This was responded to in post 85.

(YOU) This comment is supposed to mean what to me?

(ME) You stated "If a person in the household did not WANT to enter though, as sad as I find that, their choice would not be violated.". Skeptics do not reject because they would rather reside in eternal torment. They reject the request due to unbelief in the concept of eternal bliss vs. eternal torment.


Ah. Allow me to clarify then that I was referring to those who made that choice knowing it is true (perhaps because they are standing right there at the Kingdom being invited in).
And apparently, according to Mark 16:15-16, I'm condemned --> (because I do not believe) ---- UNLESS you want to shoe-horn in Matthew 25 somehow? I'm still waiting for a proper explanation here?
Post 85.
(YOU) I realize you asked earlier, 'why be a Christian', and you expected my answer to be something along the lines of... 'to avoid eternal torment and attain eternal bliss'. But that is not the answer I gave you. The answer I gave you was 'love for Christ and His Father.'

(ME) Nice try :) I asked because it seems that being Christian is NOT NECESSARY. So why be one? You stated 'love'. I stated, "okay then". You do you boo :)
Cool.
I also noticed you completely ignored the last part of my response, which applies logic to allowing all into Heaven. Why is that?
I responded to that last part. You even quoted part of that response in your response (the quotes in blue).

Oh, you mean the following:
God hates all 'sin', right? All believers will sin, right? Hence, if God's criteria, for the Christians is belief, then we still have a huge problem. Why? All Christians, regardless of how devout they are, will remain imperfect and perform transgression(s) against God (i.e. "sin"). No one is worthy. All fall short of His glory. Any/All sin in Heaven would "wreak havoc", as Heaven is apparently a sinless environment. Hence, once the elected arrives in Heaven, something must change in them, to where they no longer have the ability to 'sin'. Thus, if this is the case, and all which arrive are transformed in some way to no longer sin, then just elect ALL :) Basic logic.
I addressed that near the bottom of post 94.



Peace again to you.
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3249
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1537 times
Been thanked: 1045 times

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

Post #99

Post by POI »

(YOU) What does that have to do with the meaning of the word 'grace'? Or the fact that the definition you supplied does not support your personal definition that 'true grace' must be unconditional and universal?

Love does not cease to be love if there are conditions attached. Just as mercy does not cease to be mercy if there are conditions attached.

(ME) Seems as though you may want to be trying to duck out of my point, by way of 'word play'. I have made no bones about the fact that <grace> and <love> are variable, and requires further inquiry. Meaning, your brand of "grace", my brand of "grace", and God's brand of "grace" can all differ. The fact that you keep harping on the term 'true' is becoming quite telling.... I have happily admitted that this word can be interchangeable with other synonyms.

Case/point, I brought up a 'bomb shelter" analogy in my last reply, for which you omitted a response. This analogy demonstrates 'true grace' or 'unconditional grace'. Meaning, if my bomb shelter can fit all, and I warn everyone that a bomb is on the way, do I let EVERYONE IN, or not? If so, wouldn't you define me as being "truly graceful" or "unconditionally graceful" (all-the-same)? However, what if I were to decline entrance to my bomb shelter, because some did not worship me enough, sinned too much, did not perform enough deeds, or other?

Which is MORE "graceful" -- (A or B)?:

A: Lets everyone in, especially since He knows all will fall short anyways
B: Applies hard exclusions for entrance, based upon (x, y, and/or z)

So, like I've been saying from the get-go; grace is not simply <grace>, and love is not simply <love> :) There exists varying degrees.

(YOU) This question has been answered in posts 63, 64, 82, 85, 94.

(ME) I would appreciate if you could just cut/paste the response you feel is appropriate. But I do not see direct rebuttals to my observation thus far anyhow. Maybe you can enlighten me with direct quotes?

Current onclusion:

He tells the believers that the unbelievers will remain condemned, because they are unbelievers. However, He tells the unbelievers that they will not be condemned -- by doing enough deeds. SO WHICH ONE IS IT? Which group is He not giving the correct information to --- (theists or atheists)?

(YOU) Ah. Allow me to clarify then that I was referring to those who made that choice knowing it is true (perhaps because they are standing right there at the Kingdom being invited in).

(ME) I already addressed this response. If the only alternative is eternal condemnation, who would be crazy enough to opt for this option? Like I've also stated prior, more than once, the ones rejecting such an invitation are the ones who do not believe the invitation is valid. Just like the ones refusing to enter the bomb shelter do not think a bomb is really on the way.

(YOU) Oh, you mean the following:

God hates all 'sin', right? All believers will sin, right? Hence, if God's criteria, for the Christians is belief, then we still have a huge problem. Why? All Christians, regardless of how devout they are, will remain imperfect and perform transgression(s) against God (i.e. "sin"). No one is worthy. All fall short of His glory. Any/All sin in Heaven would "wreak havoc", as Heaven is apparently a sinless environment. Hence, once the elected arrives in Heaven, something must change in them, to where they no longer have the ability to 'sin'. Thus, if this is the case, and all which arrive are transformed in some way to no longer sin, then just elect ALL :) Basic logic.

I addressed that near the bottom of post 94.

(ME) Again, I do not see where you addressed this observation in blue. Please cut/paste the direct response to the above. Thanks.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

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

Post #100

Post by Diogenes »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 12:52 pm How does a Christian get to Heaven?

- Grace alone
- Grace by faith/belief alone
- Grace by faith/belief + works
- Others
Apparently you have no idea how someone gets to 'Heaven.' This is reasonable because there are many competing theories in Christendom. How about Valhalla? How does one get there?

What about 'Sky Burial' believed by Buddhists. How does one qualify?
Nordic countries have a tradition about 'water burial. How does one qualify?
There are many traditions in a variety of cultures that have a fantasy of a heaven, a paradise one goes to after death. Such a tradition is understandable. Part of our human nature rebels against the concept of death, of extinction. It is understandable that we invent myths to avoid accepting the inevitability and finality of death. We don't like it. So all of these denial mechanisms arise to assuage our fear of death.
Last edited by Diogenes on Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

Post Reply