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.

[POI]

[1213]

You just demonstrated my point. You cannot choose because no good reason has convinced you.

What is preventing me, other than my own will?

Yes, but if the infant is righteous, he would be faithful to Jesus, when he would know about Jesus. If person has the right understanding, he would do the best thing, when he gets all the necessary information.

If one dies before the chance is offered, does Jesus grant A) (un)conditional grace?

It is not necessary to give the chance to choose, if it can be known otherwise that the person is righteous. If the person is righteous, he would choose rightly, if he would get the chance.

It goes basically as in this scriputure:

For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without the law. As many as have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it isn't the hearers of the law who are righteous be-fore God, but the doers of the law will be justified for when Gen-tiles who don't have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their con-science testifying with them, and their thoughts among them-selves accusing or else excusing them in the day when God will judge the secrets of men, according to my Gospel, by Jesus Christ.
Romans 2:12-16

Person can have the right understanding, even if he has not heard everything, and by that he can be declared righteous.

[1213]

The good reason to try it is to see if you actually can do that. It's called testing someone's claim and seeing if it's true.
...

What could prevent me to do it, except my own will?

...My point is that I cannot simply choose to change my belief about what happens here on Earth due to the observed effects of what we call gravity. I believe that if I drop this hammer from 3 feet above my toes I will have very sore toes.
....

In situations that you can see, it is easy to pick what you believe. There are many things that are based on claims about things that cannot be observed. For example the whole history is based on claims that can't be checked. So, I can understand that if you drop a hammer, you believe it can hurt, but why do you choose to believe the commonly accepted history?

[Mae von H]

[TRANSPONDER]

Faith is not a choice in one way, and it is in another.

People are taught religion. They believe it which is why it is particular to country, sect, or even family. If they hear anything that disagrees, it is only in a way that is discredited beforehand. One cannot have the true options to choose.

But if and when they come to a place like this and hear the best the 'other side' can argue, they have a choice. To credit the evidence or deny it on Faith.

In everything from Bible contradictions, through evolution, prayer and the argument whether morals are man made (based on the co -operative instinct at most) or is some Objective universal moral Law, and given by a god and of course, and it is assumed a particular one,.

There is a choice - to accept the validity of the evidence; what the Bible says, what science says and what logic says, or reject it and recite Faith -based beliefs. That is the choice.

I'm almost reluctant to refer to this but hearing the apologists recite their dogmas, is utterly like the UFO apologists reciting their cultish opinions, and totally like the reciting of propaganda (much of which was lies and self -contradictory) of some MAGA apologists I saw a series of vids of during the week.

[POI]

What is preventing me, other than my own will?

Exactly. You cannot "will" yourself into believing in something in which you are not already convinced about. Otherwise, simply 'will' yourself to truly believe in Santa Claus for 24 hours. You can't, unless you are already truly convinced.

It is not necessary to give the chance to choose, if it can be known otherwise that the person is righteous. If the person is righteous, he would choose rightly, if he would get the chance.

According to Romans 3, 'righteousness' comes by having faith in Jesus. Like I already said, I did not hear of Jesus until I was about 4 years old. Before this, I had no idea who he was. Hence, I was not yet 'righteous' until I acquired faith in Jesus as a child. If I died before, I was not yet deemed 'righteous', because, again, I did not possess faith in Jesus -- (per Romans 3). Does Jesus offer option A) (un)conditional here?

[benchwarmer]

The good reason to try it is to see if you actually can do that. It's called testing someone's claim and seeing if it's true.
...

What could prevent me to do it, except my own will?

What would prevent you is your current beliefs obviously. If you are currently convinced of something, you can't just unconvince yourself by a simple willing yourself to all of a sudden be unconvinced.

Like I've already suggested, try it and see what happens. If you are honest, you know it's not possible. It doesn't have to be about Santa Claus, it can be anything you currently hold a belief in. Simply decide to change your belief and really believe it.

What you are suggesting is that you could instantly decide to believe in Hinduism instead of Christianity with no extra information than you currently have. Then, 3 minutes later with still no extra information, simply decide to believe Buddhism. If you are somehow really capable of that, then you are not like the rest of us

...My point is that I cannot simply choose to change my belief about what happens here on Earth due to the observed effects of what we call gravity. I believe that if I drop this hammer from 3 feet above my toes I will have very sore toes.
....

In situations that you can see, it is easy to pick what you believe.

Ok, let's try this another way.

You go into your enclosed garage and manage to balance a rake on the floor such that it's standing up. You are quite proud of yourself and slowly back away. You go back into your house, close the garage door, and head to your cell phone. You text all your friends "Hey, I currently have a garden rake balanced so it's standing up in my garage!"

Now let's test your theory:

After texting your friends, you sit back and ponder the situation. You have not heard a sound from your garage. Do you believe:

1) The rake is still balanced and standing up?
2) The rake has fallen over and now lying on the ground?

You probably pick (1) since you didn't hear it fall over. IF this is the case, then simply change your belief and believe it that it has now fallen over.

OR: You thought you heard a 'clunk' from the garage. Now you probably pick (2). IF this is the case, then simply change your belief and believe it is still standing up.

In either case, can you really sit there and simply change your belief with no extra information? You can't see it anymore. Be honest please. Are you really able to change your beliefs based on nothing other than willpower? I realize this is a tantalizing apologetic so that you can blame people for 'simply choosing' not to believe your favorite god concept, theology, or whatever.

However, everyone reading this is free to try it out and see what happens. Can you simply change your belief and really believe a different way with no convincing information to cause that change?

There are many things that are based on claims about things that cannot be observed. For example the whole history is based on claims that can't be checked. So, I can understand that if you drop a hammer, you believe it can hurt, but why do you choose to believe the commonly accepted history?

You are conflating a couple things here.

I believe a hammer dropped above my foot on Earth will hit my toes based on previous experience dropping things. I believe physics doesn't change, so I'm pretty confident about what will happen.

I conditionally accept most history that I have learned about. I believe that it might be correct, but I also believe that much of it cannot be completely known and some of it can be overturned with new evidence. For example, when I was a kid, the commonly accepted date for discovery of North America was 1492 by Columbus. Later discoveries have 'up ended' that belief and we now know that people 'discovered' NA much earlier. They have found artifacts that scientifically date much earlier and appear to be from the Vikings.

[TRANSPONDER]

I think our pal is making the universal fallacy - discredit the materialist (histoty, science,logic) theory, and the Christian belief remains the defaulkt.

It doesn't work like that.

If we dismissed history (and science) on the grounds that we could not be certain of anything (the 'were you there/see it in Real Time' fallacies) then Bibleclaims would be the first to.

But they mistakenly think that History and science wirks like Holybook Dogma - it is Written and must never be changed or found wrong. That is of course why the Bible must never be changed or questioned.

But science and history is not set in stone, but is the best guess we can make at what the facts are or were. Anything is open to question and the big overturns have been done by now. Copernicus, Newton and Darwin pretty much upset the last old mistaken (Biblebased) idea of how it worked.

Ritherfurd, Einstein and Schrodinger have not upset any of that. Newtons laws still operate never mind indeterminacy.

Similarly the Stamford/Hastings, Gettysburg/Vicksburg and Staligrad/Kursk are not going to be found untrue, even if we change the thinking of the Saxon invasion to cultural change though mass immigration or the fall of the Roman empire to...mass immigration of Foreigners who learned the language, bought up the corner shops and ended up ruling the place while the idle Romans,used to drawing a salary for doing an Entitled nothing, wrote how the place was going to the dogs.

[Mae von H]

[Mae von H]