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.

[1213]

...But you have completely avoided my point. Your faith is required. You will not always produce 'righteous fruit', otherwise, you would not need Jesus. You will fall short. Jesus acts as the proxy. Righteousness and faith are then one-in-the-same. Any/all other "works" will fall short. This is why 'faith' in Jesus is paramount, according to Romans 3.

Still I would say, righteousness is needed. If person is righteous, it is possible that he fails, like said in this:

For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises up again; But the wicked are overthrown by calamity.
Prov. 24:16

The difference between righteous and wicked is, when righteous sees he has made mistake, he regrets it and is sorry, wants to do better. Wicked person is not sorry, and doesn't regret, or care what is good and right. Person can be counted righteous, even if he is not perfect. For that it is enough that the person shows he has the right understanding. And one mark of the right understanding is faithfulness to God.

And still, the reason for why God saves trough Jesus is not exactly the faith, or anything else you do, but the right understanding, that what kind of person you are. God wants to save those with right understanding, not because of anything they do, but because of what they are.

[1213]

...Just think back to your childhood when you believed in Santa ...

I don't think I ever believed in Santa, even though it is deeply cultural thing in Finland.

You are essentially saying you can shut part of your brain off and ignore what you are already convinced of.

No, what I say means, I decide what convinces me. I believe you do the same, you choose what convinces you.

I stopped believing because I discovered convincing (to me) evidence that rendered the stories false. At that point my belief changed. I didn't just make a 'will power' decision. I became convinced of a new truth and my beliefs followed.

I think the crucial question is, what convinced you and why.

...
This is what people should be asking, not simply claiming people are just choosing disbelief.

Choosing a belief happens by choosing what is convincing to you. Apparently atheistic arguments convinces you, and it is interesting why. I have not seen any good argument from atheists, against the Bible or Bible God.

I lost my faith because as I was trying to learn more about my faith, it started to fall apart. I was reading the Bible and noticing problems. Researching how to reconcile those problems led to more problems. Problems piled on problems and eventually it all just collapsed.

I think that is an interesting way to go. Many things can be full of problems, that doesn't necessary mean the basic idea is wrong. If we think for example how people developed a plane, it was full of problems first, but then people found solutions to the problems.

I have not seen any Biblical problem without a good reasonable solution. And very often the problems seem are artificial and based on lack of knowledge and understanding.

In generally, I think the interesting question is, how and why a person choose what is convincing. For example, it seems to me that atheist are willing to believe almost anything that comes from atheistic point of view.

You are going to have to give a concrete example rather than just making a vague claim like that.

For example the theory of evolution. If anti Christian view would not need alternative for God, I don't think we would have the theory. I don't think anyone would naturally select such a theory, if they would just observe the nature.

However, hard evidence is pretty hard to refute and I watch apologists dance around trying to do it all the time.

Please give one example of a hard evidence?

[1213]

...
Atheists however 'rely not upon their own understanding', but on the body of validated data (science - including history) and on reason (Logic and reason).

Don't you choose to believe those by your own understanding? Or do you believe them, because some authority told you that you must believe the "validated" data?

The contradictions of the Bible of course.

There is no contradictions, if understood correctly. And this leads to question, why the need to see the contradictions, when they are not there, if correctly understood.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
Atheists however 'rely not upon their own understanding', but on the body of validated data (science - including history) and on reason (Logic and reason).

Don't you choose to believe those by your own understanding? Or do you believe them, because some authority told you that you must believe the "validated" data?

Of course, just as you do, when it comes to Bibletext evaluation. That is why we have the debates. What matters then, is the case we make, not the 'Authority'. And so far you have shown only denial, of science, of reason and even of what the Bible says.

The 'Authority' of verified data is of course, science. Which is why science denial (as well as logic denial and often denial of what the Bible says) is so often the last resort of the Bible apologist. But the record is that science has answered questions with valid evidence (cetan sequence, never mind daylight not possible before the sun existed, never mind the earth. the sun) and Bibleclaims have failed one after the other. Why then is not science "Authority" more valid that religious claims?

The contradictions of the Bible of course.

There is no contradictions, if understood correctly. And this leads to question, why the need to see the contradictions, when they are not there, if correctly understood.

"Understood correctly" means making stuff up, ignoring what the Bible actually says and generally lying to yourself and others.

I demonstrated once, clearly, that you posted the resurrection (collated) text, but left out anything that was a contradiction, and that had to be deliberate. You had to know what the contradictions were. You denied it and I showed you, and you still keep in denial.You may lie to yourself but you can't fool me.

There are real and serious contradictions and you can't wish them away. Your denial means nothing. You have no case.

[benchwarmer]

...Just think back to your childhood when you believed in Santa ...

I don't think I ever believed in Santa, even though it is deeply cultural thing in Finland.

You chopped off the rest of that sentence. Are you saying you never believed something as a child and later learned it was false?

You are essentially saying you can shut part of your brain off and ignore what you are already convinced of.

No, what I say means, I decide what convinces me. I believe you do the same, you choose what convinces you.

Incorrect.

You are just trying to move the goal posts slightly, while retaining the same issue.

Example:
I currently believe (am convinced) that all green candy tastes bad.
You bring me some special candy I've never tried. It's green. It tastes amazing. I'm now convinced, based on my experience, that not ALL green candy tastes bad. My belief has been updated.

You are suggesting we can simply choose what convinces us and what doesn't.

Test it out for yourself. Choose to find the resurrection story in the NT no longer convincing for one week. That's it. Did it work? Can you just unconvince yourself with no new information or realizations?

If you can, I'm not sure how you function in daily life. You are claiming you can just choose on a whim what is convincing to you.

Choosing a belief happens by choosing what is convincing to you. Apparently atheistic arguments convinces you, and it is interesting why. I have not seen any good argument from atheists, against the Bible or Bible God.

Nope, still not correct.

You have just conflated 2 things:
1) Claiming we can choose what is convincing to us.
2) Finding something convincing.

I was not convinced by 'atheistic arguments'. I was convinced by reading the words written in the Bible and finding them unreliable, contradictory, obviously written by humans, and generally an insult to a loving god should one exist.

I lost my faith because as I was trying to learn more about my faith, it started to fall apart. I was reading the Bible and noticing problems. Researching how to reconcile those problems led to more problems. Problems piled on problems and eventually it all just collapsed.

I think that is an interesting way to go. Many things can be full of problems, that doesn't necessary mean the basic idea is wrong. If we think for example how people developed a plane, it was full of problems first, but then people found solutions to the problems.

As a pilot, this is an interesting idea, but the analogy fails.

When early pilots found issues with planes, the engineers who were designing the planes changed the planes to remove the issue.

The analogous thing would be to start ripping pages out of the Bible and/or maybe replacing/adding some to make it 'better'. Oh wait, we see evidence that actually happened Still didn't fix much of anything though. See the gospel of Mark at the end.

I have not seen any Biblical problem without a good reasonable solution. And very often the problems seem are artificial and based on lack of knowledge and understanding.

Yes, we've noticed that about you. When presented with a problem, you either seem to pretend not to see it or pull out a handy apologetic that you think makes it better. It always fails, but we applaud you for trying

You are going to have to give a concrete example rather than just making a vague claim like that.

For example the theory of evolution. If anti Christian view would not need alternative for God, I don't think we would have the theory. I don't think anyone would naturally select such a theory, if they would just observe the nature.

This makes no sense and shows a complete lack of understanding what the scientific theory of evolution (ToE) is about. I'm sure this has been explained to you ad nauseum. Head over to the Science and Religion sub-forum if you really haven't been over this.

At no place in the ToE is any god mentioned. Nor is there any part of the theory that deals with how life started.

I realize some Christians are threatened by science, but this theory really shouldn't be one of them. It would be possible that a god started life and the current scientific understanding of how life evolves is simply us learning how this god intended things to progress. I really wish Christians would stop using this really bad argument it just makes those of us who understand the actual science tune out to anything else you might be trying to say. By all means present scientific evidence that would change the current theories. Science loves that, it's not a religion that must maintain prior beliefs at all costs.

However, hard evidence is pretty hard to refute and I watch apologists dance around trying to do it all the time.

Please give one example of a hard evidence?

The Bible. It has words written in it. You can check them yourself. Anyone can.

People can argue about what the words 'really' mean, but there's not arguing about what the words written down are. We can also get into translation 'wars', but the source material in the original language is the 'hard evidence' of what was written down.

[TRANSPONDER]

Quite true. The Bible apologists sooner or later end up with the 'Ghost Bible' (what the Bible appears to say is not what it really means'.)

So how do they know what it really means? How do they understand the meaning from Greek, Latin or Aramaic (apart from most of them do it from King James English) I propose (and I'm darn sure of it ) that they believe becoming True Believers hath allowed God to download Truth and "Understanding" (Correct Interpretation Aka whatever they want ) into their heads.

That's why it is such fun to see these Bible Interpreters come to blows over doctrine, each convinced that the other one is either misguided, or in league with the devil.

[POI]

God wants to save those with right understanding, not because of anything they do, but because of what they are.

In this instance, the 'right understanding' is faith is Jesus! Answer B). This is, of course, as long as you ignore the expressed path(s) to salvation, which conflicts with this one given from Romans 3-4.

[1213]

...
There are real and serious contradictions and you can't wish them away...

Only if you make a poor interpretation.

[1213]

No, what I say means, I decide what convinces me. I believe you do the same, you choose what convinces you.

Incorrect.

If you don't choose, who chooses for you what is convincing?

[1213]

God wants to save those with right understanding, not because of anything they do, but because of what they are.

In this instance, the 'right understanding' is faith is Jesus! ...

No, right understanding, righteousness, is what makes person to be for example faithful.