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.

[TRANSPONDER]

There's the problem. People who follow the Bible, what it says and Jesus' word and all the other pink goo claims of Bible - belief lead to people coming up with their own interpretations (and doctrines) and all claiming to be right (and you may know that I think they all believe God is telling them). So why would anyone accept your claims and assurances, when they don't follow the consensus even if Bible interpretation is arguable...

I think the problem is in that people make interpretations. Is there any good reason to do so? Do you have some good reason why interpretation is higher than what is directly said in the Bible?

Because at best, your interpretation (perhaps backed up with a cherry -picked quote) disagrees with Mainstream Christianity as I've said before. Why is your interpretation so much better than theirs? At worst it is ignoring or denying what the Bible actually says. About daylight before the sun was made, of course, but I recall you denied what the gospels sid about the resurrection, and the 2nd coming as I recall, and the Bible endorsement of slavery of course. Why should you expect anyone to credit your interpretations of what the Bible says when you deny what it says if you don't like it? Again, it isn't about whether you can keep faith in your own Rightness and never mind what's in the Bible, but about whether there is any good reason to trust the Bible at all, never mind your own personal Doctrinal ideas about it.

[POI]

Please explain how it shows that?

I already did, multiple times. You either don't get it or are in denial. I'm not going to go on the merry-go-round yet again.

In that case, sorry, please show in what post you did that.

I'm not going to do all your work for you. Sorry.

[1213]

Because at best, your interpretation (perhaps backed up with a cherry -picked quote) disagrees with Mainstream Christianity as I've said before. Why is your interpretation so much better than theirs?

My point is, people should not make interpretations. Bible explains well enough what it means.

...when you deny what it says if you don't like it?

I have not denied anything Bible says.

[TRANSPONDER]

Because at best, your interpretation (perhaps backed up with a cherry -picked quote) disagrees with Mainstream Christianity as I've said before. Why is your interpretation so much better than theirs?

My point is, people should not make interpretations. Bible explains well enough what it means.

...when you deny what it says if you don't like it?

I have not denied anything Bible says.

Yes you have. You denied that God made daylight (morning and evening) before the sun.You invented a cosmic light (which you tried to pass off as related to cosmic background radio noise) and did not accept that the Bible says that day and night, morning and evening, were made before the sun, moon etc. was made. That is what it says. You made up stuff to add to the Bible to make it work.

I recall that you denied what the Bible said about Jesus coming back to initiate the Last Days (as explained on the mount of Olives) and tried to make it mean something else, and of course you denied the guarantee to grant any prayer made in faith even if a tough one. You tried to excuse a printed guarantee in the Bible because it didn't suit you.
I suppose you will now deny that you did any such thing and demand a link

That's even without the reasoned and worked out conclusions of the various events claimed in the Bible read together and denied validity of doing it that way. So far as I can tell all that matters is cherry picked passages taken out of context to support personal beliefs. But like i say, it doesn't matter what you do to prop up your own beleifs, it matters what case can be made to anyone looking is.

And it's still between 20 and 30.Welcome, welcome, ,,Theists welcome to post, we goddless need new meat back on the menu.

[1213]

You denied that God made daylight (morning and evening) before the sun.

Where?

You invented a cosmic light (which you tried to pass off as related to cosmic background radio noise) and did not accept that the Bible says that day and night, morning and evening, were made before the sun, moon etc. was made.

Firstly, I have not invented cosmic light. It is based on the claims scientists make about cosmic background radiation. Secondly, I have not said I don't accept that as the Bible tells, there was day and night before the sun. I only say that it could be caused by some other light source than sun, which was probably the light Bible tells God created at the beginning.

Why do you think that the day and night must require sun and could not be as Bible tells, caused by some other light?

I recall that you denied what the Bible said about Jesus coming back to initiate the Last Days (as explained on the mount of Olives) and tried to make it mean something else

It seems to me that you have misunderstood something very badly.

and of course you denied the guarantee to grant any prayer made in faith even if a tough one. You tried to excuse a printed guarantee in the Bible because it didn't suit you.

I have not denied anything in the Bible. I only showed that Bible tells more about prayer than what you cherry pick.

[TRANSPONDER]

You denied that God made daylight (morning and evening) before the sun.

Where?

You invented a cosmic light (which you tried to pass off as related to cosmic background radio noise) and did not accept that the Bible says that day and night, morning and evening, were made before the sun, moon etc. was made.

Firstly, I have not invented cosmic light. It is based on the claims scientists make about cosmic background radiation. Secondly, I have not said I don't accept that as the Bible tells, there was day and night before the sun. I only say that it could be caused by some other light source than sun, which was probably the light Bible tells God created at the beginning.

Why do you think that the day and night must require sun and could not be as Bible tells, caused by some other light?

I recall that you denied what the Bible said about Jesus coming back to initiate the Last Days (as explained on the mount of Olives) and tried to make it mean something else

It seems to me that you have misunderstood something very badly.

and of course you denied the guarantee to grant any prayer made in faith even if a tough one. You tried to excuse a printed guarantee in the Bible because it didn't suit you.

I have not denied anything in the Bible. I only showed that Bible tells more about prayer than what you cherry pick.

that is just denial and evasion. If not worse. You deny your previous claim that day and night was a cosmic light by asking 'where?'. But you then argue that very apologetic and also try to pass off cosmic background radiation as daylight, dark and light, morning and evening, and I want to know if you seriously make that imitate day and night before the sun was made? Don't pretend you never said that before - you argue it now and I remember, even if you pretend you don't.

Apart from your abusive claims that I misunderstand, when in the past I have understood and you have just made stuff up, Notably if denying the written guarantee in the gospels to grant what is asked in faith even conceding the logically impossible or the immoral, which I would not demand, but a few missing arms and legs? I recall that you tried any number of evasions, like claiming that legs might grow back but nobody heard about it. If it happened even halfway regularly, we'd hear about, for sure. You tried to evade with the 'God might not think we should have it, and then of course forgetting it and denying everything as you do here. Well carry on you are doing atheism a power of good in showing how bad Bible apologetics is.

[1213]

You deny your previous claim that day and night was a cosmic light by asking 'where?'

Sorry, it was not meant to be a claim, only a suggestion that it could be that. I think it can be also something else. My point has been, by what the Bible tells, there was some light that caused day and night, other than the sun. And I think it is possible that other lights than sun exist, or have existed.

But you then argue that very apologetic and also try to pass off cosmic background radiation as daylight, dark and light, morning and evening, and I want to know if you seriously make that imitate day and night before the sun was made?

I thought it could be, that the thing that causes the cosmic background radiation, could have been the light in the beginning. And the day and night could have come from for example earth rotating, or the light source going around earth.

Notably if denying the written guarantee in the gospels to grant what is asked in faith ...

Sorry, if I have been unclear. I believe Bible is true, and according to it, if a righteous disciple of Jesus asks, he will receive what he asks, if he has enough faith. Obviously this then logically means, if person doesn't get what he asks:
1) He didn't have faith
2) He was not a righteous disciple of Jesus
3) Or he wanted that God's will happen firstly and it was not good at the moment to get the another answer.

[TRANSPONDER]

You deny your previous claim that day and night was a cosmic light by asking 'where?'

Sorry, it was not meant to be a claim, only a suggestion that it could be that. I think it can be also something else. My point has been, by what the Bible tells, there was some light that caused day and night, other than the sun. And I think it is possible that other lights than sun exist, or have existed.

But you then argue that very apologetic and also try to pass off cosmic background radiation as daylight, dark and light, morning and evening, and I want to know if you seriously make that imitate day and night before the sun was made?

I thought it could be, that the thing that causes the cosmic background radiation, could have been the light in the beginning. And the day and night could have come from for example earth rotating, or the light source going around earth.

Notably if denying the written guarantee in the gospels to grant what is asked in faith ...

Sorry, if I have been unclear. I believe Bible is true, and according to it, if a righteous disciple of Jesus asks, he will receive what he asks, if he has enough faith. Obviously this then logically means, if person doesn't get what he asks:
1) He didn't have faith
2) He was not a righteous disciple of Jesus
3) Or he wanted that God's will happen firstly and it was not good at the moment to get the another answer.

"I'm not trying to rob you; I'm trying to help you." (gandalf). This is not about trying to make you look small, but to progress the discussion -subject from what is incorrect Bible claims to correctknowledge.

The Bible says day and night, morning and evening first day. I won't embarrass you (if you know what the term means) by asking why an atheist has to teach you what's in the Bible, but I just ask, is it day and night on the first day?

If the sun wasn't made yet, that some other light source has to switch off and on to imitate day and night, ok?

So even if if your apologetic (whatever else term you use) that background radiation could be a light source (it isn't now) you'd have to explain why you think it switched on an off. Trust me, you have no mechanism for this.

The smart money thus is on Genesis is wrong in saying day and night appeared before the sun was made. Genesis is giving wrong information. Can we now say that this is the answer that actually fits what the Bible says,without denying science that even Creationists shrink from.

Others have taken this step - saying 'Genesis is not literally true'. Can you? All the evidence including the Bible points to it.

[POI]

Yet another attempt to get THE answer... Christians, what is it?

The God of the Bible is the purveyor of confusion. Why?

How does one get to Heaven? What is God's criteria for His selection process?

Answer key:

A) All go because of his grace
B) Faith/belief
C) Works
D) Both B) and C)
E) No one goes, no one is worthy
F) Other, which does not already include the topics of B) and/or C)

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

Provided Christian answers, thus far:

Post 11: JW No answer
Post 27: Eloi No answer
Post 49: Bjs1 answer B)
Post 76: Tam answer D)
Post 236: kjw47 answer D)
Post 239: DJT_47 answer D)
Post 321: AFG answer D)
Post 462: 1213 answer F)
Post 564: Mea Von H answer B)

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

Christians, imagine you are God for a moment. You are the creator of humans, and you really want a permanent relationship with your creation. You know most humans are either illiterate, stupid, and/or easily blinded/distracted by unwanted forces (natural and supernatural alike). You know there exists these collections of writings we later call the Bible, which apparently gives a road map on how to achieve eternal bliss - (or go to Heaven). You also know, because you are God, that most people will not achieve it. Many of which, however, try as they might. Would you, imagining yourself as God again, be satisfied with what the Bible conveys about going to Heaven? I'll answer, as a fellow imaginer... No. I would not be satisfied. If I know the majority of my creation was, (again), illiterate, dumb, and/or easily distracted, I will make sure the written word was very easy to follow and also not leave any room for interpretation. You know, like all here clearly agree that God does not like murder, theft, trespassing, etc. And YET, we have countless denominations, all earnest in their attempt to translate what the Bible says. In essence, I blame God. He could provide any tool for the task and chose this one? All we have is the Bible. And as we have discovered, none of you fine folks agree. If you were God, I bet you would have devised a better plan of attack. What'za think?

[TRANSPONDER]

I'll say this much, our pal 1213 raised some points and questions, and I had to go off -road to find examples of denying what the Bible actually said. Day and night on day one for example, or I could have cited the Gospels making it clear that Mary Magdalene must have seen and heard everything the 'other' Mary (and any others) did, so the contradiction can't be explained that way.

But as to other matters, like following teachings rather than having Faith, there were some nice arguments, even if there are other bits of the Bible that make another case.

But there i have had to say that it is particular dogma and not what the generality of Christianity teaches.

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Good_works
The Catholic Church teaches that both faith and good works are necessary for salvation: ... Protestants and Catholics agree that faith is necessary for salvation.

Wiki, I know but it merely sums up what all the entries said - Faith, not works. Believe in Jesus (not just God, or Jews and Muslims would be saved, too) and not just believe what is said. The point about works, too is made pretty claim by Paul - in Romans he thought that Faith alone would make a believers sinless (which is why I see Romans as the first work and thesis) but in the next letters he is realising this doesn't happen and Salvation can be lost by sinning. Which is not only evidenced by Paul but obvious, too. Works cannot earn salvation, but works (bad ones) can lose it. That ought to eliminate any doctrinal confusion, even if it doesn't eliminate doctrinal denial.

It only remains to say that it is all academic to me as I don't believe a word of it, anyway.