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.

[Mae von H]

It seems to me that you don't understand my point. There is nothing that prevents me other than myself, that is why it can't be said i couldn't do it. I just don't do it, because I don't want to do so, it is against my will.

To say you can make yourself believe in Santa Claus is a flat out lie. You cannot unless you really believe. The only way you can 'make' yourself believe, is if you are truly convinced. So sure, you can <tell> me you believe, but you do not really believe a Santa Claus exists.

It is said: "justifies those who have faith in Jesus". Justifies means, person is counted righteous.

Yes, 'righteousness' through faith. Answer B).

Which means, those who have faith in Jesus are counted righteous. It does not mean that the faith makes person righteous. The faith is only a result of that person is righteous. That person has faith, is a sign of that person is righteous. Therefore one can be counted righteous, justified, if he has faith.

Negative. Your works fall short. Jesus's don't fall short. Jesus becomes your proxy, through your faith in him. Read Romans 3 again, until you get it. (i.e.):

22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

When the man who wrote that was facing the end of his life, he said that he had, “completed the course.” He knew his works didn’t fall short. Jesus talks plainly about those who will hear, “well done,” regarding their works.

[1213]

Which means, those who have faith in Jesus are counted righteous. It does not mean that the faith makes person righteous. The faith is only a result of that person is righteous. That person has faith, is a sign of that person is righteous. Therefore one can be counted righteous, justified, if he has faith.

Negative. Your works fall short. Jesus's don't fall short. Jesus becomes your proxy, through your faith in him. Read Romans 3 again, until you get it. (i.e.):

22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Sad that you don't seem to understand my point. Faith is no different from any work. Both faith and works are only results of a mind. If one has righteous mind, it produces righteous "fruit". And as it is said, by "fruits" you can know what kind of person one is. That person has faith in Jesus, shows he has the right understanding. And then person can be counted righteous. Righteousness is first, then comes the faith and works, because they are only consequences, not the cause.

[1213]

...How would you be able to simply decide to be unconvinced with no other information?

How do atheist reject Christianity? They chose to believe things that justify for them the disbelief. If I would turn into atheism, it would happen for example like this:

1) I want something that I think is against Christianity and Bible God.
2) To justify the decision to reject Christianity and God, to get the matter that I want more, I would then choose to believe the atheistic point of view and ignore all the explanations that show them wrong.
3) Ignorance is obviously the easiest way. But, it maybe that all things can't be ignored, therefore I would just choose to believe anti-Christian explanations and claims as the truth.

You are saying you could just choose to believe the stories are false even though you currently find them convincing. I don't believe you.

What would prevent me? It is my choice and therefore I have the ability to do so. If I don't do so, it is only because I don't want to do so, not because I can't.

I changed my beliefs about Christianity. It didn't happen because I just woke up one day and thought "You know what, it's Monday and I don't believe in the stories in the Bible anymore even though I find them convincing."

This seems to be the apologetic that some would like to claim happens so that they can blame peoples "simple choice to not believe" when we all know that's not how it works.

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. But this you don't have to answer here. 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. The standard for evidence and proof seems to be very low, if the matter supports their view. And on the contrary, if the matter would support Christianity, there is no limit to skepticism. This doesn't mean that people should not be skeptic, only that it is interesting that the standard seems to vary. And also, it is not only with atheists, but people generally seems to be like that. To me that tells what person wants to believe, causes bias. And this is why I think belief is determined essentially by what a person wants and therefore always persons own choice.

But, I think the question of belief is not very important. Bible is more about right understanding than belief. For example it is said that even demons believe God is. Even if you would believe God is real, but you would want evil to win, the belief would not matter much. And in the same way, if you want love and truth to win, you are on God's side and not believing that He is real is not so bad.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to 1213 in post #763]

I have known a few people who fell away from the faith and each time, the reason was one of those that Jesus gave. This was easy to see if one knew them before and saw the whole process. But not a single one admits this. To a man, they all say for intellectual reasons. It’s sounds better. So on here, where the process is done and they condemn / blame God to justify themselves, it’s difficult to find out the truth.

[TRANSPONDER]

That's two of you who have played the bias card. In fact not only is it the Christian/Bible -believer who is biased, but bias is encouraged and praised by Christianity and the Bible. It is called "Faith".

It is on Faith that Bible - apologists reject reason, evidence and what's in the Bible itself in support of belief. Not just belief in the Bible, or even Christian dogma, but Faith in their own personal opinions, which the (surely) think it being inspired in them by God.

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

Which is why Bible apologists consistently end up by denying science and reason as just human opinion. And of course even denying the Bible itself if it doesn't suit them.

Slavery, obviously. The contradictions of the Bible of course. The reasonable take on this is dismissed and the Bible itself re -written ("Interpretation") or the analytical comparison of 'same' events is fiddled (the Marys split up) or denied, as ....I don't know, it's hard for me to get my head around, but it really is demanding that no analytical thought be applied but Faithclaims (perhaps backed up with some barely relevant Biblequote) should be the only thing that matters.

Institutionalised Faithbased bias, which then projected onto atheists, and the rational and evidence -based thought we use.

Just sayin' perhaps, as the Biased believer will not listen, and the rational know it already. But (as I have said) it is those still with open mind who may value truth over Faith.

I suggest to them that they take the strain of denial off. Stop science -denial and Bible literalism. You don't have to believe the sun stopped still or everything was made in 6 days.

I will not mislead you - the danger of the slide to disbelief is real, but there comes a stage where what makes no sense has to be dropped.

[TRANSPONDER]

jimminy Christmas now even the deletion procedure makes no sense.

Sorry folks, I was reversing out and tit 'submit again'. But this might be an excuse to post a darkMatter video that deals with Just a matter that was discussed not too long ago - evil in the Bible. And how it comes down in the end to Denial Geoffrey says they'll never believe that and God says 'Beha they will". And they do, and have dor 2000 years, and now it has become delection -denial.

For believe me folks (Trust me I'm an atheist ) Maga fake news and false dogma is totally derived from religious denial of evidence and reason. But now folks, hit the Like and subscribe, and now onto the video.....if I can find it.

[benchwarmer]

People don't just decide, even when currently convinced of something, to simply believe the opposite.

They certainly do. The alcoholic convinces himself that one drink won't hurt.

Thank you, you just proved my point. The alcoholic is convinced one drink won't hurt and that's what they believe.

No, you said people don’t convince themselves of what they know isn’t true. You are wrong. They do.

Link and quote please. I think you will find I never said that. What you are doing is twisting what I actually said.

They are wrong, but that's got nothing to do with belief. People believe wrong things all the time.

It’s everything to do with belief. People choose to believe lies.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. Readers are free to test your words for themselves.

You keep trying to conflate things and hope nobody notices. We all notice.

Of course some people believe lies, that's not the point and you know it. If they know it's a lie, then they don't actually believe it.

Let's take your alcoholic example and really examine it.

1. Person A convinces themself that one drink is fine. This leads to the belief that one drink is fine. At this point, if they really are convinced, then they really do believe one drink is fine. They can still choose to NOT have a drink, even if they believe it will be fine. The choice comes when they decide or not to have a drink.

2. Person B knows that one drink is NOT fine. This leads to the belief that one drink is NOT fine. They believe one drink is not fine. They can still choose to have a drink knowing that it won't be fine.
Again, they are free to choose to drink or not, but they currently believe it won't be fine.

In other words, people not only end up believing things that aren't true, but they are also free to act against their beliefs.

How people arrive at their beliefs is the point of debate here. Trying to conflate other things into the mix is not helping anyone's case.

Wrong, yet again.

You know what I fed myself? The Bible. Yup, that's what I was reading daily when I starting piecing together all the problems.

So you chose not to believe.

Are you not actually reading what I write? I was, as many good Christians do, reading the Bible. I started noticing problems. I did NOT choose to "not believe".

My beliefs changed as I learned more and more about the Bible - from reading the Bible.

The only thing I chose to do was read the Bible daily to become a better Christian. I guess that backfired.

I realize that believers want to proclaim that people only lose their faith because the read the 'wrong' things or listened to the 'wrong' people, but that cuts both ways. I could just as easily, using your same logic and baseless claim, accuse believers of just that. They only feed themselves things that will help them maintain their current belief.

That is true as well, except when one also lives the teaching Jesus gave, one comes to know the truth as Jesus says one would. We prove what we read is true.

You make it seem like people who deconverted had that in mind first, then went looking for things to make that happen. Sorry, it doesn't work that way regardless of how much you might like it to.

For many it does.

As usual, you lob out baseless claims with zero support. Link to some some stats, research, anything? Do you generally expect people to just believe whatever you claim?

Nope, wrong again. You sure seem to like to jump to wrong conclusions.

Nope. It is the slow and clear road to that conclusion…no jump.

However you think you got there, it's clear you have no issues arriving at conclusions based on nothing but your personal preference rather than any data, logic, or even listening to what your interlocuter is telling you about themselves. Readers are surely taking note of your tactics.

I discovered through my research something called the Synoptic Problem. I had never heard of it and certainly didn't believe anything about it until it crossed my path (I don't remember exactly where/when I first read about it).

Which Bible passage is that discussed?? You see, you didn’t “just read the Bible” like you said.

I see your confusion. You think I ONLY read the Bible and nothing else at all?

I was reading the Bible and seeing problems. I, as a good Christian, wanted to learn more because maybe what I was noticing was just my misunderstanding. During that research into OTHER problems is when I stumbled on the Synoptic Problem. I did not go looking for it. When I saw it, it sounded fishy. When I went back and looked at my Bible there it was for any to see.

The nice thing is that I can confirm the information myself by, you guessed it, reading the Bible. That darn Bible seems to be the center of all the problems

Nope. No Bible verse introduced a “Synoptic Problem.”

You mean other than the verses that were word for word cut and paste among the synoptic gospels? I don't care if you want to close your eyes, plug your ears and sing lalalala. Readers are free to, in fact encouraged, to fact check me. Find out what I'm talking about and go read your Bible for yourself. Unlike some here, I want to be fact checked. If forces readers to decide based on actual information rather than baseless claims.

So, one of the many, many problems I heard about I was able to confirm myself by simply reading the Bible. I guess in a way you are right. People should maybe stop reading that thing and feeding themselves all that bad information.

Ah, but you’ve revealed you didn’t just “read the Bible.” But truthfully, if one doesn’t DO what it says, reading won’t help.

Only you would try to nitpick me into a corner with a strange "Ah ha!" moment that the Bible was not the ONLY thing I ever read. I first discovered some issues while reading my Bible. Research (yes, reading other things, like everyone else does) had me stumble on all sorts of things. Among those things were really bad apologetics, this website, reasonable arguments from both sides, research papers, etc. The Bible led me there.

I'm sorry if this falsifies your thesis, but it is what it is. Readers of this debate are free to decide what makes more sense.

[benchwarmer]

...How would you be able to simply decide to be unconvinced with no other information?

How do atheist reject Christianity?

I can only speak for myself. For me, I was a believing Christian for about a decade. It was only when I really decided to become a better Christian and actually read the Bible from cover to cover that things started to fall apart. It didn't happen right away. As I learned new information my beliefs changed.

You are seeming to imply that we can change our beliefs be sheer will power. I contest that. I think we can only change our beliefs by being convinced through new information.

They chose to believe things that justify for them the disbelief.

Incorrect. I was convinced by the information I was discovering. Contradictions, illogical portrayals of a 'loving' God, stories that didn't line up, and being told to 'just have faith'.

What I learned convinced me and my beliefs followed. NOTE: I make no claim that my beliefs are TRUE. I'm simply claiming that my being convinced of something is what drives my beliefs.

If I would turn into atheism, it would happen for example like this:

1) I want something that I think is against Christianity and Bible God.
2) To justify the decision to reject Christianity and God, to get the matter that I want more, I would then choose to believe the atheistic point of view and ignore all the explanations that show them wrong.
3) Ignorance is obviously the easiest way. But, it maybe that all things can't be ignored, therefore I would just choose to believe anti-Christian explanations and claims as the truth.

Yes, this is the strawman that Christian apologists like to put forward.

However, it makes no sense. If you are looking to no longer be a Christian, that means you are already having doubts and are convinced you shouldn't be a Christian anymore. Why else purposely try and become an atheist?

Please be clear: I don't think anyone should try to become an atheist OR a Christian just because. We should all be simply trying to learn as many truths as we can and that will lead us where it leads us.

I realize that it baffles some believers that people who once believed something somehow stopped believing. It's quite easy though to understand. Just think back to your childhood when you believed in Santa or whatever fictitious characters are in your culture. At some point you learned the truth one way or the other and stopped believing. Do children say to themselves first "I think I want to stop believing in Santa so I'm going to start looking for reasons to rid me of my belief"? No, that's ludicrous. The same applies to anything else including religion.

You are saying you could just choose to believe the stories are false even though you currently find them convincing. I don't believe you.

What would prevent me? It is my choice and therefore I have the ability to do so. If I don't do so, it is only because I don't want to do so, not because I can't.

Again, I don't believe you. What's preventing you is that you are currently convinced based on whatever led you to where you are now. You are essentially saying you can shut part of your brain off and ignore what you are already convinced of. Good luck selling that to anyone else.

Apparently you are not willing to test it out. That's fine, readers are free to try it and see who is correct here.

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.

Well of course this is the crucial question and the right question!

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

But this you don't have to answer here.

Agreed, but I think to be fair I can give you the "in a nutshell" version. Of course this is just the high level and there are a lot of things behind it.

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 broadened my scope from just listening to pastors and priests and what the church feeds us to doing my own homework. I learned about Bible scholarship and what both sides had to say. I found online debates like this one and considered the arguments from both sides. I tried to reconcile what I was observing in the world around me with what the Bible and Christianity were claiming.

As you can tell, it didn't end well for my faith. I am of the opinion though that it ended well for me. I now know many more truths about the religion I used to practice. There are of course still open questions, I can't know everything and don't claim to. However, though I'm open to some god or gods existing, Christianity is too far gone to ever go back. I've seen behind the curtain, how the sausage is made, and all the bad apologetics that try to cover it all over.

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.

The standard for evidence and proof seems to be very low, if the matter supports their view.

While you may think that, I can assure you it's not. In fact, the very Bible itself is what supports most of my views on what's in the Bible (obviously, that's the hard evidence of what we have).

Apologetics will try to play word games to get around what's clearly written, but this rarely holds any water.

And on the contrary, if the matter would support Christianity, there is no limit to skepticism.

Not true.

I will certainly admit that we ALL have biases. However, hard evidence is hard evidence. I can open my Bible (or better yet use a searchable one) and confirm what others are saying.

This doesn't mean that people should not be skeptic, only that it is interesting that the standard seems to vary.

You are trying to pretend that 'your side' doesn't do this, but 'our side' does. Do you realize how illogical that sounds?

Yes, peoples standards vary in what they find convincing. However, hard evidence is pretty hard to refute and I watch apologists dance around trying to do it all the time.

What you are doing is like the pot calling the kettle black.

[POI]

Which means, those who have faith in Jesus are counted righteous. It does not mean that the faith makes person righteous. The faith is only a result of that person is righteous. That person has faith, is a sign of that person is righteous. Therefore one can be counted righteous, justified, if he has faith.

Negative. Your works fall short. Jesus's don't fall short. Jesus becomes your proxy, through your faith in him. Read Romans 3 again, until you get it. (i.e.):

22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Sad that you don't seem to understand my point. Faith is no different from any work. Both faith and works are only results of a mind. If one has righteous mind, it produces righteous "fruit". And as it is said, by "fruits" you can know what kind of person one is. That person has faith in Jesus, shows he has the right understanding. And then person can be counted righteous. Righteousness is first, then comes the faith and works, because they are only consequences, not the cause.

Of course it all originates from the 'mind'. 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.

[POI]

It seems to me that you don't understand my point. There is nothing that prevents me other than myself, that is why it can't be said i couldn't do it. I just don't do it, because I don't want to do so, it is against my will.

To say you can make yourself believe in Santa Claus is a flat out lie. You cannot unless you really believe. The only way you can 'make' yourself believe, is if you are truly convinced. So sure, you can <tell> me you believe, but you do not really believe a Santa Claus exists.

It is said: "justifies those who have faith in Jesus". Justifies means, person is counted righteous.

Yes, 'righteousness' through faith. Answer B).

Which means, those who have faith in Jesus are counted righteous. It does not mean that the faith makes person righteous. The faith is only a result of that person is righteous. That person has faith, is a sign of that person is righteous. Therefore one can be counted righteous, justified, if he has faith.

Negative. Your works fall short. Jesus's don't fall short. Jesus becomes your proxy, through your faith in him. Read Romans 3 again, until you get it. (i.e.):

22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

When the man who wrote that was facing the end of his life, he said that he had, “completed the course.” He knew his works didn’t fall short. Jesus talks plainly about those who will hear, “well done,” regarding their works.

Scratching my proverbial head here... In post 694, here is our exchange:

POI So, belief in a risen Jesus is not required after all?

MAE Do you live up to all that you require morally and ethically of others? That is every day of your life? Can this be said of you?

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

I essentially asked if answer B) is, or is not, a requirement. Your answer above suggests it is not, provided you can do this or that? But now, in Romans 3, it does look to be a criterion. Which means you should have answered with "(yes), belief IS required." So, which path do you wish to proceed? Please pick a lane.