Can you explain the doctrine of salvation better than the Bible?Bible does?

[amortalman]

In a fairly recent thread, POI posted a new topic and I present it here as a preface to an offshoot topic of my own:

Grace (and/or) Belief/Faith (and/or) Works?
Post #1
Post by POI » Thu May 05, 2022 12:20 pm

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?

POI's follow-up post:

Re: Grace (and/or) Belief/Faith (and/or) Works?
Post #2
Post by POI » Tue May 10, 2022 4:48 pm

I find it odd that no Christian wants to chime in here? How does a Christian get to Heaven?

- Grace alone
- Grace by faith/belief alone
- Grace by faith/belief + works
- Other

After POI's second post a number of debaters jumped in with their favorite scripture verse or verses as to how a Christian can get to heaven. However, it didn't settle the issue definitively. And that is indicative of one of the major problems with the Bible. It just isn't that clear. In fact, it can be downright confusing. I think Dan Barker (atheist, speaker, debater, writer, and former evangelical preacher) was right when he said: Can you think of any book more confusing than the Bible?

In my humble opinion, God could have headed off all this confusion on this issue and dozens of others we find in the "holy book" by making them crystal clear. Maybe this would have prevented the splintering of Christ's church into a thousand denominations. It certainly wouldn't have hurt.

So, here is the debate question and challenge: How might the important doctrine of salvation have been presented in the scripture in a clear and coherent way that left little doubt as to the real meaning?
I am not asking for your exegesis of the relevant passages. That has been done in POI's thread. I'm asking for ideas as to how the relevant passages might have been more clearly presented so that each one separately does not confuse the whole.

By simply taking the options POI presented (and I have taken the liberty to slightly modify), How does a Christian get to heaven? Is it by grace alone, faith alone, works alone, grace+faith, grace+works, faith+works, or another way?

I have my own thoughts on this but I will reserve them for later. I want to hear your ideas.

So, if it were up to you, how might you relieve the confusion over this teaching?

[The Nice Centurion]

Actually, the complicated part is to believe, repent, and be baptized.

Did you forget "to accept Jesus as your personal savior", or did you hide that in the repent thingie, or are you not an evangelical?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Did you forget "to accept Jesus as your personal savior"

Did you forget that in order "to accept Jesus as your personal savior", you must BELIEVE (which is the first thing I said) in him first?

What we have here is a FAILED "gotcha" moment, people.

, or did you hide that in the repent thingie,

Or did you not read John 3:16 which says the ".....and whoever BELIEVES in him shall not perish.." thingie.

or are you not an evangelical?

Or is your critique misplaced and borderline strawman?

[brunumb]

Actually, the complicated part is to believe, repent, and be baptized.

Did you forget "to accept Jesus as your personal savior", or did you hide that in the repent thingie, or are you not an evangelical?

Venom may have forgotten that belief is not a matter of choice. One cannot choose to believe that something is true if their brain is convinced that it is not true.

[amortalman]

My position is that if you do not believe in God/the Bible, then you need not waste your time pondering questions on God/the Bible.

So you don't think atheists should pose questions about the Bible? How else can we challenge the beliefs of theists who use the Bible as the very foundation of their beliefs? That's the whole purpose of this website. I'm sure that if you re-read the OP you'll see that its purpose is not to garner information on God or the Bible but expose the ridiculous notion that any kind of God was involved in its making.

[amortalman]

[Replying to theophile in post #35]

I appreciate the time you took to write your response. But I think that we're approaching this topic without really understanding where the other one is coming from. Consequently, I'm having trouble making sense of much of what you say. I'm sure you understand what you're saying, but to me, it sounds like a lot of double-talk. Take this for example:

You said: "What I mean is that we are called to affirm life in all its forms. In such a way that all life can be (/can be together), and fill the heavens and the earth. Like the lilies of the field for example, or lions laying down with lambs. Where every life can express itself in its own unique way. That is the biblical vision and what it is all geared towards. To value life above all else and create the conditions for it."

To me, that sounds like so much mumbo-jumbo. But the very next paragraph you wrote is even stranger:

"One does this, for example, by doing things we see God do in Genesis 1. By bringing light for example, or dry land. Or food and healing to any life in need per the gospels. Or even going so far as destroying life that has become irredeemable per the Sodom example I raised before. (Life that has fallen so far into sin, or down the path leading to death, that there's no other recourse). Just look at our original calling: to tend and keep the garden. To make sure all the various plants and animals are all thriving together (which may require cutting back some invasive species now and again that would choke out the others).

(emphasis mine)

Do you actually believe that "one" (you and others) affirms life above all else by "destroying life" like those in the Sodom story?? That's what you said. I would rather believe and hope that you're just having trouble communicating your thoughts which would explain a lot of the difficulties we're having.

One more thing before I go. I would be interested to know where you got your philosophy on the Bible. Perhaps it is your own? It seems to me that you have a very unique (putting it kindly) view of God and the scriptures.

That's enough to chew on for now.

[We_Are_VENOM]

So you don't think atheists should pose questions about the Bible?

If you don't believe in the Bible, then to spend any amount of time asking questions and discussing Biblical doctrine is a waste of time....in my opinion.

Emphasis: My opinion.

Atheist: There is no God. Jesus is not our Savior. The Bible is fiction.

Also atheist: What is required for Christian salvation? Faith? Works? Faith+Works? Grace? Grace+Faith+Works?

It makes me cringe every time I see such questions posed by unbelievers.

Continues to blow my mind.

How else can we challenge the beliefs of theists who use the Bible as the very foundation of their beliefs? That's the whole purpose of this website.

Yeah, and there wouldn't be a purpose of this website if unbelievers weren't concerned with the beliefs (challenge or otherwise) of religious folks.

Maybe that is the problem.

I'm sure that if you re-read the OP you'll see that its purpose is not to garner information on God or the Bible but expose the ridiculous notion that any kind of God was involved in its making.

If you do not believe God doesn't exist...then that is it.

Nothing more needs to be said.

[The Nice Centurion]

So you don't think atheists should pose questions about the Bible?

If you don't believe in the Bible, then to spend any amount of time asking questions and discussing Biblical doctrine is a waste of time....in my opinion.

Emphasis: My opinion.

Atheist: There is no God. Jesus is not our Savior. The Bible is fiction.

Also atheist: What is required for Christian salvation? Faith? Works? Faith+Works? Grace? Grace+Faith+Works?

It makes me cringe every time I see such questions posed by unbelievers.

Continues to blow my mind.

Are you are born again evangelical christian?

If yes, and you were in a church your fellow believers would have told you that unbelievers need it most to ask this questions.

They would have told you that sceptics of course must first deny the divine, but still they long for Jesus grace. And so they find ways to ask.

How else can we challenge the beliefs of theists who use the Bible as the very foundation of their beliefs? That's the whole purpose of this website.

Yeah, and there wouldn't be a purpose of this website if unbelievers weren't concerned with the beliefs (challenge or otherwise) of religious folks.

Maybe that is the problem.

If unbeliever Paul had not been concerned with the belief of christians, he never would have been turned on the road to damascus and christianity would not have prospered!
Perhaps your debater is preparing to become the new Paul, the greatest missionary of the third milennium.

I'm sure that if you re-read the OP you'll see that its purpose is not to garner information on God or the Bible but expose the ridiculous notion that any kind of God was involved in its making.

If you do not believe God doesn't exist...then that is it.

Nothing more needs to be said.

But your apologetic work on him just begins!

[We_Are_VENOM]

Are you are born again evangelical christian?

If yes, and you were in a church your fellow believers would have told you that unbelievers need it most to ask this questions.

No one is saying don't answer the question...but still.

Case point; the subject matter of this thread.

I seriously doubt that the OP will be any closer to becoming a believer than he/she was before the question was posed.

So, whats the point? Which leads back to my original question of...why are you asking questions about Biblical salvation besides your need to have a debate about Biblical salvation?

They would have told you that sceptics of course must first deny the divine, but still they long for Jesus grace. And so they find ways to ask.

They deny Jesus' grace, though.

If unbeliever Paul had not been concerned with the belief of christians

Paul was a radical Jew, seeking to destroy a movement that went against the grain of traditional Judaism in the region.

He could care less about the Christian doctrine of salvation.

, he never would have been turned on the road to damascus and christianity would not have prospered!

I wouldn't take it that far.

Perhaps your debater is preparing to become the new Paul, the greatest missionary of the third milennium.

Your perhaps: Perhaps OP is preparing to become the new Paul, the greatest missionary of the third millennium.

My perhaps: Perhaps Jesus is Lord and savior and died for the sins of mankind

You see, there are levels to this stuff.

But your apologetic work on him just begins!

Perhaps.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #48]

Paul was a radical Jew, seeking to destroy a movement that went against the grain of traditional Judaism in the region.

But to know this, Paul must have known something about christian doctrine and salvation!

Note also that after his vision reformed him he knew exactly how to find grace.
His only headache was how to get christian churches.to believe him that he got saved!

Perhaps

Perhaps tomorrow you will draw your first Chick/Brock Tract, titled: WHY DO ATHEISTS DEBATE

[amortalman]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #46]

VENOM wrote: "If you do not believe God doesn't exist...then that is it." (???)

"Nothing more needs to be said."

I'm sorry, but there is plenty more to be said. Atheists have been responding on this site to the unreasonable claims of theists since it began. Apparently, we are welcome to participate. But if you don't want to participate you're free not to. It seems that you're worried about how I spend my time. Be concerned about how you spend your time, not how I spend mine. May I remind you of your comment in Post #30?
Venom wrote: "It is pointless to discuss what it takes to be saved, with a group of people who dont believe in salvation." By your own admission, you are the one wasting your own time.