All salvation is by grace...

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Talk about being "arrogant and presumptuous."

You have to be about the most arrogant and presumptuous people I've ever come across.

You keep presuming to know that I believe and persist in posting it as if it were fact.

I keep asking you to stop posting about me, yet you arrogantly persist in doing so.

You arrogantly hold on to nonsensical ...[text shortened]... u need to try to prove a point.

How can anyone be so clueless about himself?

You even presume to know why Jesus tells the thief, "today you shall be with Me in Paradise", when Jesus gives no explanation. Yet you point to it as some sort of "proof" of what you believe. This is irrational.
-------ToO------------------------

Would you like to discuss the reasoning behind my interpretation of this passage? There are many good reasons why I interpret this passage in this way. I would be interested to know about your alternative interpretation.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Talk about being "arrogant and presumptuous."

You have to be about the most arrogant and presumptuous people I've ever come across.

You keep presuming to know that I believe and persist in posting it as if it were fact.

I keep asking you to stop posting about me, yet you arrogantly persist in doing so.

You arrogantly hold on to nonsensical u need to try to prove a point.

How can anyone be so clueless about himself?

Here's an example:
KM "Jesus explicitly says that the thief on the cross is saved by virtue of his faith in him. It's implied in his discussion with the thief."
--------ToO------------------------------

I agree that I phrased that sentence clumsily but I do think you are being unneccessarily pedantic. To me it IS explicit because there is an absence of any other plausible explanation. Jesus does not have to spell it out for it to be explicitly clear what is going on here. Surely you don't think that the thief was granted salvation on the back of his righteousness?

So what are we going to do here - fiddle about with semantics or get down to the truth of this passage?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Where does it not follow?

Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Your premises were that Christianity is true insofar as God exists and our existence was willed by God. That does not, as far as I can tell, somehow entail that his creating us was a 'gift' from him to us.

Your point about our existence, as I understand it, doesn't have anything to do materially with the terms 'gift' or 'grace', so you'll just have to excuse me if I deny their usage here, which I think is vague and confused. Your point about our existence, as I understand it, is simply the following. Suppose God created us. Well, you say, He didn't have to create us; and He didn't have any obligation to create us; and we cannot say we merited being brought into existence (whatever that would even mean); and yet God created us. So, we should be appreciative for this. Sounds fair enough (or at least, I think one could make some case for existential gratitude, in the vein of it's great to be alive). But why you would think this point has anything substantively to do with the concepts of 'gift' or 'grace', I don't really know.

I thought I already voiced my objections with your use of 'gift'. First, a gift is bestowed upon something (an existent) and it could in principle be declined. Your usage doesn't seem to fit this. Further, as I already said, there are of course other ways to use 'gift'. But they don't seem apt either. For instance, we often say things like "LemonJello was gifted with amazingly good looks". But to say that LemonJello was gifted with existence seems absurd, particularly since existence is not a predicate. Or sometimes we say "Boy, that was a real gift" when someone blunders a game away to another (or whatever). That is in reference to things we have to work to achieve but in which there are instances where the achievement comes at little cost or effort or merit. Again, not apt.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Your premises were that Christianity is true insofar as God exists and our existence was willed by God. That does not, as far as I can tell, somehow entail that his creating us was a 'gift' from him to us.

Your point about our existence, as I understand it, doesn't have anything to do materially wit ...[text shortened]... achievement comes at little cost or effort or merit. Again, not apt.

I think one could make some case for existential gratitude, in the vein of it's great to be alive). But why you would think this point has anything substantively to do with the concepts of 'gift' or 'grace', I don't really know.

--------lemon---------------------------------

Because God does something that gives us something (ie life). Infact , the giving of life could be seen as the greatest gift of all.Without the gift of life all other gifts are rendered useless or impossible. All other gifts are secondary because of this. In creating you he gives something of himself to you (ie life, sentience , love , etc).

So life is clearly a gift from God (if he exists). Since it is a gift that he is under no obligation to give us it is given graciously. Gratitude is very , very appropriate in this case.

Interestingly when you said " I think one could make some case for existential gratitude " - to me it sounded so limp , almost as if you had to grudgingly , and intellectually accept that God creating you was an "ok thing , I suppose" . Where's you joy and wonder at being alive? If God exists then just being alive is the most magnificent gift of all.

Get out of your head and into your emotions for a change.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Here's an example:
KM "Jesus explicitly says that the thief on the cross is saved by virtue of his faith in him. It's implied in his discussion with the thief."
--------ToO------------------------------

I agree that I phrased that sentence clumsily but I do think you are being unneccessarily pedantic. To me it IS explicit because there is an abs we going to do here - fiddle about with semantics or get down to the truth of this passage?

To me it IS explicit because there is an absence of any other plausible explanation. Jesus does not have to spell it out for it to be explicitly clear what is going on here. Surely you don't think that the thief was granted salvation on the back of his righteousness?...Would you like to discuss the reasoning behind my interpretation of this passage? There are many good reasons why I interpret this passage in this way.

No matter how many "reasons" you come up with for YOUR interpretation the fact remains that Jesus does not explicitly state a reason. Whether or not YOU deem any other explanation "plausible" also does not make it explicit. The fact remains that it is not explicit.

Who are you to judge whether or not the thief has become righteous? There's no indication that the thief hasn't repented and become righteous. If anything there are indications that he very well may have. He correctly rebukes the other thief, does not defend his past actions, does not try to save himself and humbly accepts his fate while speaking against the injustice suffered by Jesus. Seems to me that you, for one, could learn a lot from the thief's example.

Luke 23
39 One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, "Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!" 40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." 42 And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" 43 And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

Spare me your usual game of taking out an individual sentence or two out of my post while ignoring the germane points. For whatever reason, you seem to think that talking around in circles about non-germane points for post after post while getting further and further off topic constitutes "reason".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]To me it IS explicit because there is an absence of any other plausible explanation. Jesus does not have to spell it out for it to be explicitly clear what is going on here. Surely you don't think that the thief was granted salvation on the back of his righteousness?...Would you like to discuss the reasoning behind my interpretation of this passage? Th ...[text shortened]... t after post while getting further and further off topic constitutes "reason".

First of all I think it's worth one post on it's own just to welcome this response from you. I realise that there is some re-building of mutual respect and trust to be done here. Hopefully we can return to some sort of normality and avoid any bickering.

My original reason for mentioning you and Rakj in this thread was because I associated both of your positions with an opposition to grace. If this is incorrect then I apologise. Hopefully you realise that we are all misrepresenting (sometimes consciously , sometimes not) each other's position all the time - it's a natural part of debate.

I will respond to your points in a moment.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]To me it IS explicit because there is an absence of any other plausible explanation. Jesus does not have to spell it out for it to be explicitly clear what is going on here. Surely you don't think that the thief was granted salvation on the back of his righteousness?...Would you like to discuss the reasoning behind my interpretation of this passage? Th t after post while getting further and further off topic constitutes "reason".

Luke 23
39 One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, "Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!" 40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." 42 And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" 43 And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

"There's no indication that the thief hasn't repented and become righteous. If anything there are indications that he very well may have." ---------------------------ToOne------------------------------


Whcih may or may not be true. There's no indication that the man is not a child molester either , but that's just conjecture.

We do know is that the man feels that he deserves punishment (because he says so) "for his deeds" . This clearly indicates that he has not lived a life following the will of God (nor ever will because he is dying). So we can be very certain that he is not being granted salvation because of a) his deeds or b) his following the will of God.

He admits himself that he is deserving of his suffering and in this he is humble and accepting of his fate in comparsion to the other man. Does this make him righteous? By this logic all any serial killer has to do on his deathbed is show some penitence and humility and he can be saved.

Note , that Jesus says nothing at this point. It's only when the man makes a statement of clear faith in Christ (by acknowledging him for who he is) AND asks Christ to remember him , that Jesus responds. This is consistent with what Jesus does at other times in the NT , when he asks people "who do you say I am?". He is always very interested in who will acknowledge him as the Living Christ because he knows its an indication of God's Spirit stirring in someone and revealing to that person who HE is (and he does say that explicitly).

The man is throwing himself in faith towards Jesus asking for something that he feels he doesn't deserve. You could say that the man is saved because he is sorry for what he is done and recognises the injustice of the situation , but for a long time what you have said is the necessity of following the commandments , which he has not done. he has not followed the will of God or the commandments - that much we can be sure of.

What's clear is that the thief realises that he must ask Jesus to "remember him" in order to be saved and when he asks this Jesus responds.

So my question to you is - What does this mean , this asking Jesus to remember you?

To me its very simple. The man realises he is at the mercy of God in his situation and that all he can do is humbly ask for God's grace and have faith in the mercy of Christ.

He cannot rely on deeds or on his track record of following the will of God. He can only offer God humility and faith.

Why didn't Jesus say "tough - mate , you have lived a life not doing good deeds or following God's will - now you get what you deserve" ?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Luke 23
39 One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, "Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!" 40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our ood deeds or following God's will - now you get what you deserve" ?

You've taken a couple of sentences out of context while largely ignoring the larger germane points.

What is it about the following that you failed to comprehend?

Spare me your usual game of taking out an individual sentence or two out of my post while ignoring the germane points. For whatever reason, you seem to think that talking around in circles about non-germane points for post after post while getting further and further off topic constitutes "reason".

You ignored the first and last paragraphs. You also seem to have lost the context of the second paragraph.

Try slowly rereading my post in context of your earlier post then rephrase your post with something that indicates you have comprehension of what I wrote, a comprehension of the context in which it was written and that fully addresses my post.

Also try to exhibit an understanding of what I mean by "salvation by righteousness". It seems like no matter how many times I explain it, you fail to wrap your mind around it.

So once again:
There is not expectation in the teachings of Jesus that anyone has never sinned. Jesus teaches that an individual can be transformed from being unrighteous to being righteous. Once righteous, the individual follows the will of God, i.e., does not sin. Righteousness is not merely about acting righteous, but actually BEING righteous, i.e., having righteousness as their very being. Jesus teaches that to have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" one must become righteous.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think one could make some case for existential gratitude, in the vein of it's great to be alive). But why you would think this point has anything substantively to do with the concepts of 'gift' or 'grace', I don't really know.

--------lemon---------------------------------

Because God does something that gives us something (ie life). Infact , nificent gift of all.

Get out of your head and into your emotions for a change.

😴😴😴😴😴

You can keep on saying that existence is a 'gift', but you'll just have to excuse me if keep on disagreeing for reasons already cited more than once. Feel free to re-read them to understand why I genuinely and substantively disagree.

You like to play the "LemonJello over intellectualizes everything" card whenever I disagree with your terminology -- terminology that I honestly find characteristically sloppy. But I think my disagreements are substantive. It's like the time you tried to tell me that "existence is a mystery" is a faithful rewording of the proposition that there exists at least one brute fact. Sorry, but that's just idiotic. And of course, you always tell me that in disagreeing with you I am somehow over-intellectualizing to a fault and that there is something defective about my appreciations about the world in general and about your position in particular. But, like I told you then: though you have the potential to sway me with arguments that actually make sense (if you actually had any), you're just not in any position to make demands on my conative or affective attitudes. Deal with it.

Interestingly when you said " I think one could make some case for existential gratitude " - to me it sounded so limp , almost as if you had to grudgingly , and intellectually accept that God creating you was an "ok thing , I suppose" . Where's you joy and wonder at being alive? If God exists then just being alive is the most magnificent gift of all.

Get out of your head and into your emotions for a change.

Yep, this is the smug "you over-intellectualize everything and don't have your heart in the right place" crap that I've come to expect from you. Maybe someday you'll get a clue and realize what I have been telling you for a while now: just because I choose not to feed all your stray terminology doesn't mean there is something misplaced about my appreciations.

And I really couldn't care less about extraneous affective stuff you choose to inject into my words. Hey, you can take a crap in my soup and then tell me that it tastes bad, too.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You've taken a couple of sentences out of context while largely ignoring the larger germane points.

What is it about the following that you failed to comprehend?

[i]Spare me your usual game of taking out an individual sentence or two out of my post while ignoring the germane points. For whatever reason, you seem to think that talking around in circ ...[text shortened]... aches that to have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" one must become righteous.

Also try to exhibit an understanding of what I mean by "salvation by righteousness". It seems like no matter how many times I explain it, you fail to wrap your mind around it.
---------------ToOne------------------------------------

I have always understood this , right from the start I understood it. I understood it years ago and I understand it now. You fail to comprehend that I have always comprehended you - I just think you are mistaken.

The difference between you and me is that I'm not perfectionist about it (and neither was Jesus because his disciples were a rag taggle bunch of c++k up artists) . I don't think being a righteous man neccessarily means that one never fails or is completely free from ever sinning again. I think a righteous man will commit his life to not sinning but because he is human he will have his failings from time to time. It seems patently obvious that Christ knew this would happen and so built in the "forgive us our trespasses (sin)" section into the Lord's prayer for his followers. This section should not be there because the followers of Christ would have no need for it. Yet there it is!

I have also asked you many times to clarify what sin actually is to you in a down to earth manner. On a day to day basis what does it mean to never sin ? If I spend 3 hours helping someone who wants to take their own life , and I really show them love , compassion and understanding but in the final three minutes I get a bit irritated with them and impatient with them , maybe I swear or something - have I sinned? Am I no longer righteous? Do good men always do good? Do bad men never show compassion? Are the lines always that defined?

Righteousness lives in the heart , it's not about being perfect its about living in love , compassion and truth. We try to love others but we also make mistakes. We are not perfect in our love.

The thief was obviously imperfect. It seems he may only have discovered the truth in the last hours of his life. Still he had no opportunity to be transformed in his ways. In what sense could he be transformed in such a short period of time?

Anyway , if this discourse is going to be fruitful we will have to accept that neither of us can answer all the points raised in every post. I propose a fair and just solution. One question that I want you to answer and the same in reverse.

Originally posted by LemonJello
😴😴😴😴😴

You can keep on saying that existence is a 'gift', but you'll just have to excuse me if keep on disagreeing for reasons already cited more than once. Feel free to re-read them to understand why I genuinely and substantively disagree.

You like to play the "LemonJello over intellectualizes everything" card whenever I disagree with your t ...[text shortened]... , you can take a crap in my soup and then tell me that it tastes bad, too.

The problem is that you DO over complicate and philosophise things to death. You get stuck in cul-de-sacs about terminology and semantics and it keeps you from seeing the simple things.

A little child can see what you cannot see because your mind is too busy. The simple gift of life itself. Why is it so hard for you to feel it in your bones? Don't think about it too much , just go for a walk , breath the air and feel the gift. It's not very hard.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The problem is that you DO over complicate and philosophise things to death. You get stuck in cul-de-sacs about terminology and semantics and it keeps you from seeing the simple things.

A little child can see what you cannot see because your mind is too busy. The simple gift of life itself. Why is it so hard for you to feel it in your bones? Don't ...[text shortened]... about it too much , just go for a walk , breath the air and feel the gift. It's not very hard.

No, it's just easier for you to tell me in some vague way that there is something defective about my appreciations than it is for you to actually bother with entertaining my considered reasons for disagreeing with your use of the word 'gift'.

I have no problems seeing "the simple things" here. I even laid out in very simple terms what it is you are actually arguing about our existence given the supposition of God's existence; showed how it doesn't have anything materially to do with employment of 'grace' or 'gift'; and, geez, I even agreed with the basic point. But you have to come back and tell me that there is still something defective about my affective states for not agreeing to take on your terminology.

Yes, I am sure it would be so much more comfortable for you if I just assume a stance of childlike deliberations and just agree with everything you say. But I'm a big boy now, and I'm interested in what you can bring to the table that actually makes some sense and holds up under healthy scrutiny. If you don't like that, then tough titty.

Originally posted by LemonJello
No, it's just easier for you to tell me in some vague way that there is something defective about my appreciations than it is for you to actually bother with entertaining my considered reasons for disagreeing with your use of the word 'gift'.

I have no problems seeing "the simple things" here. I even laid out in very simple terms what it is you are ...[text shortened]... se and holds up under healthy scrutiny. If you don't like that, then tough titty.

So tell me what God's grace actually is then.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Also try to exhibit an understanding of what I mean by "salvation by righteousness". It seems like no matter how many times I explain it, you fail to wrap your mind around it.
---------------ToOne------------------------------------

I have always understood this , right from the start I understood it. I understood it years ago and I understand it fair and just solution. One question that I want you to answer and the same in reverse.

Well, if you understand my position then why did you make the following comments that are not relevant to my position? You do this kind of thing all the time. Are you that desperate to find something disparaging to say?

"So we can be very certain that he is not being granted salvation because of a) his deeds or b) his following the will of God."

"He admits himself that he is deserving of his suffering and in this he is humble and accepting of his fate in comparsion to the other man. Does this make him righteous?"

"You could say that the man is saved because he is sorry for what he is done and recognises the injustice of the situation , but for a long time what you have said is the necessity of following the commandments , which he has not done. he has not followed the will of God or the commandments - that much we can be sure of."

"He cannot rely on deeds or on his track record of following the will of God."

"Why didn't Jesus say 'tough - mate , you have lived a life not doing good deeds or following God's will - now you get what you deserve' ?"

My post essentially consisted of only three topics of discussion of which you completely ignored two and seemingly lost the context of the third. At that, one of the topics was to ask you to discuss fairly and address the germane points of my posts. If you can't be bothered to do that, I can't be bothered to post.

Just the usual KM BS.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Well, if you understand my position then why did you make the following comments that are not relevant to my position? You do this kind of thing all the time. Are you that desperate to find something disparaging to say?

[i]"So we can be very certain that he is not being granted salvation because of a) his deeds or b) his following the will of God."
...[text shortened]... 't be bothered to do that, I can't be bothered to post.

Just the usual KM BS.

I'm sorry if it seems this way to you , but all I am trying to do is figure this one out. I'm confused because the thief has no good deeds , is a sinner by his own admission , and has no track record of following God's will in his life and yet you say he is righteous. I don't see how this is consistent with everything you say about Jesus' teachings. Anyway , let's leave that one for now.

The whole problem here is that we are fighting for the right to set the agenda of the debate. You want me to address your points (which I try to ) but what I also want in return is for you to address my points. For the time being you seem reluctant to do this so for now I will see what you have to say.

I think I understand that you see the thief as righteous in some way due to the fact he is humble about his punishment and does not try to arrogantly defend himself and has a recognition of the injustice done to Jesus. He is the opposite of the man who mocks Jesus and is shows no penitence or fear of God.

This is what in your mind qualifies him as righteous , yes? Have I understood you correctly? I may have not understood you as much as I think. Where have I got you wrong?