Hiding from God

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]"BTW- He will no doubt at this point accuse me of "distorting" his position whilst at the same time not refuting anything of what I am saying."

This the kind of garbage that you're always pulling, like on your "salvation by grace (the irony)" thread.

You stated:
"It seems from talking to ToO that he believes that our past sin has to be cl Is it any wonder that so many people have such disdain for "Christians"?

What I said was that John seemed to indicate this in one of his verses. I also said something like "While this is an interesting concept, I don't necessarily subscribe to it". ------ToO-----------

You are still making this about me whereas I am making it about what grace really is and what is implied by forgiveness of sin.

I will briefly respond on this to say that the above is not a clarification at all. You are hardly pinning your colours to the mast here. It still doesn't tell anyone what you believe. It only says what you "don't neccessarily subscribe to". If you can cite examples where you have answered a direct question with a simple direct answer then please do.

So here's yet another chance to be explicit , up front and honest....

Do you believe that the blood of Christ is redundant and plays no role in the forgiveness of any of your sins?

Your position seems to imply that you do see some role for forgiveness of sin (whether past or otherwise) from God and that Jesus has some role in this. This means that God's grace cannot be excluded from the process.

You say you subscribe to the teachings of Jesus and he said "this is my blood , shed for the remission of sin" , so I logically assume that Jesus's blood has some role in your position because to exclude it would be contradictory for you.

Have I got you wrong? Please tell me what you DO subscribe to (rather than what you don't neccessarily subscribe to)

It's very easy. You just read the question and you answer it in a direct honest fashion. No games . No thought for the consequences. Just some raw honesty for a change.

Originally posted by knightmeister
What I said was that John seemed to indicate this in one of his verses. I also said something like "While this is an interesting concept, I don't necessarily subscribe to it". ------ToO-----------

I will briefly respond on this to say that the above is not a clarification at all. You are hardly pinning your colours to the mast here. It still doesn't me what you DO subscribe to (rather than what you don't neccessarily subscribe to)

Will you just STOP. It's enough of a clarification to where you can stop misrepresenting my position on the topic. I clearly state that it was an interpretation of what John believes. For you to keep representing it as something that I believe is just a lie. The fact that you insist on doing so after numerous corrections points to the baseness of your character.

I have no interest in answering all your inane questions. That's no reason for you to continually misrepresent my position and to create post after post and thread after thread doing so. Why do you need to bring me up at all? Why don't you just post what you believe?

Originally posted by vistesd
Thanks, ToO: I did miss it. 😳

I liked the uninvited visitor analogy. I think—and this is of course based on just that short reading—that we probably need to keep our thinking straight about emotions-as-such and desires-as-such, on the one hand, and how we choose to express them, on the other.

I also like to distinguish b ...[text shortened]... l I fall...

And let my laughter be today my gift,
tomorrow it may be my salt-filled tears...

I guess I looked at this less from a passion / reason point of view and more from the idea of how desires can subconsciously effect our belief systems:

"[Russell] adds that we are quite proficient at deceiving ourselves about our desires - that we even go so far as to develop entire systems of false beliefs to keep ourselves ignorant of what it is, at base, that we desire."

I think that this speaks to the topic of this thread. People have a very strong desire to feel "secure" in both their self-image and environment and create rationalizations to create / preserve this feeling. For example, a rapist might tell himself, "The way she was dressed, she deserved it". So in his mind, he was only doing what "any red-blooded male" would do in a similar situation. As another example, the idea of "being loved" / "being accepted" by God without having to change is a strong lure. It seems that this is often augmented with the concept that it is up to God to effect any change or that it's impossible to not commit sin. It's been my experience that individuals can get so caught up in this idea so as to become seriously morally deficient. They become so "secure" that they are largely unconcerned about how their actions affect others or are able to rationalize them away. They know that they "feel good", so it really doesn't matter to them. At best, they dutifully "confess" and are good to go. All they need to do is show a veneer of concern to appease society at large. All the while they are "feeling the love of God" despite not following "the will of God".

On a broader level, it seems to me that these "system of false beliefs" are the "delusions" referred to by (all?) of the major religions. People become so engrossed in their desires and the belief systems that they spawn that they are unable to see reality.

PF: My bad on clarity, but since this whole discussion has been about a Christ-based faith, I’m moving you to (2).

KM: I’m putting you down for (4). You might be trying to spin the details, but your three replies to the question (as well as previous posts) indicate (4).

__________________________

BTW, I have asked none of you the other question yet: What do you mean by “salvation”? I’ve been reading you guys too long: I am not convinced that what jaywill means by that term is necessarily what Epi and KM mean (or PinkFloyd)—let alone Rajk. I’m fairly sure that ToO has a different understanding altogether. For example, jaywill has been pretty emphatic—and articulate—in his rejection of “salvation” as simply meaning some state after physical death (the alternative to which would be either condemnation or annihilation) that has been determined at some specific date (e.g., “I was saved on April 23rd, 1981; and so I know I will be in heaven” ).

Now, I am not willing to accuse a single one of you of any kind of “bad faith” whatsoever. But there seems to me to be a lot of verbiage and vitriol being expended in the face of a lack of clarity (and I don’t care who started it!).

I am trying for some clarity. At the moment, PF is a (2) and KM is a (4) unless they choose another number—arguments about the niceties and such can come later.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Again, I think “faith-alone” or “works-alone”, either one, sets up a false dichotomy. I hope that neither “side” loses sight of that as my basic point.---------------vsited-----------

This is a very lucid point and I agree. The argument is so polarised . I would say though that Ephin, myself and others have always stressed that from faith should fol disregard for works or righteousness for which there is no evidence in St Paul's teachings.

If you are dying in the desert from thirst and I offer you a cup of water, what criteria must be met by you to be saved?

And what criteria for you offering the cup of water?

There is no reflection in this situation: my survival reflex is to take the cup of water. Nothing else need be involved, and everything else can be put under the heading of “justificatory explanations afterward”.

Kudos, though: this has always been my point about the parable of the Good Samaritan. If you decide on (1) alone—based on nothing more than the thirst (not even conscious recognition of the thirst) of the patient—then you have moved away from a soteriology of justification toward a soteriology of healing. Once you move there, this whole faith-versus-works thing falls away. (I would add that I think such a soteriology of healing would also be best understood in terms of jaywill’s soteriology of transformation—my title, not his; and he is not responsible for any errors of interpretation on my part.) A soteriology of healing has at least as much scriptural basis (I would say more) than a juridical soteriology, and has a long history in the church.

Choosing (1) on the basis of a soteriology of healing overcomes all the objections that I myself have stated here (and in the other thread) against (1). It also goes to PF’s comments about what I am calling the “dead-line” (Epi, at least, surely knows what I mean here).

Soterias, in the Greek, fundamentally means healing: making-well or making-whole. That is the sense in which it can be translated as “salvation”. But this has largely been forgotten in Western Christianity, which keeps trying to find sensible arguments for upholding a juridical salvation.

Each of you guys has a piece (or pieces) of the puzzle (so to speak): all it takes is a shift in perspective to find the pattern. Until that shift takes place, not only will various Christians keep badgering each other over inane questions such as “faith-versus-works”, but non-Christians will badger you for your inability to make a reasonable case. Now, this is either because the “truth” to which you tenaciously hold is really incoherent (period), or because you are unwilling to shift your perspective from unreasonable (and ultimately unreasoning) zones of habit and comfort.

______________________________________

I will offer some thoughts (these are not just for you, KM):

(a) Salvation is contextual—there is no “one rule fits all” in terms of the details just as love is never truly generalized or abstract: see below).

(b) The point is not so much whether you are saved, but whether you participate in the saving/healing process as it confronts you day-to-day (take a page from Kirksey here).

(c) Offer yourself on the basis of need, not merit (the ability to heal, not whether healing is merited—think, for example, of a psychotic patient).

(d) Decide whether or not you think God offers healing on the same basis, as opposed to questions of justification through either faith or works.

If any of you aspire to be spiritual physicians (and agents of physical healing as well), these are the kinds of decisions you must make.

Who of you is willing to spend eternity in hell in the hopes of healing someone there? Who of you loves anyone so much as that? Whether such is required (or even permitted) is not the question; only your willingness is the question—and none can answer that but you. But the question is posed: it is posed by the Christ who says that no one has greater love than to be willing to lay down one’s soul for one’s friend. It is posed by the Christ who turned the tables on those who asked “who is my neighbor?”, by asking who was a neighbor to the man in the ditch. It is posed as well by the Buddha of compassion.

If there is no one for whom you would sacrifice your soul to hell—not one person!—then you do not know the God who is love. Nor do you know love. “Perfection” is not required: that love may be, even though it is for one person.

And if eternal hell is not a reality—then what trouble (ergon) are you willing to suffer here? For whom? To whom are you willing to be such a neighbor? Try not to leap to some generalized “everyone”. Love—at least agape—is not general or abstract: it is this person or that person here and now. And another person in the next here and now.

Perfection is not required: love may be. Love without the hope or expectation of any reward but the loving itself. The loving itself is salvation—that is the secret! And that loving is an ergon, not just a feeling.

Anyone who does not love at least one person so much as to be willing to endure the torment of hell for them—is not saved. They may be saved—but only when they have learned and embraced such a love. “For this God is love.” [1st John 4:8]

You know, with due reference to the paradoxes involved, I’ll reduce everything I said above to the following:

To the extent that you love, you already know salvation; to the extent that you don’t, you don’t. Continual metanoia entails continuing transformation on that path. Transformation is seldom comforting, since it implies that “the son of man has no place to lay his head”. Which likely means that your salvation (however else you understand that word) will not be perfected in this life; for that would imply that no further transformation or maturing needs to take place.

Salvation is just the continuing transformation in love. Anyone who claims to “have been saved” is claiming to have been already perfected in love—that is, in loving. Or they are just claiming to have embarked on that transformative path of living (which is an okay claim).

Don’t think so much of salvation in terms of receiving—or having received. That is just not the point. The point is far more radical than that. It is to just love—and let the rest go. Whether you yourself are loved (or believe you are loved) in return is of no consequence. And sometimes love means letting the other person go, to find their own way. Otherwise, loving can degenerate into possessiveness.

Love for no other reason than to love. Enjoy it. Celebrate the way in which that makes all things new. Don’t taint it with any other—any other!—considerations. Do not attempt to weigh and measure it. Do not cast it in terms of sacrifice for some afterlife. Loving really isn’t a sacrifice (in the contemporary sense of that word); and sacrificing is not loving. That’s another sort of paradox: if it isn’t really what you want to do, then it isn’t really loving. And don’t let that paradox lead you into “shoulding” your wants.

Loving is like dancing: there is no other purpose or point to it. It is its own point. And one who does not know that does not know love. And one who does not know such love, does not know salvation. For they are not two things.

I repeat: the continual transformative path of loving and salvation are not two things. If someone wants to quote (or interpret) some writing (scripture) in such a way that says different—then I will say that such scripture (or such interpretation) is wrong. And I have no proof to offer. So believe what you will. I will love—not, at least thus far, perfectly—but as best I can.

There really isn’t anything more to be said.

Originally posted by vistesd
You know, with due reference to the paradoxes involved, I’ll reduce everything I said above to the following:

To the extent that you love, you already know salvation; to the extent that you don’t, you don’t. Continual metanoia entails continuing transformation on that path. Transformation is seldom comforting, since it implies that “the s ...[text shortened]... t least thus far, perfectly—but as best I can.

There really isn’t anything more to be said.

Anyone who claims to “have been saved” is claiming to have been already perfected in love—that is, in loving.

Not necessarily. For instance, I am saved though not yet perfected (Heb. 10:14). When I say that I'm saved, I mean that my eternal destiny is secured (2 Cor. 5:1). I'm going to spend endless days in the presence of the Lord (John 17:3). No doubt about it (Heb. 10:23). I was saved by grace for which I now give God perpetual praise (Eph. 1:6). I was an atheist and now I belong to Christ (Eph. 2:5). I am a new man in Christ (Eph. 4:24) imputed with the righteousness of Christ (Romans 4:5-7). It's a done deal (Heb. 10:14). God promised and He is absolutely faithful (Heb. 10:24). I KNOW that I have eternal life through Christ Jesus (1 John 5:13). Hallelujah! 😀

__________


My two cents regarding the faith versus works dichotomy is summed up in 1 John 5:1-5:

"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world— our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?"

Who is it that keeps God's commandments?

Only those who have been born of God.

"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10).

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Will you just STOP. It's enough of a clarification to where you can stop misrepresenting my position on the topic. I clearly state that it was an interpretation of what John believes. For you to keep representing it as something that I believe is just a lie. The fact that you insist on doing so after numerous corrections points to the baseness of your cha ...[text shortened]... ad doing so. Why do you need to bring me up at all? Why don't you just post what you believe?

Do you believe that God forgives your past sins via his grace?
Do you believe that the blood of Jesus has any role in salvation or is his teaching on remission of sin redundant?
Do you believe that you can become righteous by your own efforts independently of God or do you need his Spirit ?
Do you believe that you are the source of your own righteousness or is the ultimate source God?

Can you provide an argument to say why these are "inane"?

These are not inane questions. You know it , everyone knows it. They are fundamental questions regarding grace and you would sooner make the effort to do a 10 line post to counter me than a 5 line post to answer some simple questions.

Once again you have past by an opportunity to really clarify things and show where you stand on grace and righteousness.

That's 6 posts now I think.

Originally posted by vistesd
After all this time, I still see this whole argument (both sides) as being mired in a false dichotomy.

Now, the real formulation seems to be grace/faith on one side and grace/works on the other. In short, I don’t really see anyone here dispensing with grace if you read all their posts. So the argument reduces to whether faith-alone (sola fide) i ...[text shortened]... other side of this. That is a different kind of argument. EDIT: continued...

Very interesing post Vistesd.

I follow that James is emphasising the importance of works, even saying that works implies faith. But where does he say, or mean to say 'Faith implies works'? By the very nature of works, means it cannot by implied.

Originally posted by vistesd
I just can’t see the argument in all the verbiage here anymore. So I’ll ask the participants to take one of the following positions as basic re salvation. Just give a number—

(1) Grace alone.

(2) Grace + faith alone.

(3) Grace + works alone.

(4) Grace + faith + works.

(5) Faith alone.

(6) Works alone.

(7) Faith + works.

—Assume the commutative rule is in order.

In general - 4

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I guess I looked at this less from a passion / reason point of view and more from the idea of how desires can subconsciously effect our belief systems:

[i]"[Russell] adds that we are quite proficient at deceiving ourselves about our desires - that [b]we even go so far as to develop entire systems of false beliefs to keep ourselves ignorant of what ...[text shortened]... belief systems that they spawn that they are unable to see reality.[/b]

This is an interesting discussion and I do agree that we do have influences on our beliefs via unconscious desires and can be self delusional. However, comparing the obvious delusional rationalisations of a rapist with the concept of accepting unconditional love is just plain wrong.

The morally deficient charactor who just "feels good" you are describing no doubt exists , but my experience is that far more people are released from fear and made whole by unconditional love.

Infact I would suggest that we need a world full of more unconditional love. This is central to Jesus's teachings that we love our brother AND our enemies. If we only love those that don't trangress us then our love is impoverished and cannot heal or transform the world.

However, if we love unconditionally then that's different and that's what I am suggesting that God actually does. How can we learn to love each other on this planet if we model for ourselves a God that loves conditionally based on whether we have trangressed against him or not. It would be hypocritical of Jesus to ask us to forgive and love our enemies if Jesus himself did not also love us even though we are trangressing against him. Does any good parent stop loving and accepting their child when they are naughty?


Therefore , accepting the idea of unconditonal love and acceptance from God is vital. You have thrown the baby out with the bath water!!!!! And it's a very important baby.

Galatians 3:21 - For if a law had been given which was able to give life, righteosouness would indeed have been of law."


If the law could give the divine life of God to man ... righteousness would have been of the law.

The law of God was not able to give divine life of God to man.

The last Adam became a life giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45) In resurrection Christ could do what the law of God could not do. The law was not able to give life. Christ in resurrection as the life giving Spirit is able to dispense the divine life into man.

Christ first justifies the sinner with the shedding of His blood. The sinner is justified and made positionally righteous. Christ Himself is the redeemed sinner's righteous standing before God. Now having been made righteous in standing Christ can impart the divine life into him that he may live Christ. That is to become dispositionally and subjectively righteous in living.

Galatians 3:21 is saying that if the law of Moses had been able to give divine and spiritual life to man than it also could have given righteousness to man. But the law of Moses could not give this life.

The law of Moses could only make man accutely aware of how short his natural life was in living up to God's standard of righteousness. The law made man aware of the need for grace. Grace is not only a power over man but also a power within man. But I will not talk much on that now.

"The last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) The resurrected Christ became in a form to do what the law could not do. He gives divine life to those who have been justified.

He first justifies them and the He gives them life. "The [human] spirit is life because of righteousness" (Rom. 8:10)

The man is born again because he has been made righteous. The man can live righteously because now Christ lives in him and he must learn to walk step by step in union with Christ.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Anyone who claims to “have been saved” is claiming to have been already perfected in love—that is, in loving.

Not necessarily. For instance, I am saved though not yet perfected (Heb. 10:14). When I say that I'm saved, I mean that my eternal destiny is secured (2 Cor. 5:1). I'm going to spend endless days in the presence of the Lord (John 17: ood works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10).[/b]

Not necessarily.

Your point here is well-taken. Looking back on it, I should have posed those two sentences as questions.

EDIT: And how does one tell that one is "born of God"? Some spiritual feelings? Acknowledgement of some doctrinal statements? Some new thoughts or insights?

Or how one goes about living one's life actively in the daily round? [Which goers to why I spent some effort on the Greek word ergon.]

If a tree says, "I'm a plum", how can I tell for sure (being merely a gardener, and in this day of myriad hybrids)? I wait to see what fruit it produces. If it produces peaches, then it's a peach tree. Its ability to recite the appropriate creedal statements for a plum tree is not definitive; even what it believes itself to be is not definitive.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Very interesing post Vistesd.

I follow that James is emphasising the importance of works, even saying that works implies faith. But where does he say, or mean to say 'Faith implies works'? By the very nature of works, means it cannot by implied.

But where does he say, or mean to say 'Faith implies works'?

Verses 14 and 17 in the 2nd chapter of James cited. Now, we could discuss what exactly “dead” there means; but he did not say “dull” or “dormant” or “undiscerned”—he said “dead”. If you want to recast it in terms of a “living faith” entailing works, I wouldn’t argue—and perhaps that would be more correct; but I would wonder what relevancy a faith that is “dead” has?

James is pretty clearly saying that to say that one has faith without works is meaningless.

I strikes me that my mad attempt at numbered combinations actually reinforces the notion of a dichotomy (or trichotomy). I'll just leave it now.