02 Sep 08
1 edit
A simple counter to ToO's ideas about salvation by grace (= hiding from God??) is this.
The point is that even if ToO is right about this he is still reliant on God's grace anyway. He has presumably not lived a sinless life and has trangressed himself. He is reliant on God's forgiveness anyway.
He may believe that the idea is to repent and overcome sin and never sin again (as opposed to the reliance on grace he seems to hate) BUT he is still reliant on God to waver his sin in the first place and forgive him. It seems from talking to ToO that he believes that our past sin has to be cleansed of forgiven in some way by Jesus , which implies and act of grace on God's part.
If God chose not to forgive ToO for ANY sin and not to bring ToO to repentance in the first place then ToO (along with anyone else) would be completely stuck. The implications are that (even in ToO's model) there is a key piece of the jigsaw that we need God's grace for and we need to be assured that God will keep his part of the bargain and uphold his forgiveness. We are relaint on salavation by grace anyway.The debate is how much we are reliant. ToO cannot say " my salvation is totally in my own hands and I have no need at all for God's grace or forgiveness". To say such a thing would be outrageous.
Salvation by grace is inescapable however you phrase it or conceive of it because we cannot force God to forgive. It is something He does. I mean come on! we can't even exist or breath unless God initiates creation. We would even be able to discuss Jesus unless God had sent him which in itself is an act of grace. On top of this I see no reason why God should forgive past sins via his grace but then suddenly stop doing so?
The simple fact is that ToO is reliant on God's grace for his very own life and for forgiveness of his own past sins. It's ironic to me that ToO should then seek to attack the idea of salvation by grace when without God's grace he would be nowhere !
02 Sep 08
3 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterSalvation by grace is inescapable however you phrase it or conceive of it because we cannot force God to forgive.
A simple counter to ToO's ideas about salvation by grace (= hiding from God??) is this.
The point is that even if ToO is right about this he is still reliant on God's grace anyway. He has presumably not lived a sinless life and has trangressed himself. He is reliant on God's forgiveness anyway.
He may believe that the idea is to repent and ove to attack the idea of salvation by grace when without God's grace he would be nowhere !
For someone who thinks that "salvation" can be earned or merited, your post really should not concern them in the least. All you would show here is that we are all inescapably under his "grace" only in the sense that he could always just successfully dispose of us (or deny "salvation'😉 any old way he pleases (well, you also claim we are under his "grace" because he created us in the first place). Your point is really just trivial in light of the fact that he is supposedly omnipotent and thus of course could always successfully impose his will, whatever that may be.
Anyway, the point is this: for someone who thinks "salvation" can be merited or earned, they can fully concede to you that god would still have the power to deny that which is merited or earned. That shouldn't be taken to mean that one is "inescapably" under his "grace" (because that would involve a seriously impoverished notion of grace). That would only mean that your god can always choose to be unjust and petty, if he so desires; and of course he could always do so successfully because he is all-powerful.
So for anyone who thinks "salvation by grace" is a sham, I wouldn't blame them for reading your post and simply responding "So what?"
Not that I really care about "salvation" in the way you employ the term. Yawn.
02 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterI havent followed ToOs arguments very closely. It is possible that he is not attacking salvation by grace but rather salvation solely by grace? The 'hiding from God' thread seemed to be about false humility.
The simple fact is that ToO is reliant on God's grace for his very own life and for forgiveness of his own past sins. It's ironic to me that ToO should then seek to attack the idea of salvation by grace when without God's grace he would be nowhere !
It reminds me of the song "Take A Bow" by Rhianna (not sure who wrote the lyrics).
Don't tell me you're sorry,
Cause you're not,
And baby when I know,
You're only sorry you got caught
02 Sep 08
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou obviously didn't read or think about this part did you?........
[b]Salvation by grace is inescapable however you phrase it or conceive of it because we cannot force God to forgive.
For someone who thinks that "salvation" can be earned or merited, your post really should not concern them in the least. All you would show here is that we are all inescapably under his "grace" only in the sense that he could alway ...[text shortened]... hat I really care about "salvation" in the way you employ the term. Yawn.[/b]
KM--- "The point is that even if ToO is right about this he is still reliant on God's grace anyway. He has presumably not lived a sinless life and has trangressed himself. He is reliant on God's forgiveness anyway."
........what I am saying here is that ToO is already reliant on God to forgive and deal with his sin via his grace. If God doesn't provide for ToO in this area then he is doomed from the start. He cannot attain this forgiveness via works he needs to be justified before God by the blood of Jesus. Even ToO recognises a role for Jesus's blood.
ToO cannot earn forgiveness or cleansing from his past sin however hard he tries and whatever he does. No amount of good works or repentance can atone for his past sin. He stands before a holy God with sin in his life. He is reliant on God's grace , forgiveness and mercy for his sin. He may argue that when he repents then he earns salvation by never sinning again , but his past sin still needs to be dealt with. His salvation HAS to start with God's grace. That's the point and you missed it completely.
02 Sep 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadI havent followed ToOs arguments very closely. It is possible that he is not attacking salvation by grace but rather salvation solely by grace?----------whitey---------------
I havent followed ToOs arguments very closely. It is possible that he is not attacking salvation by grace but rather salvation solely by grace? The 'hiding from God' thread seemed to be about false humility.
It reminds me of the song "Take A Bow" by Rhianna (not sure who wrote the lyrics).
Don't tell me you're sorry,
Cause you're not,
And baby when I know,
You're only sorry you got caught
I have been following his line of thought microscopically and he is opposed to St Paul. But if you read St Paul carefully you see that he is not a cheap grace merchant and rejects the idea that we just sit back and rely on grace. St Paul is very hard on sin so I can only assume the ToO pretty much rejects grace altogether.
What he also fails to realise is that no good works and certainly no change of heart can be achieved without God's help anyway. Does ToO believe that his goodness and love are his own and originate in himself? All love and goodness emanate from God. To claim that we have our own goodness is like a radio claiming that the signal emanates from within the radio itself.
Goodness and love only become "ours" when we humbly receive it from the source itself. So everything in this sense is an act of grace. The mistake man has made is to think that he is isolated and that he created himself. This leads to self righteousness before God. CS Lewis described it as like a father lending his son sixpence so that he can buy the father a present. The father is pleased and loves the present but if the boy starts thinking he did this on his own with his own money he has lost the plot.
02 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterThat is terrible logic. I too reject Paul, and Jesus for that matter - but that does not mean that I therefore reject any ideas/ philosophies etc that either of them might have had. If ToO feels that Paul did not follow or preach Jesus's teachings accurately then he is perfectly entitled to reject him. You seem quite ready to reject ToO, not based on his teachings but based on the fact that he has not told you whether or not he is in the same fold as you. Many other writers and preachers from around the time of Jesus were rejected by you and most other Christians yet I doubt that you pretty much reject every sentence in the Gospel of Thomas and other such works.
I have been following his line of thought microscopically and he is opposed to St Paul. But if you read St Paul carefully you see that he is not a cheap grace merchant and rejects the idea that we just sit back and rely on grace. St Paul is very hard on sin so I can only assume the ToO pretty much rejects grace altogether.
02 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterI don't care about your perpetual hard-on for ToO.
You obviously didn't read or think about this part did you?........
KM--- "The point is that even if ToO is right about this he is still reliant on God's grace anyway. He has presumably not lived a sinless life and has trangressed himself. He is reliant on God's forgiveness anyway."
........what I am saying here is that ToO is already relian ...[text shortened]... alvation HAS to start with God's grace. That's the point and you missed it completely.
I didn't miss any grand point of yours. Re-read my post. I'm simply telling you that you have nothing interesting to say here to the person who thinks that "salvation" can be merited or earned.
02 Sep 08
Originally posted by LemonJelloBut ToO doesn't believe that salvation can be completely merited or earned because he does seem to believe that some cleansing and forgiveness of sin is neccessary to begin with.
I don't care about your perpetual hard-on for ToO.
I didn't miss any grand point of yours. Re-read my post. I'm simply telling you that you have nothing interesting to say here to the person who thinks that "salvation" can be merited or earned.
I doubt that ToO will ever say " salvation can be gained without any use of God or any intervention of grace whatsoever " . He knows that to say so would be to dig himself into a hole he could never get out of .
(BTW- I can guarantee you that debating with ToO offers me very little in the form of sexual pleasure at all and it certainly doesn't cause Mr Happy to go on a journey to belly button land!)
02 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI do not reject ToO , I only ask that he puts some meat and bones on what he is saying and back up his points with experience. If he cannot then he is betraying the very heart of what Jesus said about hypocrisy. The Gospel is not some intellectual theory , it has to be lived and wrestled with. If ToO is not doing that then what's he waffling for?
That is terrible logic. I too reject Paul, and Jesus for that matter - but that does not mean that I therefore reject any ideas/ philosophies etc that either of them might have had. If ToO feels that Paul did not follow or preach Jesus's teachings accurately then he is perfectly entitled to reject him. You seem quite ready to reject ToO, not based on his ...[text shortened]... doubt that you pretty much reject every sentence in the Gospel of Thomas and other such works.
I have no problem with you and others tallking about Jesus because you are honest about where you stand. ToO is not and will not come clean and in any context that's something I find disconcerting and disingenuous. It's interesting that he comes up with a thread on hiding , because that's how he comes across to me. I clocked him as a game player from the start and a christian baiter too. I do not get the same feeling from you because although we disagree vehemently at least you are up front about things. To me you have more integrity.
He is free to reject St Paul but he is not really rejecting him. What he is rejecting is some imaginary Paul of his own interpretation that neither myself , jaywill or ephin recognise at all.
02 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterPerhaps you missed this: "I don't care about your perpetual hard-on for ToO."
But ToO doesn't believe that salvation can be completely merited or earned because he does seem to believe that some cleansing and forgiveness of sin is neccessary to begin with.
I doubt that ToO will ever say " salvation can be gained without any use of God or any intervention of grace whatsoever " . He knows that to say so would be to dig himself ...[text shortened]... ure at all and it certainly doesn't cause Mr Happy to go on a journey to belly button land!)
I was responding to the thrust of your post which, frankly, isn't specific to your main squeeze, ToO. For instance, your claim that "Salvation by grace is inescapable however you phrase it or conceive of it because we cannot force God to forgive."
02 Sep 08
Originally posted by LemonJelloAnd what's it to you anyway? You don't believe in salvation by grace or merited. Do you have a stiffy for me all of a sudden?
Perhaps you missed this: "I don't care about your perpetual hard-on for ToO."
I was responding to the thrust of your post which, frankly, isn't specific to your main squeeze, ToO. For instance, your claim that "Salvation by grace is inescapable however you phrase it or conceive of it because we cannot force God to forgive."
02 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterI already said in the first post I wrote that I don't give a fig about your "salvation".
And what's it to you anyway? You don't believe in salvation by grace or merited. Do you have a stiffy for me all of a sudden?
But I also don't care for crappy arguments.
03 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloThe argument concerning salvation by grace versus salvation by self righteousness is hardly "crappy" but is fundamental to understanding Christianity. If you don't want to understand it then by all means stay out of it , nobody forced you to join in.
I already said in the first post I wrote that I don't give a fig about your "salvation".
But I also don't care for crappy arguments.
03 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhere to begin?
A simple counter to ToO's ideas about salvation by grace (= hiding from God??) is this.
The point is that even if ToO is right about this he is still reliant on God's grace anyway. He has presumably not lived a sinless life and has trangressed himself. He is reliant on God's forgiveness anyway.
He may believe that the idea is to repent and ove ...[text shortened]... ttack the idea of salvation by grace when without God's grace he would be nowhere !
This has to be one of your most ill-conceived arguments. I believe that this is what LemonJello means when he says that he doesn't "care for crappy arguments." Of course, you're still so full of yourself that you can't seem understand what he's saying. He addresses one of several flaws in his initial post.
"It seems from talking to ToO that he believes that our past sin has to be cleansed of forgiven in some way by Jesus , which implies and act of grace on God's part."
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". You've taken what I've said to suit your own purposes. It think I've made this correction several times now, since you keep misrpresenting my position on this.
On the positive side, at least you qualified this with "seems", so perhaps this is evidence of progress in your maturity. The fact that I've had to make this correction several times now really doesn't speak well for you.
For someone who has been following my "line of thought microscopically", you seem to pretty consistently misrepresent my position. Since I've corrected you several times, I can only surmise that you do this intentionally. You twist my position to whatever you think makes a given argument "sound good".
03 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAlthough you started your post with "where to begin?" It seems that where you began was an attack on my understanding of your position RATHER than a clarification of your own position in relation to this question about grace.
Where to begin?
This has to be one of your most ill-conceived arguments. I believe that this is what LemonJello means when he says that he doesn't "care for crappy arguments." Of course, you're still so full of yourself that you can't seem understand what he's saying. He addresses one of several flaws in his initial post.
[i]"It seems from talking t t my position to whatever you think makes a given argument "sound good".
So , here's your chance...
Do you believe that a man's past sins need forgiveness?
Do you believe that salavation can be achieved in the absence of any grace at all?
Do you think that man can save himself independently of what God does or without Gods help?
Do you really believe that the blood of Jesus is completely useless and performs no purpose?
You see you criticise me when I make an educated guess as to what your position actually is but then make no attempt to clarify things or address the actual issue at hand. It's a game you've been playing for some time now.
The irony is that without the gift of life itself and the gift of Jesus you would not even be debating this with me. You are so reliant on God's grace you don't even realise it. You take it for granted.
Overall you seem to have made no attempt to tackle the huge fly in the ointment this thread presents to you. Namely , that no salvation of any kind is possible without God's grace being involved at some point. Unless you have lived a sinless life then you are reliant on God's grace and forgiveness. If his forgiveness is not forthcoming then you are lost before you can even begin.
Now , please stop making this about you (or lemon) or me and get back on topic. Such a response as yours is so self centred and irrelevant. You have completely missed it.