salvation by grace (the irony)

Originally posted by knightmeister
Although 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.

So , here's your chance...

Do you believe that a man's past sins need forgiveness?
Do you believe that salavation can b a response as yours is so self centred and irrelevant. You have completely missed it.

"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..."

Like I said, I've restated my position on the cleansing of sin several times, yet you continue to misrepresent it. How is this "no attempt to clarify things"?

"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."

Self-centered? I'm just trying to defend myself from your relentless attacks and misrepresentations of my position. If your original post wasn't about me, then why didn't you leave ToO out of it entirely and just present your ideas? What do you think LJ meant by ""I don't care about your perpetual hard-on for ToO."?


In all seriousness, you should seek professional help.

Also read LJ's first post. Like I said, it points to one of several flaws in your argument. The reality is that it's useless to point them out to you, so why should anyone bother?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]"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..."

Like I said, I've restated my position on the cleansing of sin several times, yet you continue to misrepresent it. How is this "no attempt to clarify things"?

"Now , please stop making this about you ( ual hard-on for ToO."?


In all seriousness, you should seek professional help.

You accused me of ducking but I did not. Here you are giving a master class in ducking. You think it was about you? It was about the ideas that you put forward about grace and salvation. Since you have nailed your colours to this position it's only natural I should mention you , yes?

If you read your post objectively and without pride you would see that you have made no attempt to address the issue that the thread raises , namely , that no salvation of any kind can be independent of some reliance on God's grace and forgiveness.

Your last two posts have gone down a cul-de-sac. I knew this would be a bit of a slam dunker for you and Rajk. I sensed it when I was writing it.

So this is your third chance now. Would you care to address the issue?

Originally posted by knightmeister
You accused me of ducking but I did not. Here you are giving a master class in ducking. You think it was about you? It was about the ideas that you put forward about grace and salvation. Since you have nailed your colours to this position it's only natural I should mention you , yes?

If you read your post objectively and without pride you would s ...[text shortened]... n I was writing it.

So this is your third chance now. Would you care to address the issue?

In case you missed my edit:
"Also read LJ's first post. Like I said, it points to one of several flaws in your argument. The reality is that it's useless to point them out to you, so why should anyone bother?"

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
In case you missed my edit:
"Also read LJ's first post. Like I said, it points to one of several flaws in your argument. The reality is that it's useless to point them out to you, so why should anyone bother?"

Flawed it may be , but that would only concern a perfectionist.

However , it has one major strength , and that's the irrefutable truth that no salvation of any kind can be independent of God's grace and forgiveness. If God does not forgive ToO's past sins then the whole game is off before it begins .

Stop running from this truth. You can point out all the flaws you like but it won't change the central truth at the heart of this post.

Unless of course you wouild like to claim you have lived sinlessly or that Jesus 's blood is useless. But I know you are not going to do that now are you?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Flawed it may be , but that would only concern a perfectionist.

However , it has one major strength , and that's the irrefutable truth that no salvation of any kind can be independent of God's grace and forgiveness. If God does not forgive ToO's past sins then the whole game is off before it begins .

Stop running from this truth. You can point o sly or that Jesus 's blood is useless. But I know you are not going to do that now are you?

Look at TW's first post. I wouldn't have put it that way, but his point is in the same general area.

Do you even bother to read anyone's posts for content? Or do you just look for arguments?

I'm thinking that if you started reading the posts of others for content and with an open mind, you might be able to craft responses that would help dispell the idea that Christians are void of logic and reason. As it stands now, you only help to perpetuate it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Look at TW's first post. I wouldn't have put it that way, but his point is in the same general area.

Do you even bother to read anyone's posts for content? Or do you just look for arguments?

What I look for is some clarification. You do accept then that salvation without God's grace and forgiveness is impossible? You need him to forgive your past sins at the very least?

If you are aligning yourself with TW's post then why weren't you more clear on your "hiding" thread. You talked about SBGC not SWBGC (salvation wholly by grace christians).

Pentecostals believe you can reach perfection here on earth. Mainstream Protestant denominations don't. That pretty much sums up these rhreads.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Pentecostals believe you can reach perfection here on earth. Mainstream Protestant denominations don't. That pretty much sums up these rhreads.

No that is not the basic and underlying debate of this thread IMO.

This debate is a matter of what is the Word of God. This debate is a debate on whether the whole New Testament is regarded as the oracles of God or only carefully selected portions of it.


What is needed in this debate is a clear line of demarcation concerning what are the oracles of God and what are not.

It is a contraversy over what is the New Testament canon.

As long as ToO regards Matthew but not Romans as God's word there will be a problem. As long as ToO regards Luke as the teaching of Jesus but not Acts, Galatians, and Philippians as the teaching of Jesus there will no progress.

At first I thought that by just limiting oneself to the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) there might be some humoring of ToO and some progress made. I now realize that this is not likely. I am impressed with how faithful Paul was to his Master Jesus Christ, but ToO has not and will not be impressed.

I think it is a determination of will, a decision of will power on ToO's part to discredit and distance himself from Christ's apostles at any expense, (particularly Paul).


IMO the fundamental problem goes beyond grace and righteousness and life. It is a dispute on what really are the New Testament oracles of God.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The 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 didn't mean that the age-old debate of "salvation by grace versus salvation by self righteousness" is crappy. I meant that your argument is crappy -- you know, the one you try to advance in the opening post of this thread. Your argument is crappy because nothing you present actually supports your conclusion that salvation by grace is "inescapable", particularly when the notion of grace is preserved under the correct context.

Your argument basically is that salvation by grace is inescapable because (1) god gave us life and we wouldn't even exist if he hadn't created us and (2) "we cannot force god to forgive" and "we need to be assured that God will keep his part of the bargain and uphold his forgiveness".

That you cite (1) is just baffling because it doesn't have anything to do with your conclusion. If you want to say that god's creating us was an act of "grace", fine; but that has nothing to do with showing that "salvation by grace is inescapable". And (2) doesn't demonstrate your conclusion either. That you would call it an act of "grace" that god keeps his part of the bargain only demonstrates that you apparently don't even understand what "grace" is taken to mean in the context of your age-old debate! If one is upholding obligation, then he is not acting out of grace in this context.

This is why your argument is so terrible. Again, the person who thinks salvation can be merited can simply flat-out agree with you that, ultimately, we are still reliant on god's "keeping his part of the bargain". In no way does that mean that salvation is ultimately linked to an act of grace.

To see how inane your argument is, suppose I were to father a child. This child of course has needs and interests to which any good father would attend. But, you know, inescapably, the child cannot force me to be an adequate father; he cannot force me to keep my end of the bargain. I could, for instance, simply lock the kid in a closet and let it starve to death. So, according to the same thinking you have advanced, proper care and nurturing for the child is really a matter of "grace" on my part. But that is just obviously not what is supposed to be meant by 'grace', and surely you can appreciate that. The child deserves proper care, and it is simply not something that I give under no obligations on my part. It is simply not an act of grace (in the context of your cherished age-old debate) when one upholds obligation toward some deserving or meritorious recipient.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I didn't mean that the age-old debate of "salvation by grace versus salvation by self righteousness" is crappy. I meant that your argument is crappy -- you know, the one you try to advance in the opening post of this thread. Your argument is crappy because nothing you present actually supports your conclusion that salvation by grace is "inescapab upholds obligation toward some deserving or meritorious recipient.

I think you don't understand grace or gratitude. If one believes in God at all then one realises that existence in it's entirety rests on God. The act of creating us is an act of "giving" . God gives us life , he gives of his own power , he gives of his own life in Jesus.

Jesus himself says " no-one comes to me unless the Father brings him" . What does this mean? It means that when a Christian comes to repentance he realises that the Holy Spirit has been guiding him to that point in his life.

A man cannot even repent unless God gives him the grace to do so.

A man cannot even see his need for the cross unless the Holy Spirit convicts him of sin.

A man cannot have it revealed to him that Jesus is the Son of God unless the Holy Spirit helps him and reveals it to him.

A man cannot love or show compassion for his neighbour unless God has nurtured and built this compassion in him.

A man cannot reflect the God of Love unless he is first loved by God.

This list could go on and on....but another realisation is also that any goodness or righteousness we have in our very own hearts is also a gift of God.

Think about it . Where does righteousness come from? ToO thinks he can change his own heart but it's an illusion. All he can do is CO-OPERATE with God's grace and have his heart changed by God.

The point is that he could not even think about changing his heart in the first place unless the Spirit of God stirred within him and inspired such a change.

The BiBle even says "in him we live and move and have our being" , this means that today , Lemon, God has been with you helping you and loving you in a way soooo subtle that you just take it for granted and don't even notice.

ToO exhorts us to live a life of righteousness but from where does the power to live this life come from? To claim it comes from within us and within us only is to claim self righteousness independent of God. And that's what sin is , it means separattion from God.

In essence pride and self reliance are the enemy and that's why grace undermines self reliance because you cannot go to God and say "look at this good righteousness within me , I am worthy of being saved". God will just say " yes I know , I put it there " .

Our righteousness can only be righteousness if it is the result of God's transforming love (which of course requires grace). If our righteousness denies God's grace then we are under the illusion of self righteousness and pride . It would be like the sea offering water back to the river and thinking that the water belonged to the sea.!!!

Christianity is about giving gratitude for that which we once took for granted. ToO cannot take God's forgiveness for granted for his past sins , if he does he is in to self righteousness.

As for your point about the child and the father , I don't know about you but I look back at my parents with gratitude now . At the time I just expected them to love me but later on in life I felt grateful and appreciated them more.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think you don't understand grace or gratitude. If one believes in God at all then one realises that existence in it's entirety rests on God. The act of creating us is an act of "giving" . God gives us life , he gives of his own power , he gives of his own life in Jesus.

Jesus himself says " no-one comes to me unless the Father brings him" . What ...[text shortened]... to love me but later on in life I felt grateful and appreciated them more.

"ToO thinks he can change his own heart but it's an illusion."

"ToO exhorts us to live a life of righteousness but from where does the power to live this life come from?"

"ToO cannot take God's forgiveness for granted for his past sins , if he does he is in to self righteousness."

Honestly. You accuse me of making this about me, yet you continue to make it about me. How about leaving ToO out of this? Why don't you look to LJ as your example. He recognizes that your discussion has nothing to do with me and appropriately leaves me out of it.

For that matter, why don't you leave ToO out of everything you post? If you represented my positon correctly it wouldn't be an issue. But you've repeatedly demonstrated that you are incapable of doing so.

Originally posted by knightmeister
A man cannot love or show compassion for his neighbour unless God has nurtured and built this compassion in him.

Do you have an argument for this claim, or is this a dogma of your faith?

Originally posted by bbarr
Do you have an argument for this claim, or is this a dogma of your faith?

I have no argument and have not claimed one. Just a statement of faith.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I have no argument and have not claimed one. Just a statement of faith.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]"ToO thinks he can change his own heart but it's an illusion."

"ToO exhorts us to live a life of righteousness but from where does the power to live this life come from?"

"ToO cannot take God's forgiveness for granted for his past sins , if he does he is in to self righteousness."

Honestly. You accuse me of making this about me, yet you co ...[text shortened]... be an issue. But you've repeatedly demonstrated that you are incapable of doing so.[/b]

At least 4- 5 of your last posts have failed to engage with the issues
or address the concepts being put before you.

What might this indicate do you think?

Here's another chance....

Do you think that your righteousness and goodness emanates from you and that you are the source?