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 ...[text shortened]... man can save himself independently of what God
irrelevant. You have completely missed it.

ThinkofOne has posted four times since you posed these questions to him, and and far as I can tell he hasn't attempted to answer any of them. Perhaps he isn't interested in a serious debate?

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
ThinkofOne has posted four times since you posed these questions to him, and and far as I can tell he hasn't attempted to answer any of them. Perhaps he isn't interested in a serious debate?

The thought had crossed my mind. I 'm a patient guy though. He'll come round. The grace of God is with him.

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 to love me but later on in life I felt grateful and appreciated them more.

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.

Has something happened to you recently? Like, did you split your head open and let all your reasoning abilities spill out? This has absolutely nothing to do with your initial argument. Your initial argument was about grace, not gratitude (and it was supposedly about 'grace' in the context of the age-old debate). You can put together some reasons if you like about why, supposing god created us, we ought to be grateful; but what's that got to do with the age-old debate?

I cannot believe I have to repeat myself so many times. Look, you put forth an argument that basically went like this: you basically said that salvation by grace is inescapable because even for the person who holds that salvation can be merited, they would still be reliant on god's holding up his end of the bargain. Now, how is it possible that you still do not comprehend my objection? How is it possible that you still don't understand that GRACE (in the context of the age-old debate) doesn't come about through one's making good on his obligations? In the context of the age-old debate, grace is about freely (and that also means unbound by obligation) giving that which is unmerited.

It's totally an aside, but in the same context I'm also not moved by your blathering about god's creating us as an act of "grace". When he intiated creation, he was not giving anything that was merited or unmerited because no actual recipients existed. So in the current context of "grace": big deal. That doesn't mean I don't think you could make some case concerning gratitude, but that's another matter.

Beyond that, you're changing your argument as you go. Now, your argument is that salvation through self-righteousness is undermined because the stuff of righteousness ultimately comes from god: "It would be like the sea offering water back to the river and thinking that the water belonged to the sea.!!!" Again, I don't see why anyone should take this argument seriously either, considering that you are just ignoring what merit and desert may lie in proximate sources. Your argument would be like my stating that my brother cannot claim any credit for painting his house because I gave him the paintbrush and paint; relatedly, MLK is deserving of no credit for inspiring many through his words because god is the one who gave him vocal cords.

Christianity is about giving gratitude for that which we once took for granted.

As if.

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
ThinkofOne has posted four times since you posed these questions to him, and and far as I can tell he hasn't attempted to answer any of them. Perhaps he isn't interested in a serious debate?

You'd be correct. I'm interested in KM refraining from misrepresenting my position and better yet, refraining from posting about me at all. I'd have thought that that would have been evident from my posts.

Also, like I said earlier:
"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?"

I think LJ is experiencing the above first-hand.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]
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.

Has something happened to you recently? Like, did you split your head open and let all your reasoning abilities ...[text shortened]... ut giving gratitude for that which we once took for granted.[/b]

As if.[/b]

When he intiated creation, he was not giving anything that was merited or unmerited because no actual recipients existed.--lemon------

So if you believed in God you would not be grateful he created you? Curious.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You'd be correct. I'm interested in KM refraining from misrepresenting my position and better yet, refraining from posting about me at all. I'd have thought that that would have been evident from my posts.

Also, like I said earlier:
"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 us ...[text shortened]... to you, so why should anyone bother?"

I think LJ is experiencing the above first-hand.

How can I misrepresent/represent your position when you won't tell anyone explicitly what it is?

Unless you specifially clarify what you believe then you are leaving yourself open to misunderstandings and educated guesses.

Why do you blame others for what you have indirectly created? I have asked you from the beginning to clarify , you declined. I asked you to clarify again , you declined again. So I made some guesses , you declined. I tried to draw it out of you , you declined and then said I was a distorter.

It makes me wonder under what conditions you would actually answer a question. Maybe when that question was less challenging maybe?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]
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.

Has something happened to you recently? Like, did you split your head open and let all your reasoning abilities ut giving gratitude for that which we once took for granted.[/b]

As if.[/b]

Look, you put forth an argument that basically went like this: you basically said that salvation by grace is inescapable because even for the person who holds that salvation can be merited, they would still be reliant on god's holding up his end of the bargain. -------------------------------------------lemon---------------------------------------

Let me clarify here. Salvation is merited through grace. The man who hands his life over to the work of God's grace in him has merited salvation. He has agreed to become what St Paul called a "co-creator" with God. And that's no easy thing. It's still on merit but the mistake is to think it's not an act of grace. So when a man makes a change in his heart what is really happening is he is responding (via a choice) to God's call to make him more holy. This is accredited to him of course , but it always starts with grace and cannot be completed without grace because it's really God making that change in him with the man as a willing participant.

The man (a) who says "look at how righteous I am , I must surely merit salvation because I am more righteous than that other man" is not on the right path. The man (b) who says "look at what God has done in me and how he has changed me via his grace" is well on the way even if his righteousness is nowhere near man (a)'s level because he recognises where the main credit really belongs. His merit lies in his surrender to grace and not his own self righteousness.That's why Jesus spent all his time with the unrighteous sinners and those who were considered low life and shunned the self- righteous scribes who looked down on him for doing so and thought they could earn salvation by keeping the law.

Grace is inescapable because the power to become holy is supplied by God. Nothing we can do on our own will compare or match up. Salvation by grace means that the Holy Spirit enters that person (through faith) and his life is handed over to God. In that moment God takes control of that person's life .

He places a seed in that person via grace so that from that point he is going to make sure he reaches salvation ("The bruised reed he will not crush , the smouldering wick he will not put out until he has brought the last of these to glory" ). This is why salvation is assured because God is faithful and will see the job through. If that person goes astray he will make life very difficult and convict them.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Look, you put forth an argument that basically went like this: you basically said that salvation by grace is inescapable because even for the person who holds that salvation can be merited, they would still be reliant on god's holding up his end of the bargain. -------------------------------------------lemon---------------------------------------

L ...[text shortened]... If that person goes astray he will make life very difficult and convict them.

Let me clarify here. Salvation is merited through grace.

And how is this clarification not simply contradictory in the context of the age-old debate?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Let me clarify here. Salvation is merited through grace.

And how is this clarification not simply contradictory in the context of the age-old debate?[/b]

It's not contradictory because it melds the two together. It's only the works crowd who think there is a dichotomy. We don't.


One gains/merits salvation via a righteousness received through grace. It's about surrendering rather than "trying". Our attempts to do good and love others only works under grace if God helps us to love.

Originally posted by knightmeister
It's not contradictory because it melds the two together. It's only the works crowd who think there is a dichotomy. We don't.


One gains/merits salvation via a righteousness received through grace. It's about surrendering rather than "trying". Our attempts to do good and love others only works under grace if God helps us to love.

So your great solution is that salvation is merited in virtue of the salvation's being granted through a process that supposedly only grants that which is unmerited. Sounds to me that you haven't licked the age-old debate: rather you have only employed some seriously impaired logic.

Originally posted by LemonJello
So your great solution is that salvation is merited in virtue of the salvation's being granted through a process that supposedly only grants that which is unmerited. Sounds to me that you haven't licked the age-old debate: rather you have only employed some seriously impaired logic.

Let's just say that you lost something in the translation eh?

Look , it's about your state of heart and mind. As long as you think that God favours you or considers you more meriting of salvation than some other man because of YOUR so -called righteousness then you ahve the wrong idea about God.

That would be like a rain drop offering wetness back to the cloud and thinking the cloud should favour him because of it.

The goodness within you does not belong to you , consider it a permanent loan from God. What's the point in bargaining with something that's been given to you as if you are the very source?

However, if you recognise the source you can surrender to it and get some more of it. The merit before God is in the surrender.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Let's just say that you lost something in the translation eh?

Look , it's about your state of heart and mind. As long as you think that God favours you or considers you more meriting of salvation than some other man because of YOUR so -called righteousness then you ahve the wrong idea about God.

That would be like a rain drop offering wetness ba ...[text shortened]... e you can surrender to it and get some more of it. The merit before God is in the surrender.

Let's just say that you lost something in the translation eh?

I don't think so. Again, within the context of the age-old debate, I think what you stated is pretty clearly contradictory. Oh well, must just be me, KM!!

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Let's just say that you lost something in the translation eh?

I don't think so. Again, within the context of the age-old debate, I think what you stated is pretty clearly contradictory. Oh well, must just be me, KM!!

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.[/b]

The fact that you perceive it as contradictory says more about the dichotomy within you than it does about my argument.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The fact that you perceive it as contradictory says more about the dichotomy within you than it does about my argument.

Grace is something offered without being merited. Or else, one is really talking about an exchange, a transaction.

To say that something (e.g., salvation) is “merited through grace” is just to say that it is merited through that which is not merited. To say that the means of receiving grace are also given by grace just adds an epicycle—to which another could be added, and another, ad infinitum, without adding any more meaning.

I can imagine someone speaking in such terms for poetic effect, or as an attempt at the kind of deliberate use of paradox to negate anything that might be construed as an addition to grace. But, straightforwardly, salvation strictly sola gratia involves no “merit” of any kind—by thought, word or deed; by belief or unbelief; by obedience or disobedience. Saying that any of these are also given by grace does not change that.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The fact that you perceive it as contradictory says more about the dichotomy within you than it does about my argument.

Pffft. Nice try.