Grace (and/or) Belief/Faith (and/or) Works?

[POI]

Seems there exists an unresolved topic amongst Christians... Seems as though the way to salvation is not unified among the many in which I engage. I'd wager they all have a case to support their position(s).?.?

For debate: How does one get to Heaven? What is God's criteria for His selection process? Is it by grace alone, belief/faith alone, works alone; or it is a combination of the three? Or is it maybe other? Please, not only present your case, but please also explain why the other asserted methods are incorrect.

[boatsnguitars]

But, of course, you must decide which is literal, figurative, etc... And, of course, it's up to how you feel about a passage, and all that. Or, if you use a certain translation.

Bible explains what it means, it should not depend on what reader feels. And, the correct translation can be seen when one doesn't ignore the context.

You missed this part:
That's why there aren't debates, especially among Christians, especially scholars, but really from anyone in the world. There are no sects or denominations. It's just one, solid, happy family of understanding and agreement on all the passages of the Bible.

Or so 1213 would like us to believe.


edit: What is particularly interesting is that 1213 can go to the "Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma" section of the forum and be free of atheist comments. It's pretty much only Christians - so, you'd think there would be only one thread: "Isn't It Great How We All Agree!?"
But, no, it's chock full of debates and arguments about what the Bible says.

Why doesn't 1213 just go there and tell everyone what's what? Give us the 1213 Translation of the NT and end all the strife!

[POI]

It's unclear because you and I interpret the word "righteousness' differently, when using the Bible to do so. Case/point, I refer to Romans 3 and 4 which tells us 'righteousness' is merely synonymous with the term faith.

Is there some good reason to interpret it poorly?

Thus, the verse you provided tells us believers are saved, unbelievers aren't, which would elude to answer B). Your alternative interpretation of the term 'righteousness' will lead you to believe either C) or D). And this is not even examining the rest, about "eternal punishment." I mean, does this mean unbelievers go to a literal hell, or not? SO much to unpack, even if this WAS the verse which tells you so.

Bible gives no reason to think faith and belief are the same.

I've told you, at ten five times, why it does. Romans 3 and the first part of Romans 4 explains why. You merely hand wave it away, again.

In Bible the eternal punishment is the eternal fire lake, which is called also hell. And about it we can know that soul and body is destroyed there and that it burns forever. And it is for those who are not righteous.

Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna [also translated hell].
Matt. 10:28

So "the soul" suffers eternally?

[1213]

It's unclear because you and I interpret the word "righteousness' differently, when using the Bible to do so. Case/point, I refer to Romans 3 and 4 which tells us 'righteousness' is merely synonymous with the term faith.

Is there some good reason to interpret it poorly?

Thus, the verse you provided tells us believers are saved, unbelievers aren't, which would elude to answer B). Your alternative interpretation of the term 'righteousness' will lead you to believe either C) or D). And this is not even examining the rest, about "eternal punishment." I mean, does this mean unbelievers go to a literal hell, or not? SO much to unpack, even if this WAS the verse which tells you so.

Bible gives no reason to think faith and belief are the same.

I've told you, at ten five times, why it does. Romans 3 and the first part of Romans 4 explains why. You merely hand wave it away, again.

Sorry, I don't think Romans 3-4 supports your idea.

So "the soul" suffers eternally?

What says Bible?

If one is utterly destroyed, I don't think he can feel anything and therefore can't have any pain.

[1213]

The first (we have done this before- I thought we had) is a miserable excuse. Because Jesus is dead (you don't think he is in heaven wanting you to follow him?) you are excused from doing as he says? Are we then excused from doing what he had the followers do when he was on earth?

Your claim could be somehow true, if Jesus would be on earth, but when he is not, it is irrational to say it is about denial, if someone doesn't do a thing that is not possible at the moment.

that the Bible says is not what it means. That is precicely what you did 'This actually means That'.

Your interpretation is not the same as what the Bible tells.

And the Bible means what it says? That daylight was before the sun was created? I know we have done this and you tried to say that day and night was a Cosmic light which is not what the Bible says.

Bible means what it says, there was a light before the sun. I don't claim it is the same as what nowadays can be seen as cosmic background radiation, but maybe it could be the same. My point is, it is possible that there was some other light than the sun. What it was, I don't know. But neither can you prove that only possible light is the sun.

[POI]

Sorry, I don't think Romans 3-4 supports your idea.

And as I've told you many times now, 'nuh-uh' is not a valid way to refute your opponent's response in a debate. You instead need to explain why <faith> is not synonymous with <faith>, as stated in Romans 3 and the first part of Romans 4. I've already explains, repeatedly, why Romans does link the two terms.

If one is utterly destroyed, I don't think he can feel anything and therefore can't have any pain.

Then the idea of eternal torment is false.

[Tulipbee]

[TRANSPONDER]

The first (we have done this before- I thought we had) is a miserable excuse. Because Jesus is dead (you don't think he is in heaven wanting you to follow him?) you are excused from doing as he says? Are we then excused from doing what he had the followers do when he was on earth?

Your claim could be somehow true, if Jesus would be on earth, but when he is not, it is irrational to say it is about denial, if someone doesn't do a thing that is not possible at the moment.

that the Bible says is not what it means. That is precicely what you did 'This actually means That'.

Your interpretation is not the same as what the Bible tells.

And the Bible means what it says? That daylight was before the sun was created? I know we have done this and you tried to say that day and night was a Cosmic light which is not what the Bible says.

Bible means what it says, there was a light before the sun. I don't claim it is the same as what nowadays can be seen as cosmic background radiation, but maybe it could be the same. My point is, it is possible that there was some other light than the sun. What it was, I don't know. But neither can you prove that only possible light is the sun.

Where does the Bible say 'You don't need to give your stuff to the poor and follow me after I'm dead"? It is denial of everything that the Bible implies with the disciples, apostles, saints and preachers carrying on giving up everything and following Jesus like he was still alive, right? Don't you see that if Jesus' death abrogates all that, it's a waste of time you being a Christian at all?

You give yourself away. You interpret what the Bible says (day and night, morning and evening' iat Mean something else ( a cosmic light). Am I right or not that you not only interpret what the Bible says to suit yourself, but you make stuff up?

[TRANSPONDER]

Sorry, I don't think Romans 3-4 supports your idea.

And as I've told you many times now, 'nuh-uh' is not a valid way to refute your opponent's response in a debate. You instead need to explain why <faith> is not synonymous with <faith>, as stated in Romans 3 and the first part of Romans 4. I've already explains, repeatedly, why Romans does link the two terms.

If one is utterly destroyed, I don't think he can feel anything and therefore can't have any pain.

Then the idea of eternal torment is false.

Absolutely. But our pal is not alone in this - almost entirely Theist, creationists and Bible - apologists have supposed that they win their case, argument and claims if they just deny everything. Because they think their Belief (but not those of anyone who has a different Faith) is the default theory, and all they have to do is say "Nuh- uh" and the arguments are little more than denial.

And you are right. Unless there is some pain to be dished out after Life, then Christianity has nothing to offer. UR believers may escape the discomfort of the doctrine of Hellthreat, but they are left with nothing as a coercive lever. They may try to use the promise of heaven as a threat 'Separation, if you don't give all you have to the Church...I mean, the Poor...and follow Jesus through his elected authorities and vote the way they tell you' But separation from God would suit me just fine if it isn't torment, and if it is torment, one has bought into hellthreat again.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Tulipbee in post #586]

Thank you, Tulipbee (tulip honey takes some beating) and it seems to me pointless to have any argument about Faith, grace and Works. Paul (who invented Christianity) seems to make it clear to me. Faith gains the promise - or Hope at least; God gives no guarantees, nor honors them when they are given - like granting prayers - of salvation which is being "In Grace". Woks cannot do it, clearly not. But what it can do is stop backsliding into sin and thus losing Grace.

[Tulipbee]