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.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well I for one will pass over the partiality to the catholic view of the matter, and would say that frace, forgiveness, and the rest is merely religious - based faithclaims and is nothing valid to do with humanity, society and morals.

I'm sure you can explain very well the historical process of dogma and doctrine derived from the original religion, but my secularist take is that the original religion is doubtfully based on anything credibly divine, and various human cultural not to say cultic improvisations on that are irrelevant to what is actually true or indeed useful to humanity and society.

Cue protests. I don't care. Faithclaims (nevermind faithbased threats of retributions ) mean NOTHING to me and it is what on evidence and reason (epistemology) that persuades me of what is tru and what isn't. Religion, its' faithclaims, dogmas and hellthreats influence me no more than Beowilf, Troy or the Illiad.

Thanks for your post and input, and have a Lovely week

[1213]

...Unconditional grace (if forgiveness) shoule be unconditionally open to all. This medans we all get saved and there is no need for God, Jesus or Bible...

God is the one offering the forgiveness. You would not have it without God. Therefore it is irrational to say no need for God.

And again, forgiveness is not useful, if you continue in sin.

[TRANSPONDER]

...Unconditional grace (if forgiveness) shoule be unconditionally open to all. This medans we all get saved and there is no need for God, Jesus or Bible...

God is the one offering the forgiveness. You would not have it without God. Therefore it is irrational to say no need for God.

And again, forgiveness is not useful, if you continue in sin.

You are not seeing the point; if we are all forgiven Unconditionally, then even if as god (name your own) gave it, the religion or even belief in that god would not be necessary.

But you now say that there are Conditions, one must do good works or the Grace can be lost - which you may recall is just what I said id the doctrine that Paul had to revert to after he's supposed that Jesusfaith would make his Christians perfect little plaster saints, and he found out it didn't. Forgiveness implied in Grace (through Jesusfaith) could be lost by sinning. There are conditions.

[1213]

You are not seeing the point; if we are all forgiven Unconditionally, then even if as god (name your own) gave it, the religion or even belief in that god would not be necessary.

What is necessary is just a subjective opinion. But, why do you think all that matters is forgiveness? In Biblical point of view forgiveness is only a new beginning. To get eternal life, one must be righteous. And I think to understand what it means, Bible is a very good book.

But you now say that there are Conditions, one must do good works or the Grace can be lost - which you may recall is just what I said id the doctrine that Paul had to revert to after he's supposed that Jesusfaith would make his Christians perfect little plaster saints, and he found out it didn't. Forgiveness implied in Grace (through Jesusfaith) could be lost by sinning. There are conditions.

Forgiveness can be compared to washing a car. If you mess up your car again, it doesn't mean the earlier washing was lost, it means that you you have to wash it again, the new mess requires new cleaning. I believe God can forgive many times, but forgiveness is not useful, if person remains evil and unrighteous.

[TRANSPONDER]

You are not seeing the point; if we are all forgiven Unconditionally, then even if as god (name your own) gave it, the religion or even belief in that god would not be necessary.

What is necessary is just a subjective opinion. But, why do you think all that matters is forgiveness? In Biblical point of view forgiveness is only a new beginning. To get eternal life, one must be righteous. And I think to understand what it means, Bible is a very good book.

But you now say that there are Conditions, one must do good works or the Grace can be lost - which you may recall is just what I said id the doctrine that Paul had to revert to after he's supposed that Jesusfaith would make his Christians perfect little plaster saints, and he found out it didn't. Forgiveness implied in Grace (through Jesusfaith) could be lost by sinning. There are conditions.

Forgiveness can be compared to washing a car. If you mess up your car again, it doesn't mean the earlier washing was lost, it means that you you have to wash it again, the new mess requires new cleaning. I believe God can forgive many times, but forgiveness is not useful, if person remains evil and unrighteous.

Stop playing with words (1) . If what is necessary to be saved, it is necessary and is thus a condition. Subjectivity doesn't come into it. Forgiveness appears (you tell me if you think there is something else...pleasing God with grovelling and praise, perhaps) either given or earned, but man is sinful and is going to be damned. Getting around that law of sin - death requires that God lift it or be enabled to lift it by Jesus' sacrifice. That is what I mean by saying 'forgiven'.

The point is whether God just does it for all (UR) in which case it would work even if we never heard of God, Jesus or the Bible, or we have to be worthy, meet certain standards. Is it just Faith? Or does one have to come up to moral standard? If so, Grace is Conditional.

If it works another way, you tell me how and why it makes sense.

cue 'it makes sense to God' only proves that Christianity does not make sense and never really did OR you follow an incompetent monster, or you dismiss human logic as invalid. So is appeal to the Bible as a good moral guide. It is not. Maybe once...it was good enough for Jefferson, who owned slaves, but now it is inferior to human morals, that at last passed some human rights.

Over to you. And thanks for the analogy. I had a lot of fun working through that. You should try it some time. instead of tossing semantics fiddled at me to try to bamboozle your way out of it.

(1) which I like doing myself, but I mean don't use semantics to escape from a logical problem or doctrinal incoherence.

e.g and p.s the analogy of washing a car.. In the analogy, you want to enter your classic car in a rally. "It's filthy" Says the judge. "You can't enter it like that."

"I washed it yesterday" "That doesn't matter, it's filthy now". In the analogy, you got the car clean and it got dirty or it came dirty from the makers (born sinful). So you have to make it clean by good works or Faith? The judge, after a bribe or secret handshake (believing the right religion, or praising God) says 'That's clean enough', or you wash it (Repentance, fasting, prayer and a dollar in the tin). Washing off the car is not grace, grace is the condition of being clean enough to be admitted to the car show. Here the analogy breaks down as one can wash the car as often as needed (damage so bad it disqualifies the car for ever is Ted Haggard level damage) but intent of course ...the analogy breaks down (2) Grace is whether the car is clean or not, and washable dirt can be forgiven seven times seven, but opening up the boot and shoving a sack of garbage in there (let the reader understand O is maybe beyond forgiveness. Though Apparently only Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.

(2) foopnote because it gets messy. Point is, is that the car show is not forever, it is human nature that the car will need a clean again and it might be fun to flog the analogy to death, but the point is that Grace is not the quality of washing, but the quality of being adjudged clean enough to be judged in the show.

If any car, filthy or not is admitted to judging (they all get participation trophies and nobody actually wins) then grace is unconditional. Morals means nothing Faith means nothing. If it is a question of favor by the judge, that is Jesusfaith and is basically corrupt and immoral, but all religious thought is basically tribalistic, elitist and divisive.

[1213]

Stop playing with words (1)

Sorry, I can't do that, when you distort the issue by giving wrong meanings to the words.

Forgiveness appears (you tell me if you think there is something else...pleasing God with grovelling and praise, perhaps) either given or earned, but man is sinful and is going to be damned. Getting around that law of sin - death requires that God lift it or be enabled to lift it by Jesus' sacrifice. That is what I mean by saying 'forgiven'.

I like more what the Bible tells.

The point is whether God just does it for all (UR) in which case it would work even if we never heard of God, Jesus or the Bible, or we have to be worthy, meet certain standards. Is it just Faith? Or does one have to come up to moral standard? If so, Grace is Conditional.

Yes, the forgiveness works, even if people would not hear about it. The problem is in what should happen after forgiveness. As it is said in the Bible, people must be righteous to get eternal life. Therefore, if one is not righteous, there should happen a change, as Jesus said and people should sin no more:

… "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way. From now on, sin no more."
John 8:11
...That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Don’t marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew.’
John 3:3-7
But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to be-come God’s children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13

The reason why it is important to teach what Jesus said is that by his words there can happen the change in person so that he becomes righteous.

It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.
John 6:63

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to 1213 in post #936]


Is that going to work, at all? Who does 'sin no more?' I get that Jesus' sacrifice gets over the Original sin - death (but only if one believes in Jesus, I gather is the doctrine - if not, what was the point of it at all?) but Paul made the mistake of thinking that Jesusfaith would make all his converts unable to sin. That didn't work and it does not.

Even your personal dogma that following the words or teaching of the Bible does not work. Who really becomes 'sinning no more?'

And let's look again at that playing with words. I can'r quite sure as you fiddle so much. I explained that forgiveness comes from God, not from the person earning it (by washing his car for instance -the judge decides to acept the car for show, the act of washing it is not the acceptance). Righteousness is a word you t really play with. And we go around in circles. If it is following God's words, you are missing out as Jesus added to the words to Abraham, and Muhammad added a new revelation to that.

And none of them look terribly Righteous to me. Not even the ones who are making an effort to be good (in my view Humanists understand and try to do that better) rather than using their faith as a pass card or secret handshake. It's the old problem of a not too righteous Christian being saved where a much better Hindu isn't.

Ok I gather you see all faiths (or none, perhaps ) as having an equal chance of being saved. But then, why do we need religion?

Ok again, you regard the Words as what makes us righteous, by admonition, not Faith. But I deny that. Human morals is better than Biblical, just in the example of slavery. No wonder you have to deny what the Bible actually says and replace it with what you would prefer it to say.

[POI]

My view is that salvation comes through a combination of God's grace, faith, and works. This view, known as synergism, has been the consistent teaching of the Church since its earliest days.

So, your answer is D)? (i.e.):

List of options:

A) Unconditional grace - (Jesus already did all the dirty work, everyone goes now since he had to die for all, as all fall short)
B) Faith/belief - (accept him as your savior, ask him for guidance, apply trust in him)
C) Works - (necessary additional acts or tasks in which Jesus also deems 'good')
D) Both B) and C)
E) No one goes, no one is worthy
F) Other, which does not already include the topics of B) and/or C)

But I understand why there's confusion. The Protestant Reformation, particularly Luther's emphasis on "sola fide" (faith alone), introduced a major divergence in Christian thought on this matter. As a historian, I can trace how this schism has led to the variety of perspectives you're encountering today.

The objective of this topic is to demonstrate that the Bible offers confusion on this topic. A case can be made for almost all positions listed. The author(s) of the Bible are the purveyors of confusion, as it relates to the topic of being saved.

Psychologically I find it fascinating how different individuals and groups interpret scripture and tradition to support their views. It speaks to our human need for certainty and our tendency to seek simple answers to complex questions.

In my view, the Catholic position offers the most comprehensive understanding of salvation. It recognizes God's primacy in the process (grace), our necessary response (faith), and the fruits of that faith (works). This holistic approach aligns with what I've observed in human behavior - our actions tend to flow from our beliefs, and our beliefs are shaped by our experiences of grace.

The "faith alone" position, while appealing in its simplicity, seems to downplay the importance of how faith manifests in our lives. Similarly, a "works alone" approach neglects the transformative power of grace and faith.

That said, I'm acutely aware that people's beliefs about salvation are often deeply rooted in their personal experiences, cultural background, and emotional needs. It's a sensitive topic that touches on our deepest hopes and fears.

What are your thoughts on this? I'd be interested to hear your perspective and experiences with this debate.

As stated above, almost all positions can be argued, with receipts. Meaning, to quote passages, in context, from the Bible. My thoughts are that this collection of books remains very haphazard on a topic which seems to be very important for the believer. Which is, how is one saved exactly?

[1213]

Is that going to work, at all? Who does 'sin no more?' I get that Jesus' sacrifice gets over the Original sin - death (but only if one believes in Jesus, I gather is the doctrine - if not, what was the point of it at all?) but Paul made the mistake of thinking that Jesusfaith would make all his converts unable to sin. That didn't work and it does not.

Even your personal dogma that following the words or teaching of the Bible does not work. Who really becomes 'sinning no more?'

Even if no one becomes 'sinning no more?', it is what Jesus tells should happen, people should not sin. But, maybe in this case it also depends greatly on how sin is defined. Because sin can be difficult to understand, I think it is better to go by understanding what righteous means. In Bible eternal life is promised only for righteous, and death is the wage of sin. So, sin and righteousness can be seen as opposites. Therefore it is enough to understand what it means to be righteous and be that.

Righteousness is a word you t really play with. And we go around in circles. If it is following God's words, you are missing out as Jesus added to the words to Abraham, and Muhammad added a new revelation to that.

Even if they added something, doesn't mean it is wrong automatically. I don't think Jesus added anything that goes against Abraham.

It's the old problem of a not too righteous Christian being saved where a much better Hindu isn't.

Again, what do you mean with saved? IF Hindu would like to be saved, wouldn't he want to be a Christian? If he remains a Hindu and doesn't want to be saved, why should he be saved against his will?

Ok I gather you see all faiths (or none, perhaps ) as having an equal chance of being saved. But then, why do we need religion?

I don't say we need religion. Religions seems to be about the same as any governments, means to get power for few people so that they can live on the expense of others.

Ok again, you regard the Words as what makes us righteous, by admonition, not Faith. But I deny that. Human morals is better than Biblical, just in the example of slavery. No wonder you have to deny what the Bible actually says and replace it with what you would prefer it to say.

By what I see, human morals are not good. A person with human morals is often a great hypocrite, claims to be against slavery, but still thinks it is ok to force others to pay taxes, which is essentially the same as slavery.

I have not denied anything Bible tells. Prove your accusation, or admit you are a liar.

[TRANSPONDER]

Is that going to work, at all? Who does 'sin no more?' I get that Jesus' sacrifice gets over the Original sin - death (but only if one believes in Jesus, I gather is the doctrine - if not, what was the point of it at all?) but Paul made the mistake of thinking that Jesusfaith would make all his converts unable to sin. That didn't work and it does not.

Even your personal dogma that following the words or teaching of the Bible does not work. Who really becomes 'sinning no more?'

Even if no one becomes 'sinning no more?', it is what Jesus tells should happen, people should not sin. But, maybe in this case it also depends greatly on how sin is defined. Because sin can be difficult to understand, I think it is better to go by understanding what righteous means. In Bible eternal life is promised only for righteous, and death is the wage of sin. So, sin and righteousness can be seen as opposites. Therefore it is enough to understand what it means to be righteous and be that.

Righteousness is a word you t really play with. And we go around in circles. If it is following God's words, you are missing out as Jesus added to the words to Abraham, and Muhammad added a new revelation to that.

Even if they added something, doesn't mean it is wrong automatically. I don't think Jesus added anything that goes against Abraham.

It's the old problem of a not too righteous Christian being saved where a much better Hindu isn't.

Again, what do you mean with saved? IF Hindu would like to be saved, wouldn't he want to be a Christian? If he remains a Hindu and doesn't want to be saved, why should he be saved against his will?

Ok I gather you see all faiths (or none, perhaps ) as having an equal chance of being saved. But then, why do we need religion?

I don't say we need religion. Religions seems to be about the same as any governments, means to get power for few people so that they can live on the expense of others.

Ok again, you regard the Words as what makes us righteous, by admonition, not Faith. But I deny that. Human morals is better than Biblical, just in the example of slavery. No wonder you have to deny what the Bible actually says and replace it with what you would prefer it to say.

By what I see, human morals are not good. A person with human morals is often a great hypocrite, claims to be against slavery, but still thinks it is ok to force others to pay taxes, which is essentially the same as slavery.

I have not denied anything Bible tells. Prove your accusation, or admit you are a liar.

Jesus Christ, you can't do it right for doing it wrong, can you? But it isn't your fault - it is religious faith that does it. Which I theorize is actually faith in ones' own Rightness, and using a religion political dogma or cult to validate it, and even then the Believer will leave, or diverge if they disagree with some doctrine, just as you have done, and still claim to be a Christian. (and you mods may hold the accusation of personals - this is against the thinking, not the person posting).

First bit (I wish i could take them bit by bit, but I got complaints about the quote method i used, so bless all your hearts) you are seeing that morality is not clear - cut and is problematical, but you ascribe it all to Jesus, just because it says 'play nice' which is what every other moralist, philosopher and parent says. You do it wrong by ascribing Jesus, God and the Bible any special cachet in morality.

Jesus didn't add anything? Took away more like. Sabbath doesn't matter. Clean food laws don't matter. It is a hoot and a give - away that the NT upends the OT, and we can see why - because Paul adapted the old religion to appeal to the gentiles. For this and many other reasons, the NT is not valid, reliable or credible. Not least as any moral guide.

Not least with your excuse of Bible slavery on the putrid grounds that paying our dues to society is somehow slavery. Dude, this a beef i have with Christianity - it tries (like Trump the chump remarkably) to make the life that is so much easier than evolution gave us look like a dogs' dinner so they (and he) can peddle the lies and false promises that get nothing but power to the cult.

At least we seem to be on the same page about religions, as a man - made creation to get power, money and authority. But the point with governments is historically, we need society to give us the paradisical life that you and the theists seem unable to understand, let alone appreciate, because they are misusing complaints (legitimate maybe) in the wrong way, to destroy what society we have in hopes to replace it (uncannily like what Trump plans to do) with with another that at least would claim to be Christian.

What more you got for us? Good grief, blatant assumption of Christianity being true. If Hinduism was true, wouldn't you want to be a Hindu? It is a question you have NEVER asked nor even considered because of Faith that your own religion (or your own one person version of it) is the right one.

You have denied that the Bible says the daylight was made before the sun was. True, you tried to make it mean something else, but it is still denial of what it plainly says.
You denied that the Bible endorses chattel slavery for foreign slaves. True, you tried to make it mean something else, but it is still denial.
You denied that the resurrection - accounts contradict, first with the 'marys split up' apologetic, and when that failed, chopping up and reassembling the text to make it work, which it didn't anyway.

And i suggest you don't accuse me of being a liar, even if it was true, which it is not, or you may be looking at a close up of the kerbstones, if the Mods are doing their job.