Do believers have goodness apart from God?

[fhansen]

She was well dead by the time Christ was crucified. And it was a death of judgement because of her wickedness.

Many people we're dead before Christ's advent, The grace of the cross is infinite in its extent. Anyone in heaven is there due to the merits of Christ's sacrifice at the end of the day. And we don't know the ultimate fate of anyone, even Judas. That's God's province, who knows and judges by the heart.

 

[Hammster]

Many people we're dead before Christ's advent, The grace of the cross is infinite in its extent. Anyone in heaven is there due to the merits of Christ's sacrifice at the end of the day. And we don't know the ultimate fate of anyone, even Judas. That's God's province, who knows and judges by the heart.

That’s not true, but your theology plays fast and loose with the facts, so there’s no point in continuing. You just keep believing that Jesus is wooing Jezebel.

 

[fhansen]

That’s not true, but your theology plays fast and loose with the facts, so there’s no point in continuing. You just keep believing that Jesus is wooing Jezebel.

I'm saying that all means all, that all have the opportunity to turn to God, that none have excuse not to.

 

[Hammster]

I'm saying that all means all, that all have the opportunity to turn to God, that none have excuse not to.

Yes, all does mean all. But draw doesn’t mean woo.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, all does mean all. But draw doesn’t mean woo.

You’re being obstinate. In the current election candidates are, as we speak, drawing everyone to themselves. Neither will succeed. That usage fits perfectly with the definition of the word even though some have fabricated a one-way usage that insists otherwise. And you say all means only some. For that matter, Rom 1 tells us that creation, itself, God's handiwork, should be enough to turn all men to Him.

 

[Hammster]

You’re being obstinate. In the current election candidates are, as we speak, drawing everyone to themselves. Neither will succeed. That usage fits perfectly with the definition of the word even though some have fabricated a one-way usage that insists otherwise. And you say all means only some. For that matter Rom 1 tells us that creation, itself, God's handiwork, should be enough to turn all men to Him.

i understand what you are saying. You are using draw as in attraction. Unfortunately, that’s not the definition of the word in scripture anywhere. You continue to force your definition into the word. I don’t understand why you don’t see that as a problem.

 

[fhansen]

i understand what you are saying. You are using draw as in attraction. Unfortunately, that’s not the definition of the word in scripture anywhere. You continue to force your definition into the word. I don’t understand why you don’t see that as a problem.

Because the word simply means-and can be used-essentially the same as our word "draw" in English-and it's only some theological bias that would insist otherwise.

 

[Hammster]

Because the word simply means-and can be used-essentially the same as our word "draw" in English-and it's only some theological bias that would insist otherwise.

No, it cannot. It’s not a theological bias. It’s the actual Greek language. You cannot find a definition anywhere that defines it the way you want to.

 

[fhansen]

No, it cannot. It’s not a theological bias. It’s the actual Greek language. You cannot find a definition anywhere that defines it the way you want to.

Nah, its biased.

Part of the problem here is due to some significant differences in our understanding and definition of what salvation is, of what God’s plan and purpose for man consists of. In the ancient churches, with, perhaps, the East teaching this best, man is meant to embark on a journey, with God, that causes man to begin to be who he was created to be, increasingly like Him. This takes place after man has first alienated himself from God, with all that entails. But God’s overall plan is to produce something, something much better than He began with, out of man, His masterpiece, the crown jewel of His creation, a being made in His own image and created for great dignity even if he so often tramples upon that in his fallen state.

The basic human material is good, since God created it. Salvation isn’t just a matter of saving some of His bad, worthless, undeserving sinful wretches while damning the rest, but it’s about planting a seed and cultivating it and bringing it to full fruition, to the purpose it was intended for. And in order to bring about the highest level of “value” in man, man must be on board with the program; he must participate in this righteous work of God’s. If I haven’t said it in this thread already, man is like a flower who wouldn’t know how to orchestrate his own blossoming, but who can nonetheless thwart it, due to the free will God granted to man. And this thwarting began in Eden. Adam didn’t just think he had free will, he had it and used it, wrongly; sin or disobedience would be impossible without it. And the only reason for ever having this freedom to begin with is so that man might finally come to choose rightly.

And that choosing means to move nearer to God rather than farther from Him. And this nearness to Him, meaning to love Him with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength to put it another way, is the essence, the basis, and the very source of man’s righteousness or justice. With that love Adam would’ve obeyed naturally, spontaneously-but humanity apparently wasn’t ready for that yet. And faith, with God drawing us into it by His grace, is the first baby-step on this journey back to Him, ultimately to full union as we become increasingly aligned with Him in will. And until then, we can always fall back away.

We’re here to come to know and to value God and His love, and the more we do so the more completely we embrace it-and then He gives us even more, grace moving on to more grace yet. He doesn’t dismiss our willingness, rather He covets and coaxes it out of us, and builds upon it. Anyway, this is a quite different concept than what many Christian traditions believe and teach.

 

[Hammster]

Nah, its biased.

Part of the problem here is due to some significant differences in our understanding and definition of what salvation is, of what God’s plan and purpose for man consists of. In the ancient churches, with, perhaps, the East teaching this best, man is meant to embark on a journey, with God, that causes man to begin to be who he was created to be, increasingly like Him. This takes place after man has first alienated himself from God, with all that entails. But God’s overall plan is to produce something, something much better than He began with, out of man, His masterpiece, the crown jewel of His creation, a being made in His own image and created for great dignity even if he so often tramples upon that in his fallen state.

The basic human material is good, since God created it. Salvation isn’t just a matter of saving some of His bad, worthless, undeserving sinful wretches while damning the rest, but it’s about planting a seed and cultivating it and bringing it to full fruition, to the purpose it was intended for. And in order to bring about the highest level of “value” in man, man must be on board with the program; he must participate in this righteous work of God’s. If I haven’t said it in this thread already, man is like a flower who wouldn’t know how to orchestrate his own blossoming, but who can nonetheless thwart it, due to the free will God granted to man. And this thwarting began in Eden. Adam didn’t just think he had free will, he had it and used it, wrongly; sin or disobedience would be impossible without it. And the only reason for ever having this freedom to begin with is so that man might finally come to choose rightly.

And that choosing means to move nearer to God rather than farther from Him. And this nearness to Him, meaning to love Him with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength to put it another way, is the essence, the basis, and the very source of man’s righteousness or justice. With that love Adam would’ve obeyed naturally, spontaneously-but humanity apparently wasn’t ready for that yet. And faith, with God drawing us into it by His grace, is the first baby-step on this journey back to Him, ultimately to full union as we become increasingly aligned with Him in will. And until then, we can always fall back away.

We’re here to come to know and to value God and His love, and the more we do so the more completely we embrace it-and then He gives us even more, grace moving on to more grace yet. He doesn’t dismiss our willingness, rather He covets and coaxes it out of us. Anyway, this is a quite different concept than what many Christian traditions believe and teach.

And all of that does nothing to change the definition of hello. You have see that you are engaging in eisegesis.

 

[fhansen]

And all of that does nothing to change the definition of hello. You have see that you are engaging in eisegesis.

All of that, those differences, has to do with why you're changing the definition or insisting on a specific usage of the word. Otherwise you wouldn't bother

 

[Hammster]

All of that, those differences, has to do with why you're changing the definition or insisting on a specific usage of the word. Otherwise you wouldn't bother

I have not changed the definition. You are projecting. If you would like, I can repost the definition from various sources.

 

[fhansen]

I have not changed the definition. You are projecting. If you would like, I can repost the definition from various sources.

The definition is the same as it would be in the English definition of draw. And my usage, again, is perfectly in line with that, as it is for many other people of various denominations. You can insist on having the only possible usage but it's wishful thinking.

And now that we've beat this horse sufficiently, I think we should move on. We've sort of strayed from the OP anyway. You may have to wait till the next life to be corrected . Good things are often worth the wait though.

 

[Hammster]

The definition is the same as it would be in the English definition of draw.

That’s not true. But since you don’t want to see the evidence, then we are at an impasse.

 

[fhansen]

That’s not true. But since you don’t want to see the evidence, then we are at an impasse.

Yes, possibly an impassible impasse. And yet, I figure that someday, decades from now in another place, we may well meet and one of us will have gained the privilege to shake their finger and say, "See, I told you so." Except that it won't matter by then .

Meanwhile, thanks again for another engaging while sometimes frustrating and always reasonably civil conversation.