The Gospel of UR: What's the message?

Saint Steven said:

Why did Jesus die if salvation is conditional? (we can earn it)

Click to expand...

So, we could access salvation? I don't really get the question.

Saint Steven said:

That's not how the new covenant works.

Hebrews 6:13 NIV
When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself,

Romans 4:16 NIV
Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

Click to expand...

Steven, you can't just slap down two verses and walk away as IF they self-evidently deliver some kind of absolute answer. They don't.

(By the way, I have been slowly reading your e-book link....it's going to take some time ... )

2PhiloVoid said:

Steven, you can't just slap down two verses and walk away as IF they self-evidently deliver some kind of absolute answer. They don't.

(By the way, I have been slowly reading your e-book link....it's going to take some time ... )

Click to expand...

While you're at it you need to read Definitive Proof of Universalism by Professor Dr. Hendrick Von Hassenpfeffer PhD, MrF, RFd, jpL, QFD, SPQR

You'll be starting with volume 1

Clare73 said:

Great!

May I use it sometime?

Click to expand...

Lol! It's just an analogy, but if you think it's useful, then be my guest in using it.

It's basically just humanism and fellowship. . .

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know that I'd say that. The problem, I think, is that there's likely a lot that is claimed to be "of the Holy Spirit" that isn't. Whether those things that some Christians do in their respective churches qualifies as either "humanism" or "fellowship" would have to be identified and evaluated on a case by case basis. I try not to lump these things together all in one fell swoop.

MMXX said:

While you're at it you need to read Definitive Proof of Universalism by Professor Dr. Hendrick Von Hassenpfeffer PhD, MrF, RFd, jpL, QFD, SPQR

You'll be starting with volume 1

Click to expand...

.... ok. "Definitive Proof"! Just what I, the Existentialist, needs!

2PhiloVoid said:

Lol! It's just an analogy, but if you think it's useful, then be my guest in using it.

Well, I don't know that I'd say that. The problem, I think, is that there's likely a lot that is claimed to be "of the Holy Spirit" that isn't. Whether those things that some Christians do in their respective churches qualifies as either "humanism" or "fellowship" would have to be identified and evaluated on a case by case basis.

Click to expand...

I try not to lump these things together all in one fell swoop.

Click to expand...

But it's so much simpler that way!

I like your "car wreck" avatar.

Saint Steven said:

Why did Jesus die if salvation is conditional? (we can earn it)

Click to expand...

I suspect we are talking about conditional vs. automatic by natural birth.
The NT denies such.

"Conditional" then would be faith, which is not a work/performance.

2PhiloVoid said:

Steven, you can't just slap down two verses and walk away as IF they self-evidently deliver some kind of absolute answer. They don't.

(By the way, I have been slowly reading your e-book link....it's going to take some time ... )

Click to expand...

He may be indicating unilateral vs. bilateral covenant.
You referred to the covenant as bilateral, whereas the new covenant is unilateral, hence "that's (bilateral) not how it works."

Clare73 said:

He may be indicating unilateral vs. bilateral covenant.
You referred to the covenant as bilateral, whereas the new covenant is unilateral, hence "that's (bilateral) not how it works."

Click to expand...

In my understanding, all covenants in the bible are Bi-lateral, even if it's God who has the Senior and Sovereign position, we the junior position of subject. We have to respond to God through Christ by faith ... and faith isn't a 'passive' concept in the New Testament.

... but somehow, so many seem to interpret "faith" in this vain.

2PhiloVoid said:

. . .all covenants in the bible are Bi-lateral, even if it's God who has the Senior and Sovereign position, we the junior position of subject. We have to respond to God through Christ by faith ... and faith isn't a 'passive' concept in the New Testament.

... but somehow, so many seem to interpret "faith" in this vain.

Click to expand...

Now you're in my wheelhouse.

Faith itself is not performance of works, it's a mind and heart set, to belief and trust.

Faith simply admits you into the covenant, in which no performance is required to receive the promise, as in the unilateral Abrahamic covenant of the land grant, Canaan, and the unilateral New Covenant of remission of sin and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty," declared righteous (imputed/credited, as with Abraham, Romans 4:3, not imparted).

Saint Steven said:

Salvation is something God did for us. We can't do that for ourselves. Only God can save us, and he did.

Click to expand...

No we don't save ourselves obviously. But nowhere does scripture say God unconditionally saves.
If he already saved everyone, everyone on earth would already be a Jesus follower.

Clare73 said:

Now you're in my wheel house.

Faith itself is not performance of works, it's a mind and heart set.

Faith simply admits you into the covenant, in which no performance is required to receive the promise, as in the unilateral Abrahamic covenant of the land grant, Canaan, and the unilateral New Covenant.

Click to expand...

Faith does respond AND it performs. Period. There is no such thing as a "passive faith." Asserting that faith is passive comes out of what is essentially a poor excuse for any kind of real exegesis of the Bible.

(I hate to say it like that, but since everyone else seems to be doing the "just so because I say it's so, and if you don't look out I'll post a bible verse" tactic--------------then so can I.

The difference is, I'll post the entire biblical document (typically, it ends up being the letter to the Romans, doesn't it?), and not just a 'singular' verse or two of it.

2PhiloVoid said:

Faith does respond AND it performs. Period. There is no such thing as a "passive faith." Asserting that faith is passive comes out of what is essentially a poor excuse for any kind of real exegesis of the Bible.

Click to expand...

Passive is your word. . .and a strawman.

You do know, right, that Paul makes a clear distinction, when it comes to salvation and justification, between faith itself and faith's works (Romans 4:1-3, Romans 4:5, Romans 3:21, Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16, Galatians 3:11, Ephesians 2:8-9), while exhorting to faith's works in the process of sanctification (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19, Romans 6:22)?

If you wish to discuss what you think alters the meaning I am presenting, we can do that.

(I hate to say it like that, but since everyone else seems to be doing the "just so because I say it's so, and if you don't look out I'll post a bible verse" tactic--------------then so can I.

The difference is, I'll post the entire biblical document (typically, it ends up being the letter to the Romans, doesn't it?), and not just a 'singular' verse or two of it.

Click to expand...

No problem. . .just because it's you.

public hermit said:

It seems the proponent of ECT has to explain God's love; whereas, if UR obtains, God's love operates as one would expect it to operate.

Click to expand...

It's not so much that the gospel message loses something with UR, it's quite the opposite. All we really need to know is if it's true, but that has not been given.

Click to expand...

And that in itself is all we need to know. . .if it hasn't been given that it's true, then why are we even proposing it, particularly when it is in opposition to much in the NT?

In addition, in light of the revelation that

1) faith is a gift (Philippians 1:29; Acts 13:48, Acts 18:27; 2 Peter 1:1; Romans 12:3),
2) that man has no more to do with his (spiritual) rebirth than he did with his (physical) birth; i.e., that it is all a work of God,

then UR makes no sense.
When it's all God's work in the first place, why put any through the agony of fire, why not do the work in everyone in this lifetime?

UR doesn't have a leg to stand on.

The tradition has fostered a sense of certainty where none should exist, except for those who know God. Love will always know God (1 John 4:8).

Click to expand...

Tradition? . . .the word of God is much more than tradition.

Likewise, sense of security is irrelevant to outcome.
Lack of security does not facilitate faith, nor does sense of security dimenish the obedience of true faith.
Genuine faith is salvific, counterfeit faith is not, regardless of any security.

None of any of that matters. . .it's all just vain imaginings.

.

2PhiloVoid said:

In my understanding, all covenants in the bible are Bi-lateral, even if it's God who has the Senior and Sovereign position, we the junior position of subject. We have to respond to God through Christ by faith ... and faith isn't a 'passive' concept in the New Testament.

... but somehow, so many seem to interpret "faith" in this vain.

Click to expand...

Speaking of wheelhouse. . .

Think about this. . .hermeneutics supposes that the "when, where, what and why" of a text will give you the writer's meaning.

Actually, it is the writer's mind that gives you the writer's meaning. Familiarity with Paul's mind is what gives you the meaning of what he is saying everywhere on an issue, no matter the when, where, what or why of the text.

For example, familiarity with Paul's mind gives you the meaning of saving faith, justification, credited righteousness, sanctification's righteousness, works, law, reconciliation, peace, the body of Christ, the church, sin, condemnation, fallen nature, etc., etc., etc. wherever Paul discusses it.

And familiarity with Paul's mind is simply the result of studying Scripture.

Too much of the hermeneutics argument goes to making the meaning of Scripture unknowable (BSD), which suggests an agenda.
Seems to be about usurping authority over Scripture.

Clare73 said:

Speaking of wheelhouse. . .

Think about this. . .hermeneutics supposes that the "what, where, when and how" of a text will give you the writer's meaning.

Click to expand...

No, that's not what Hermeneutics is, Clare. It's a WHOLE LOT MORE than that ...

...it's probably best for you to stop there since at this point, with each syllable you decide to spit out on the keyboard, it will show that you're out of your zone of knowledge. You're confusing Hermeneutics with Exegesis, and there are different forms and theories of each of these.

Actually, it is the writer's mind that gives you the writer's meaning. Familiarity with Paul's mind is what gives you the meaning of what he is saying everywhere on an issue, no matter what, where, when or how of the text.

Click to expand...

... sort of. In communication theory, when we handle a message, we don't know all of the writer's mind since we can't be there in the time and place of the writer in order to observe their lives, hear additional thoughts spoken that aren't included in their writings or ask him question for clarifiication. So, to assert what you're asserting here is a bit of balderdash.

I'd suggest that before you continue, you actually get firmly familiar with what Hermeneutics, Exegesis and Communication Theory are since they take place at some level at all times, whether on a high level or a low level, in all human interaction. Otherwise, you'll just be embarrassing yourself.

For example, familiarity with Paul's mind gives you the meaning of saving faith, justification, credited righteousness, sanctification's righteousness, works, law, reconciliation, peace, the body of Christ, the church, sin, condemnation, fallen nature, etc., etc., etc. wherever Paul discusses it.

Click to expand...

Actually, those are topics within the corpus of the extant writings that we have from Paul. In order to become familiar with 'Paul's contents,' this REQUIRES that we can accurately access and understand what he wrote. The problem is that Paul is dead and has been for 2,000 years; we can ONLY read (through English translation) his written topics and to read these letters alone is not to 'know' Paul's full mind.

And familiarity with Paul's mind is simply the result of studying Scripture.

Click to expand...

No, it actually isn't "simply" a result of studying Scripture. To say this like you do--- and I've heard it before elsewhere ---is a highly pretentious position to take and not one that I'd advise anyone to just 'easily' assume.

Personally, I won't put up with it.

Too much of the hermeneutics argument goes to making the meaning of Scripture unknowable (BSD), which suggests an agenda. Seems to be about authority over Scripture.

Click to expand...

No, the only BS is that which exists when people who claim to be Christian and led by the Holy Spirit are utterly irresponsible with reading Scriptures and somehow "magically" come to the conclusion that they can just slap down bits and pieces of disconnected Scripture as they fit together disconnected verses and then follow that up by 'believing' they've actually asserted something on God's behalf by having done so.

No, it's not that easy, and no one should be saying that it's as easy as flapping open the Bible and flicking this, that or the other bit or piece of Scripture to make some point. That's not how communication works, and just because some of the writers in the New Testament seem to sporadically spot Scripture (as in the issue of the New Testament writer's use of the Old Testament) doesn't mean we can just assume we can do the same thing they have, especially not because we 'think' we feel some spurious move of the Holy Spirit.