Actions

leftrightleftrightleft · Oct 27, 2011

Sophrosyne said:
As far as punishment sins do vary, would you think (if there was punishment in Hell as I believe) that a fair God would punish someone for stealing a piece of bubble gum the same as a mass murderer?

Is this opinion based on the Bible or is it just your own opinion of what happens in hell? From what I've read there doesn't seem to me much indication of "varying degrees of punishment" in Hell. It seems that Hell is Hell and that's about it.

Sophrosyne said:
Actually the effort is not necessarily little, as the struggle to believe and have the faith to honestly accept the gift of salvation can be very hard for some taking years to get to that point, but it is not in any sense a work that we do. It is essentially a choice of the heart. There are rewards in heaven for works that are done that are not related to attempting to earn salvation, but getting in the gates requires no works whatsoever.

I still see no functional distinction between a "work" and the act of "choosing to believe". Its something that you must "do" in order to enter the gates of heaven. If you must "do" something to enter heaven, then it is:
A) not unconditional
B) dependent on some action you must take

Whether that action is "choosing to believe in Jesus" or "praying five times a day" or "following the laws of the Torah" seem to be irrelevant. All are examples of "works" in that they are things you must "do" such that you receive a desired reward.

Sophrosyne said:
Again your issue is that you think salvation is unfair. It is a gift.

Keep going with that sentence: "It is a gift...which you are obligated to accept which results in eternal consequences".

This seems unfair. Pretend its your birthday and your dad say that he has a gift for you. If you take the gift from him, all is well. But if you refuse the gift, then you get sent to your room. How is this possibly fair? How does this possibly show love? If I saw a parent doing this I would think, "That parent has some serious issues. Just because the kid doesn't take the gift, the parent throws a fit and punishes the child? How ridiculous!"

Similarly, in our case, there are many people that do not find "God" or "Jesus" quite as tangible as a parent explicitly offering them a gift. So it becomes even more of a ridiculous analogy when the dad doesn't explicitly state that he is offering a gift to the child but rather offers the child a book with a fairly cryptic message open to interpretation and then when the child interprets it differently or doesn't understand it or misses the point of the book, the dad still throws a fit and punishes the child for not realizing that there was a gift in the first place!

Its an unfair premise and wholly ridiculous.

Salvation is unfair because:
A) you must accept it in order to benefit from it
B) you aren't told about it explicitly
C) if you don't accept it, there are eternal consequences.

Sophrosyne said:
wrong, you have two sons both guilty of crimes. Their father is the judge and issues both pardons. He hands them to both sons, one opens the envelope and accepts the pardon the other refuses his pardon and is punished instead.

This would be a good analogy if it could be agreed that both sons are given the exact same, tangible pardon rather than a cryptic, culturally-sensitive message open to varying interpretations.

Also you've totally changed the goal post on your analogy from "gift" to "pardon".

A gift implies something given out of love for the other person which shouldn't have consequences attached to it. I don't think you should ever be punished for not accepting a gift. If you are punished for not accepting a gift, then this implies that the person giving the gift really wasn't giving it out of selfless love at all. Again, I return to the example of the dad sending the child to his room for not accepting his gift. I could understand the dad being disappointed that the child did not take the gift because the dad so badly wanted to see the child's face light up with joy upon receiving it. But this doesn't follow that the dad would then opt to punish the child for not accepting it.

Pardon is a totally different idea than gift. A pardon is a judicial term that is not in any way related to love or compassion in my mind. A pardon also implies that punishment is involved in the situation far more than a gift does. In this respect, I like your pardon analogy better because at least it incorporates the idea of punishment more fairly into the situation. If one is guilty and is offered a pardon and refuses it, then it makes logical sense that this person should be punished.

However, while the judicial analogy makes more sense, I find that it is far less Biblical in that it neglects so much of what Jesus talks about. Jesus says God is Abba. Jesus says God is Loving. Paul says God is Love. Jesus says God will forgive you. Jesus says God is relational. I see very few instances of Jesus portraying God as judicial.

Sophrosyne said:
both sons are guilty of sin (a punishable crime to God in that sense)
all sins must be punished for (God is a God of perfect justice too).

So now we return to the fact that "all sins are equal" therefore "morality doesn't make a difference to your eternal well-being". Similarly, morality doesn't actually matter at all, because it has no consequences in the long term for anyone. Based on the above quote the only thing of consequence in your universe is whether you have performed one action: accepting Jesus Christ. All you should be doing as a Christian is converting people to Jesus. That's all you should be doing based on your above quotation.

Sophrosyne said:
your concept of sin doesn't allow you to connect the dots.

Can explain this comment?

Sophrosyne said:
Both were offered the same gift, regardless of who accepts it the outcome is seen to the sons as unequal.

Now we're back to the idea of "gift". I prefer the pardon analogy because the whole idea of punishment for not accepting a gift makes absolutely no sense to me.

And yes, regardless of who accepts it, it seems wholly unfair and unequal. Because the gift is independent of how good or bad the sons are. That is why is is unfair and unequal.

Sophrosyne said:
There is a conditions to the gift of eternal life though to accept it. God will not give the gift to someone that rejects him because the gift is essentially a part of him in a sense.

This seems tautologous. You must accept the gift in order to accept it. Yes and? Why does punishment ensue for not accepting the gift?

Its like if you are offered a bonus by a company of $5000. If you accept it, then you accept it (tautology) and you get an extra $5000. If you don't accept it, how would it make any sense for the company to then remove all the money from your bank account?

If Christianity stated that you can accept this gift and reap the rewards (aka eternal life) I would be fine with this statement. If Christianity also stated that if you don't accept this gift then you are neutral and suffer neither good nor bad consequences, I would be fine with this statement. What fundamentally makes no sense is that Christianity says that if you don't accept the gift you are punished and suffer negative consequences.

Sophrosyne said:
No..... the good son is a relative term only which relates to essentially a worldly view of "less sinful". Both sons are not Christian because salvation cannot be given to a Christian (it is redundant, one cannot be saved twice).

What? So no one is Christian because everyone is sinful???

leftrightleftrightleft · Oct 27, 2011

razeontherock said:
Ok, good discussion! Notice those 4 words I emphasized, and please do continue to own those. There are many, many things I do not understand, even about the Bible, and helping you along is truly the most self-serving thing another can do. Hopefully one day you will be in the position to return the favor.

I'm hoping I'm returning the favor right now. Often questions by outsiders lead to greater understanding and or conviction for believers

razeontherock said:
"Jesus came specifically to get rid of this type of situation, didn't he?"

NO!! Since finding Jesus in my life, I have NOT been removed from all possibility of sin. Quite the opposite, the Spirit "drives us into the wilderness to be tempted."

But Jesus came to abolish the fact that these sinful actions have consequences, right? So long as you believe in Jesus your sins are wiped clean. Jesus didn't come to abolish people acting sinfully, he came to abolish sin having consequences.

Read: Jesus came to abolish the purpose of morality?

If your actions have no consequences because Jesus wipes them clean, then whats the point in acting properly?

Similarly, Jesus didn't actually abolish the consequence of sin because there is still a slight condition to his abolishing it: you must perform the act of believing in his abolishing of sin in order to have you sins abolished.

Seems a bit backward to me?

(Note: I don't think Jesus actually did these things, these theologies were created after the fact. I have no qualms with Jesus as a moral guide, I have many qualms with the theologies that developed independently of him).

razeontherock said:
"How do you hold the idea of "Saved by Jesus Christ" and "Works have Consequences" together without running into contradictions?"

By understanding the nature of things. The consequences are not eternal, but temporal. Each step forms a path. Their total will be judged, future tense.

So remind me again why works have consequences?

leftrightleftrightleft · Oct 27, 2011

bling said:
Would you rather have people do wonderful things because of what has already been done for them or to get something?
Which type of Love does God have?

You're of the school of thought that says that Christians do good actions in order to glorify God rather for them to earn anything because they've already received eternal life from God via some independent means (aka faith).

I can understand this. This is more my position. I do good works because I want to and because I think its the right thing to do objectively (aka in God's eyes).

So then the only reason you think we need Jesus is to enter heaven?

razeontherock · Oct 27, 2011

leftrightleftrightleft said:
But Jesus came to abolish the fact that these sinful actions have consequences, right? So long as you believe in Jesus your sins are wiped clean. Jesus didn't come to abolish people acting sinfully, he came to abolish sin having consequences.

No. Now I see the source of your confusion more clearly, and this is often / usually the source of any confusion between believers. Spirit is Spirit, and flesh is flesh. Spiritual consequences are eternal, wrt judgment. Physical consequences affect this life, even if G-d forgives us; sin still has temporal consequences.

A glutton who repents is still fat.

leftrightleftrightleft said:
If your actions have no consequences because Jesus wipes them clean, then whats the point in acting properly?

We both commented on Sos' post, that you termed "brilliant." Please apply that here

leftrightleftrightleft said:
Similarly, Jesus didn't actually abolish the consequence of sin because there is still a slight condition to his abolishing it: you must perform the act of believing in his abolishing of sin in order to have you sins abolished.

Sorry but you lost me. Once my head stopped spinning I noticed you omitted "repentance."

Sophrosyne · Oct 27, 2011

leftrightleftrightleft said:
Is this opinion based on the Bible or is it just your own opinion of what happens in hell? From what I've read there doesn't seem to me much indication of "varying degrees of punishment" in Hell. It seems that Hell is Hell and that's about it.

It is just as much my opinion as the opinions of those that insist it is torture. It makes more sense if you think about it because there is scriptures in the bible that says God will repay and repaying doesn't mean equally to me.

I still see no functional distinction between a "work" and the act of "choosing to believe". Its something that you must "do" in order to enter the gates of heaven. If you must "do" something to enter heaven, then it is:
A) not unconditional
B) dependent on some action you must take

It is works when God considers you helping him save you. Choosing to believe and have faith does not help God save you it just enables you to be saved.

Whether that action is "choosing to believe in Jesus" or "praying five times a day" or "following the laws of the Torah" seem to be irrelevant. All are examples of "works" in that they are things you must "do" such that you receive a desired reward.

Actually choosing to believe in Jesus is in the process of accepting salvation. God redeems us, we do not redeem ourselves. If we are involved in redeeming ourselves then it is works but We do essentially nothing but agree to be saved.

Keep going with that sentence: "It is a gift...which you are obligated to accept which results in eternal consequences".

This seems unfair. Pretend its your birthday and your dad say that he has a gift for you. If you take the gift from him, all is well. But if you refuse the gift, then you get sent to your room. How is this possibly fair? How does this possibly show love? If I saw a parent doing this I would think, "That parent has some serious issues. Just because the kid doesn't take the gift, the parent throws a fit and punishes the child? How ridiculous!"

If the gift if a certificate to get a bicycle at the store and the kid doesn't use it he doesn't get the bicycle. The gift of eternal life is more than that is it redemption of our sins which is also a pardon. If you refuse a pardon you will not escape punishment (prison).

Similarly, in our case, there are many people that do not find "God" or "Jesus" quite as tangible as a parent explicitly offering them a gift. So it becomes even more of a ridiculous analogy when the dad doesn't explicitly state that he is offering a gift to the child but rather offers the child a book with a fairly cryptic message open to interpretation and then when the child interprets it differently or doesn't understand it or misses the point of the book, the dad still throws a fit and punishes the child for not realizing that there was a gift in the first place!

nonsense, there are 6 year old kids that have been taught enough about the bible to accept the gift of salvation. Salvation is a pardon from sin, refuse a pardon and you are punished simple as that. You keep ignoring that redemption and eternal life are a package deal when it comes to salvation. Rejecting the package means you go to where there is eternal death (Hell and have no pardon from your sins (punished).

Its an unfair premise and wholly ridiculous.

Ask Jesus on the cross how fair it is for him to suffer torment (God's wrath) for our sins and for people to belittle that and scoff at the alternative that they receive because they did not believe he suffered Hell for them so they could escape it.
[quote
Salvation is unfair because:
A) you must accept it in order to benefit from it
B) you aren't told about it explicitly
C) if you don't accept it, there are eternal consequences.
[/quote]
A)Yes.. unfair to Jesus who suffered for us to get it.
B)The bible and the Gospel preached tells us even the stars in the heavens testify of God.
C)Jesus didn't die to save us from non eternal consequences did he?

This would be a good analogy if it could be agreed that both sons are given the exact same, tangible pardon rather than a cryptic, culturally-sensitive message open to varying interpretations.

You are the one that keeps trying to twist my message to suit your agenda I think I have re represented it several ways to get my point across well enough to understand.

Also you've totally changed the goal post on your analogy from "gift" to "pardon".

no, I responded to your insisting that the child that rejects the gift gets punished which was not a part of the example at first. You demanded that be included by your responses so you changed the goalposts and I played along with them.

A gift implies something given out of love for the other person which shouldn't have consequences attached to it.

Nope.. some gifts have responsibilities and consequences attached to them. If someone gives you a pet you have to care for it and if you abuse the pet you can be punished even imprisoned in some places.

I don't think you should ever be punished for not accepting a gift. If you are punished for not accepting a gift, then this implies that the person giving the gift really wasn't giving it out of selfless love at all. Again, I return to the example of the dad sending the child to his room for not accepting his gift. I could understand the dad being disappointed that the child did not take the gift because the dad so badly wanted to see the child's face light up with joy upon receiving it. But this doesn't follow that the dad would then opt to punish the child for not accepting it.

If the punishment is already deserved then the gift can be an escape from punishment. If you owed a million dollars and your creditors were about to take everything you had and toss you out in the street and your father gave you a million dollars and you refused to take it then you would be tossed out on the street.

Pardon is a totally different idea than gift. A pardon is a judicial term that is not in any way related to love or compassion in my mind. A pardon also implies that punishment is involved in the situation far more than a gift does. In this respect, I like your pardon analogy better because at least it incorporates the idea of punishment more fairly into the situation. If one is guilty and is offered a pardon and refuses it, then it makes logical sense that this person should be punished.

A gift is something given to another that can be rejected with neutral consequences. If circumstances exist prior to the gift exist they are not part of the gift. A pardon is a gift in the fact it is not earned nor most likely merited (deserved). I had to switch to a pardon when you insisted on including punishment for not accepting gifts to help you understand better.

However, while the judicial analogy makes more sense, I find that it is far less Biblical in that it neglects so much of what Jesus talks about. Jesus says God is Abba. Jesus says God is Loving. Paul says God is Love. Jesus says God will forgive you. Jesus says God is relational. I see very few instances of Jesus portraying God as judicial.

Read the bible.. do a search on a bible site and search for the terms Law, justice, judge, judgment, etc.. there is plenty there to keep you busy in both new and old testaments.

So now we return to the fact that "all sins are equal" therefore "morality doesn't make a difference to your eternal well-being". Similarly, morality doesn't actually matter at all, because it has no consequences in the long term for anyone. Based on the above quote the only thing of consequence in your universe is whether you have performed one action: accepting Jesus Christ. All you should be doing as a Christian is converting people to Jesus. That's all you should be doing based on your above quotation.

If you accept Christ morality and sins matter even more to you, sins become more noticeable and the difference or unequalness of them is magnified. The only time sin is "equal" is in salvation only because it is an all or nothing offer. God expects more morality of those accepting Christ and we are not to demand morality of those who are lost but hope to inspire it via example.

Now we're back to the idea of "gift". I prefer the pardon analogy because the whole idea of punishment for not accepting a gift makes absolutely no sense to me.

And yes, regardless of who accepts it, it seems wholly unfair and unequal. Because the gift is independent of how good or bad the sons are. That is why is is unfair and unequal.

This seems tautologous. You must accept the gift in order to accept it. Yes and? Why does punishment ensue for not accepting the gift?

Its like if you are offered a bonus by a company of $5000. If you accept it, then you accept it (tautology) and you get an extra $5000. If you don't accept it, how would it make any sense for the company to then remove all the money from your bank account?

this is nitpicking.. there are often terms (conditions) to free offers (gifts) that you must adhere to. You can sign contracts with free discounts in them that require you to do keep the contract for the term to receive it and nothing else.

If Christianity stated that you can accept this gift and reap the rewards (aka eternal life) I would be fine with this statement. If Christianity also stated that if you don't accept this gift then you are neutral and suffer neither good nor bad consequences, I would be fine with this statement. What fundamentally makes no sense is that Christianity says that if you don't accept the gift you are punished and suffer negative consequences.

been through this already... the gift is escaping negative consequences, refuse it and you won't escape.

what? So no one is Christian because everyone is sinful???

In order to be saved (salvation) you have to be lost (not a Christian by definition). I think I have covered enough.. I don't see replying to more of the same of this reasoning profitable unless you can bring up a new point not covered.

bling · Oct 28, 2011

leftrightleftrightleft said:
You're of the school of thought that says that Christians do good actions in order to glorify God rather for them to earn anything because they've already received eternal life from God via some independent means (aka faith).

I can understand this. This is more my position. I do good works because I want to and because I think its the right thing to do objectively (aka in God's eyes).

So then the only reason you think we need Jesus is to enter heaven?

I really do not understand your question: But Jesus provides lot of things.

Heaven is part of the gift.

The indwelling Holy Spirit is another part of the gift.

This Godly type Love is a big part of the gift.

The example and information is part of the gift.

The joy of being part allowing God to work through you to serve others is another part.

Jesus shows/tells us what Godly type Love really is so we can decide to accept it or reject it.

Sophrosyne · Oct 28, 2011

bling said:
I really do not understand your question: But Jesus provides lot of things.

Heaven is part of the gift.

The indwelling Holy Spirit is another part of the gift.

This Godly type Love is a big part of the gift.

The example and information is part of the gift.

The joy of being part allowing God to work through you to serve others is another part.

Jesus shows/tells us what Godly type Love really is so we can decide to accept it or reject it.

I often wonder myself if rejecting the greatest love carries a price? Does doing evil against such love have consequences? Some things to consider for us who are trying to understand God more.

leftrightleftrightleft · Oct 28, 2011

razeontherock said:
We both commented on Sos' post, that you termed "brilliant." Please apply that here

It was brilliant and it gives a reason to act good: because you want to. But based on this quote, acting good has no consequences in the long term (aka eternity).

Do you agree?

leftrightleftrightleft · Oct 28, 2011

Sophrosyne said:
You are the one that keeps trying to twist my message to suit your agenda I think I have re represented it several ways to get my point across well enough to understand.

I'm not sure I have an explicit agenda per se, just my own point of view

And I agree that you have represented it in two different ways: as a gift and as a pardon and I acknowledged that the pardon analogy makes more sense to me. Thanks.

Sophrosyne said:
no, I responded to your insisting that the child that rejects the gift gets punished which was not a part of the example at first.

But punishment is part of Christian theology. So I pointed this out because you forgot the punishment part in the first instance of your gift analogy.

Sophrosyne said:
Nope.. some gifts have responsibilities and consequences attached to them. If someone gives you a pet you have to care for it and if you abuse the pet you can be punished even imprisoned in some places.

Not accepting the puppy should not result in punishment.

Sophrosyne said:
If the punishment is already deserved then the gift can be an escape from punishment.

There it is!! That's the missing link in our discussion! The punishment is already deserved and the "gift" is the lack of punishment!!

The analogy of the kid receiving a gift from his father and then the father punishing the child for not receiving the gift is flawed from the outset because the gift itself is the lack of the punishment. So, a better analogy would be that the child has been bad all day repeatedly and the father says, "Son, you've been really bad today and I should send you to your room, however, out of love, I'm not going to punish you." If the child refuses to accept this "gift" and storms off to his room anyway, then its the kid's loss, right?

The kid isn't punished for not accepting the gift. The gift is the lack of the punishment. Subtle distinction but it has caused about 3 pages of miscommunication between you and I.

Sophrosyne said:
this is nitpicking.. there are often terms (conditions) to free offers (gifts) that you must adhere to. You can sign contracts with free discounts in them that require you to do keep the contract for the term to receive it and nothing else.
been through this already... the gift is escaping negative consequences, refuse it and you won't escape.

The bolded part is the key distinction that was never clarified by either of us. But now that its been stated, it seems so obvious to me that all my analogies are clearly misrepresentations of Christian theology.

Sophrosyne said:
I think I have covered enough.. I don't see replying to more of the same of this reasoning profitable unless you can bring up a new point not covered.

No new points really. Just the understanding that Christian theology depends on the fact that we all deserve punishment at the get go. So God is not punishing us for not accepting his gift, but the gift itself is the lack of punishment.

I'm not sure that we all require eternal punishment just because we're human from the get go, but this is clearly a vital concept in Christianity. I'll think some more. Thinking is always good.

Thanks for the discussion.

Sophrosyne · Oct 28, 2011

leftrightleftrightleft said:
I'm not sure that we all require eternal punishment just because we're human from the get go, but this is clearly a vital concept in Christianity. I'll think some more. Thinking is always good.

Thanks for the discussion.

I would say that escaping punishment for our sins is an important part of Christianity whereas eternal punishment and torment probably have more than going on than we know of. I can think of several more reasons for torment one of which is to discouarge more sinning in Hell, another is to stop people from mentally tormenting themselves due to regretting they sinned (wanting to be punished).

AvgJoe · Oct 29, 2011

leftrightleftrightleft said:
I mean that actions are not a necessary component to gain eternal life. Belief is the only prerequisite according to mainstream Christian theology.

Belief is the primary component which earns you eternal life. Actions are a secondary component that you do while you're on Earth but ultimately are not part of the causal relationship which leads to eternal life.

Am I right?

Close, but there is nothing we can do to earn eternal life/salvation.

Ephesians 2:8-9(NKJV) 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Grace is 'unmerited favor'. For, without regard for who we are or what we have done (good or bad), you have been saved through faith. We didn't earn grace.

Hebrews 11:1,6(NLT) 1 Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see. 6 And it is impossible to please God without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that God exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him.

Can we take responsibility for the faith that is found in us? No.

Romans 12:3(NKJV) 3 For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.

God gives each person faith. We didn't earn it.

What about our belief? It's called a work. John 6:29(NKJV) 29 Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.

Can we take credit for it? No.

Philippians 1:29(NKJV) 29 For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,.

God gives each person belief. We didn't earn it.

If it were left up to us, no one would find eternal life. Romans 3:10-11(NKJV) 10 As it is written:  There is none righteous, no, not one; 11 There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God.

John 6:43-44(NKJV) 43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Left to ourself we would never find God because we would never seek after Him. Through no merit on our part, God draws us to Jesus, gives us a measure of faith and places the capacity to believe within us. All of it is God's gift to us. We didn't earn any of it.

So what is our part?

Our part is to make the decision to accept or reject everything God has given to us. We make a decision, yes or no. We didn't earn anything.

Concerning actions/works, we do not do good works in order to be saved, no, we are saved to do good works.

Ephesians 2:10(NKJV) 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

leftrightleftrightleft said:
Or is there something that says that you must do good actions to earn eternal life?

No

leftrightleftrightleft said:
Is there something that says that belief is not required to earn eternal life?

No

leftrightleftrightleft said:
Is there something that says that both belief and action are required to earn eternal life?

No

leftrightleftrightleft · Oct 29, 2011

AvgJoe said:
God gives each person faith. We didn't earn it.

So...what about the freedom to choose?

If God gives us each faith and we have no control over this, then we shouldn't be blamed for not having faith. If you don't have faith you can just say, "Well, its up to God to give me faith, so its not my fault/decision/choice whether I have faith or not."

I don't agree with you. Faith is a profound choice. And Christianity says that the choice has consequences.

AvgJoe said:
Left to ourself we would never find God because we would never seek after Him. Through no merit on our part, God draws us to Jesus, gives us a measure of faith and places the capacity to believe within us. All of it is God's gift to us. We didn't earn any of it.

So then it goes both ways. If we can't take credit for seeking God and finding Jesus, then we also should not be able to take credit for not seeking God and not finding Jesus. If we don't seek God and don't find Jesus, God didn't "draw us" to it. So we are helpless at the whims of God as to whether or not we believe. And thusly, we are helpless at the whims of God as to whether we gain eternal life.

This is getting more and more convoluted.

AvgJoe said:
Our part is to make the decision to accept or reject everything God has given to us. We make a decision, yes or no. We didn't earn anything.

What? But you earlier said that "God gives each person faith". And "left to ourselves, we would never find God". You've basically said that choice doesn't matter and its all up to God, so how does a decision factor into this? If God doesn't give us faith, then how are we ever expected to make the choice to have faith???

AvgJoe said:
Concerning actions/works, we do not do good works in order to be saved, no, we are saved to do good works.

Lots of unsaved people do good works.

AvgJoe said:
No

No

No

So actions have no long-term consequences. Belief is all that matters in the long term.

razeontherock · Oct 30, 2011

leftrightleftrightleft said:
It was brilliant and it gives a reason to act good: because you want to. But based on this quote, acting good has no consequences in the long term (aka eternity).

Do you agree?

In terms of heaven or hell, it would seem to be true, within the confines of a committed Christian. Reading the statement, (was it original, or was it quoting someone else?) it was the first time I had ever pondered that line of thinking. And I can't say that the light it shed upon me, I can clearly convey, but I do hope we're on the same page. If we're forgiven anyway, will we see how much sin we can get away with? Or will we see how we much can get away from sin? It's a very revealing measure of our heart, in due time. That sounds an awful lot like the way G-d's Judgment works to me!

I do think Judgment for the Christian is based on works, so no I can't agree there is no eternal reward. But whatever it might be, we surely can't fathom it. It's not the severity of heaven vs hell.

razeontherock · Oct 30, 2011

leftrightleftrightleft said:
I'm not sure that we all require eternal punishment just because we're human from the get go, but this is clearly a vital concept in Christianity.

Just pointing out the word I bolded is not necessarily the case. Yes, there are "some Christianities" that teach this. No, not every one does, and there is a very good claim that this concept is false. (Although from a practical standpoint, there is no difference. We've all committed our own original sin)

razeontherock · Oct 30, 2011

leftrightleftrightleft said:
So...what about the freedom to choose?

If God gives us each faith and we have no control over this, then we shouldn't be blamed for not having faith.

So then it goes both ways. If we can't take credit for seeking God and finding Jesus, then we also should not be able to take credit for not seeking God and not finding Jesus. If we don't seek God and don't find Jesus, God didn't "draw us" to it.

Here's the difference:

whatever measure of Faith G-d gives to us, what do we do with it? It can not be unilateral. We do have a part, although it appears it is passive.

AvgJoe · Oct 31, 2011

leftrightleftrightleft said:
So...what about the freedom to choose?

If God gives us each faith and we have no control over this, then we shouldn't be blamed for not having faith. If you don't have faith you can just say, "Well, its up to God to give me faith, so its not my fault/decision/choice whether I have faith or not."

I don't agree with you. Faith is a profound choice. And Christianity says that the choice has consequences.

Your freedom to choose is intact. Ephesians 2:8 says that faith is the gift of God. God won't force you to take it. We decide to accept it or not. Faith is a profound choice and that choice does have huge consequences.

leftrightleftrightleft said:
So then it goes both ways. If we can't take credit for seeking God and finding Jesus, then we also should not be able to take credit for not seeking God and not finding Jesus. If we don't seek God and don't find Jesus, God didn't "draw us" to it. So we are helpless at the whims of God as to whether or not we believe. And thusly, we are helpless at the whims of God as to whether we gain eternal life.

This is getting more and more convoluted.

We are not helpless and unable to find Jesus because He draws everyone to Himself (John 12:32).

leftrightleftrightleft said:
What? But you earlier said that "God gives each person faith". And "left to ourselves, we would never find God". You've basically said that choice doesn't matter and its all up to God, so how does a decision factor into this? If God doesn't give us faith, then how are we ever expected to make the choice to have faith???

Jesus draws everyone to Himself. You can choose to follow, or not.
God gives each a measure of faith. You can choose to accept it, or not.
God give us the capacity to believe. You can choose to believe, or not.

God provides everything we need to be saved. We make the decision to accept or reject it.

leftrightleftrightleft said:
Lots of unsaved people do good works.

Yes, they do.

leftrightleftrightleft said:
So actions have no long-term consequences.

Never said actions have no consequences. Everyone will reap what they sow (Galatians 6:7-9), Christians will receive a reward or suffer loss based on their works (1 Corinthians 3: 9-15) and the dead will be judged according to their works (Revelation 20:11-15).

leftrightleftrightleft said:
Belief is all that matters in the long term.

Jesus said, "Repent and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:15)

bling · Oct 31, 2011

Sophrosyne said:
I often wonder myself if rejecting the greatest love carries a price? Does doing evil against such love have consequences? Some things to consider for us who are trying to understand God more.

I would say that is the one main free will decision we make. We either humble accept God's Love in the form of accepting God's forgiveness as pure charity and thus love much "...he that is forgiven much Loves much..." or we continue to refuse that love and thus do not want to be in heaven (a huge love Feast).

Beautiful Ignorance · Nov 4, 2011

leftrightleftrightleft said:
I'm assuming you're referring to Cain and Abel. Yes, actions matter in this story but according to Christian theology, Jesus came specifically to get rid of this type of situation, didn't he?

How do you hold the idea of "Saved by Jesus Christ" and "Works have Consequences" together without running into contradictions regarding the purpose of Christianity and the path to eternal life?

If you are Saved by Jesus Christ and you are washed of your sins by his blood, then you are on the path to eternal life in Him.

This seems wholly independent of your moral actions. So either being Saved by Jesus Christ is true and works have no consequences or being saved by Jesus Christ isn't the whole story and works do have consequences.

I don't see how you can have both ideas held together.

This right here is the reason I reject the New Testament. Old Testament Theology is based upon a universe of consistent chain of cause and effect and so is works based. New Testament theology is based upon grace, which is unmerited favor which bypasses or circumvents cause and effect.

Two different theologies. So which one is right?

The universe operates by cause and effect. There is no evidence of grace anywhere in the universe. Grace appears to be an entirely human invention, the result of wishful thinking and appears to be entirely false.

Actions

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Let Your Light Shine.. Matt 5:16

Regular Member

Let Your Light Shine.. Matt 5:16

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Let Your Light Shine.. Matt 5:16

Member since 2005

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member since 2005

Regular Member

Beautiful Ignorance

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency