SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.First of all, happy easter back to all my Christian friends here.
Now then, about the linked page: It seems that this interpretation is at odds with any scintilla of moral imperative to do good in the world; it is the perfect theology for a coward or someone too lazy to challenge himself. I may myself fit into such a paradigm, mind you; but I define that state of being as falling short, not achieving perfect grace. Nor would I so define it if I believed in one or another cultic figurehead such as Jesus. The mechanics are just too convenient.
I thank God that many righteous gentiles during World War Two did not embrace this interpretation of Christianity, but rather reasoned that what we do matters -- and often staked their lives on it.
It is possible to know the difference between right and wrong, and watch wrong perpetrated from the sidelines, if we reason that what we do is unimportant.
It is impossible to be such an accomplice to evil if we reason that what we do is important.
"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Your theology advocates just such a course of inaction.
PFnV
thank you. it might be helpful next time if you actually read the entire link where it was made very clear this is not a license to sin, and that as followers of Christ, sin is less appealing and the desire to follow his example is an expectation. There are many biblical passages there if one is not lazy enough to fall back into simplistic cliches and attack on anothers belief system.
my own comment, "..it is not what we do...." was not a call to not do anything, it was a comment that it was not tied to salvation.
What does the easter bunny represent? If eggs represent new life and the bunny lays them is the bunny god?
I read your link. My response is not an attack.
The significance of human action and suffering is in doubt in a once-saved-always-saved universe. It is, in fact, in doubt in a mixed works/faith system of salvation as well; when death is not "for keeps," life becomes surreal. Eastern systems featuring reincarnation similarly reinvest life with meaning; but at least acting in "ignorance" in the here-and-now prevents evolution through rebirth in that system, just as in a works-based theology, evil actions prevent attainment of salvation.
I just believe in doing the right thing. There is nothing wrong with expressing that preference.
Once-saved-always-saved theology does not satisfactorily urge one to do the right thing, because at heart it is belief that matters in this system, not actions.
Thanks,
PFnV
I mean, who is defining truth.
The thread and the link are only about the question of Salvation, not the merits of living a good life or being a good person.
Oh at least credit Pilate and don't try to pass the quote off as your own work
i have never seen a version of the Bible that quotes Pilote as saying "I mean, who is defining truth?", although it is close to the more formal "what is truth?"
he asked rhetorically. I was asking it literally.
that being said, it did give me a laugh.
And the two, in your world-view, are separate and distinct. That is the point. In many other world-views, they are inseparable. That feature of the "once saved always saved" viewpoint should be discussed, and this is the place to do it.
I agree, i was saying they are seperate. I understand in many world views they are not. But regardless, I follow Scripture and Gods word over popular opinion. * Please note, however, I did not resort to saying "So?" like **** Cheney
If the subject of your thread is one or another theology, it strikes me that we are in the realm of comparative religion, rather than the realm of singing hosannahs and heaping encomiums on your chosen beliefs.
PFnV
My point is that in discussing the theology you adhere to on a message board, you therefore invite discussion of that theology.
Given that others will almost certainly disagree with your theology, that invites a comparative relgious approach.
All that said, that was merely to explain why it is pertinent that some faiths attach importance to our actions.
Long story short: it seems to me that people of just about every religion do good and do bad. It also seems that it would be quite difficult for anybody to do an unbiased analysis of the sum effect on society of any given religon. So, I just figure the best thing is for everybody to enjoy their own.
However, when the disconnect of ethical behavior from theological expectation within a system is so distinct, I just feel it is appropriate to point out that feature of that specific theology -- especially in a religion forum which exists, after all, to discuss religion
PFnV
And i agree, I invite discussion, i just responded to distortion, the implication that according to my faith, it doesnt matter at all what we do in this life. Of course it matters to be a good person, and if someone becomes a Christian just to get to Heaven without any real desire to do good, then they werent really sincere in their repentance in the first place. One more time, what is seperate, is only in the matter of how Salvation is obtained, it is obtained, according to my faith, not by our good deeds, but by His sacrifice and our acceptance of His Lordship on our lives.
But i do invite and enjoy the discussion.
Wow, can you get any more extreme there, PFIV? Why is it you must use, as an example, a murderer of millions? Are there a lot of them out there?
Cant naysayers of Christianity ever just take an average dude who cheats on his wife or something? No, always the mass murderer, as if that perfectly describes your averaged saved Christian.
Typical hysterics from PFIV.
You completely ignore my last posts and continue saying the Christian expects to act the same after accepting the Lord. Like a great debater, worthy of a Clinton or Karl Rove political campaign, you pounce on the extreme misinterpretation and repeat it over and over again.
Once again, so you might grasp it, it does matter, what we do here on earth does matter, however it is seperate from the question of Salvation.
We are not Saved because of how good WE are. We are Saved because of how good He is. So even though one person might be the most kind, giving person there is, its not good enough, because they disobeyed the one requirement God made. And despite what weve done, if we come to Him with our sin and accept what Jesus did for us on the Cross, we are forgiven and are a new creation. That is not because I say so, that is my belief because thats what God says in His Word. Its very clear throughout the New Testament.
As far as the ridiculous paragraph..."The only attractive feature I could see would be a very cynical understanding that even Colonel Green can get saved by this theology --- and look at all the crap he gets away with! I can be saved without behaving well! YAY!".....
Accepting the Lord is not a matter of going down the aisle, saying the words,and giggling as you go back to your seat "oh boy, now i can do what I want" There has to be a true repentence, a desire to turn from previous ways and a true desire for ************ to change our hearts.
You and me have no way of knowing whats in another persons heart, but if a Colonel Green goes out and kills thousands more people after saying he accepted Christ, chances are he never truly repented, at least I think we can make that assumption, dont you agree?
And lets not get this confused with people who slip here and there and sin in their lives, people are not robots, we arent expected to live like that. You brought up the mass murderer as an absurd premise, and thats what im responding to. As ive said before, using a Colonel Green model as the example of your average "Once Saved, Always Saved" believing Christian is like me using David Berkowitz as an example of Judaism.
As we've talked at lenghth, I believe in the Old Testament, I think Judaism was dead on correct.
I would invite anybody to read the Old Testament in its entirety, from the first 5 books through the prophesies in Psalms and Isaiah. The Jews had it right. Because lets face it, there is cultural Judaism and then there is what Jews believe. And it would make sense, dont you agree, that what Jews believe comes from something...say...scripture?
Plenty for my tastes. Just one will ruin your whole day. But more to the point, the theology you espouse does not urge those who follow it, to do good works, since Jesus did all the work by dying. That means there's no real point in opposing "Colonel Green" or any other focal point of evil.
The theological point is just as important: since only God can know whether Colonel Green -- or another mass murderer -- truly accepted the theology in question, only God knows whether Colonel Green has attained salvation.
As I made clear, this thread is not a discussion of the "average saved Christian." It is a discussion of a particular theology within the Christian spectrum of views.
If you choose to post on theology, particularly extreme views, I am under no obligation to agree with those extreme views, or to view them uncritically. And yes, if your theology leads to bizarre outcomes and perverse incentives, I am just fine positing a mass murderer. I think it brings the question into the light of day, regardless of your evident desire to throw in an ad for your beliefs and then call names at those who disagree.
Typical ad hominem from Lifer.
On the grounds of the theology alone, there is no reason this ideology would lead to "better" behavior. I have no metrics suggesting this ideology would lead to "better" behavior. In fact, there is a neverending stream of counterexamples in the news to the contrary.
I am glad you said that an adherent of this ideology would act in a certain way. That is a start. But there are no metrics to support you, anecdotal evidence against you, and a theoretical position that would predict the anecdotal evidence already observed.
Interpretations of the Greek bible differ, though the basic mechanics of salvation you describe above can be found, in different strengths, across Christian sects. The notion that a life of feeding the hungry, for example, is the moral equivalent (or is morally inferior to) a life of tormenting the weak, is generally roundly denied across sects. To the extent that the sect emphasizes the theology you have emphasized above, it condones these actions. Salvation is usually considered something in line with morality; this ideology divorces one's morality from one's salvation.
I object to that as a dangerous perversion of a theology which is, in most sects, balanced between works and faith. Many other Christian sects also oppose your singlemindedness on the subject.
Then simply frame it as a conscious acceptance and a subconscious reservation. Do you have any of those? WAIT, you don't know, it's subconscious!!!
You don't think that could work on you when you, say, buy a car or a can of coke? Or better yet, that nice curvy bottle coke use to come in? Of course it can. Sex sells, but if there's one thing that's more primal than sex, it's survival. Religion promises survival when the logical mind says survival ends, but the primal mind insists survival must persist. Religion further threatens eternal pain to those who do not fall in line, and promises eternal reward to those who do. And you're going to tell me that's just an unfortunate coincidence, that religions make their appeal to the masses through precisely the same primal urges that drive marketers?
Why would one invent such a sales pitch?
Doesn't much matter what we believe, does it?
Jesus has taken care of the good Colonel. If he but asks Jesus for forgiveness, recognizing his evil, and recognizing there are another 39219 souls on his conscience, presto, Jesus already has taken care of those by getting nailed to a tree a couple thousand years ago. Colonel Green sleeps easy.
Just as those with petty sins might "slip up" and spend the money for the baby formula at the casino -- AGAIN -- even knowing it was wrong. It was a "moment of weakness," and they promise to do better.
Well they effed up. But that's okay because everybody is always effing up, right? I'm not plugging for a vindictive God here. Don't get me wrong. I agree, in terms of petty sins.
What I find galling is the notion that if people just say "Oh everybody effs up, it's okay," the same people who think Jesus makes it okay, are apoplectic at people who thinks it's just okay to eff up because we're human.
It's one or the other, in my book. You're not perfect. And guess what buddy? You're no more forgiven than anybody else --- not in any objectively demonstrable way.
I used Colonel Green specifically to discuss theology, not the specific religion of an extent historical figure. And I used the extreme example to illustrate the extreme flaws of the interpretation of christianity posited here.
I am certainly fine with the quite adult notion that no supernatural force will magically transport me to another world upon my exit from this one; but to hear that the Almighty has decided that Colonel Green gets the seat of honor, for the mere feat of saying and thinking the right things, and Mother Theresa, for instance, can rot in hell, well, it strikes me as a tad counterintuitive.
But for the "little sins" version of the above, see my Casino/baby formula argument above.
Then you wouldn't call it the "old" testament, would you?
Once again, you seek to establish a Jewish "mirror" religion that is just like your form of protestantism, devoid of its own life, culture, or mores. "What Jews believe" comes from many sources, and you're not well enough versed in those sources to have this discussion, the Hebrew bible included. Beyond that, you have no standing to have this discussion, vis a vis Judaism; I did not try to push it on you or raise it as an example, or for that matter claim that my invisible friend would torture you forever if you did not believe in it.
I can look at any body of literature, in search of proof of another body of literature, and find that proof. It's even easier if the writers of the second body of literature were writing it with the intent of providing that proof.
I understand that many sects within Christianity believe that this is a compelling argument.
But to those not raised in one of the Christian sects just find it quirkily endearing that you like to believe Christianity to be the logical extension of Judaism, and go to such lengths to attempt to create a continuum where there is none.
Colonel Green can accept your Christianity. I can not. So there you go -- you know the bounds of who you can and can not persuade.
Thanks,
PFnV
A point on this aspect of the argument:
Faith without deeds is dead. Therefore while good deeds or acts are not the defining charactersitic of faith or of salvation, they are an inherent byproduct of true faith and being in a state of salvation. The faith and acceptance is the requirement for salvation, the good works are a manifestation of that state of being.
So "by their fruits ye shall know them."
And therefore, I can with no particular difficulty discern who is saved and who is not saved, correct?
It is not, in fact, at all mysterious who will and will not be saved.
Those who believe correctly will do good deeds. Those who do not, will not do good deeds.
I can tell who is saved by who lives a good and decent life.
I can, in fact, know the will of God vis a vis the question of personal salvation of another: That is, those who act consistently as if they are saved, must in fact be saved. Those who do not, are not.
But that seems to be the opposite of the usual dogma, nu?
PFnV