Symbolism in the gospel story

[mitchellmckain]

I was watching the film of Narnia, "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe", when I realized even more of the symbolic implications of the whole gospel story.

The creator of the universe does nothing while evil has its way, mocking Him, inflicting pain upon an innocent, and flaunting their power over Him. It makes you ask why? Why would an all powerful God let them do this? We know the answer that the gospel gives us, that He does this all for love. To atheists these may be empty words but they are anything but.

Is this not the same as the broader question often asked in theodicy? The creator of the universe does nothing while evil has its way, mocking Him and all that is good, inflicting pain and suffering upon the innocent, and boasting of power which they have so little responsibility, understanding or control over in the end. So the gospel tells us that God has the same reason and so these questions have the same answer. He does it for His love of us. Because the possibility of evil is an unavoidable component of life itself. Love require life and choice and so He gives us the freedom to live our own life and make our own choices -- to choose between embracing the life He has given us and all the goodness and challenges that go with it or to turn against life and goodness -- to choose between seeing life as a gift accepted in gratitude and seeing as a burden or as spoils to whoever grabs the fastest.

In Matthew 25:31-45 we learn how deeply and closely God indentifies Himself with us, so that whatever is done to the least of us, it is to Him as if these things were done to Him. This is His love for us and this is what makes this more than mere symbolism. For Christ's death on the cross is not just some historical event but an everyday reality where every time evil has its way and torments the innocent then once again the creator of the universe is mocked, tormented and nailed to cross. That is, afterall, what love is like. That which hurts those whom we love also hurts we who love them.

We can turn the question, "how can God let them do this to Him", around and ask also how evil could be so foolish -- how they can imagine that they could mock and destroy God (or what He loves) without consequences? Whether you call it God, or life, goodness, choice or love, it is the foundation of their very own existence. We see a surpassing blindness in this that is rather appalling.

[reallyRyan]

Does this not assume that God is not doing anything about it?
I think that such an assumption is unfounded. The gospel clearly tells us that God is at work doing something about it (not a future event, but a present and continuous chain of events). It is man who is all to often discontent with the timing, method and outcome. We want now, not later. We want this way, not that. We want it to end up as we imagine, perhaps not the way in which it would be best. All of these are displayed in the narrative of Scripture over and over again.

I agree with your point in regards to what is done to the least of these, is as though it is done to Him - its clearly the case, but I can't see how anyone can read the breadth of scripture, believe it is true and conclude that God is on any type of hiatus.

[mitchellmckain]

Does this not assume that God is not doing anything about it?

Nope. All it suggests is that there are limits on what God can do in the context of all He is trying to accomplish. The argument of atheists is typically that an all powerful God who cares at all, either would not allow such things to happen or would put an immediate stop to it. We know that God does what needs to be done according to His timetable, right? But that means that there are lots of times when it is the perception many human beings that God is not doing anything. God has responsibilities that are far beyond those of our comfort and physical survival, right? He has to put more important things first. So the fact that He isn't preventing terrible things from happening or putting an immediate stop to them does not mean either that He does not care or that He doesn't exist.

It is man who is all to often discontent with the timing, method and outcome. We want now, not later. We want this way, not that. We want it to end up as we imagine, perhaps not the way in which it would be best. All of these are displayed in the narrative of Scripture over and over again.

exactly!

I agree with your point in regards to what is done to the least of these, is as though it is done to Him - its clearly the case, but I can't see how anyone can read the breadth of scripture, believe it is true and conclude that God is on any type of hiatus.

I can.

When people see Chrisitanity and the Bible used as a tool of power and manipulation acting against what is good and right, then how can they think it is either good or right to submit to such a thing? And if one does not submit to the will and timing of God because of such obstacles (as in Romans 2:17-24), then how can one see that God is doing anything?

But I can see my way past such obstacles probably because (by grace of God) they haven't played so big a role in my own life, and thus I do see that God is indeed not "on any type of hiatus."

[reallyRyan]

Nope. All it suggests is that there are limits on what God can do in the context of all He is trying to accomplish.

That is one major point where I disagree.

The argument of atheists is typically that an all powerful God who cares at all, either would not allow such things to happen or would put an immediate stop to it.

That being the argument does not concern me in the slightest. The assumptions are apparent and easily pointed too.

We know that God does what needs to be done according to His timetable, right?

Right

But that means that there are lots of times when it is the perception many human beings that God is not doing anything.

But, as we know from real world experience, perception and reality are not always equal. Whether the perception is that God is not doing something, does not impact whether or not God is actually doing that thing. (and visa versa) Is that not the case?

God has responsibilities that are far beyond those of our comfort and physical survival, right?

Right - although I would word it differently, but that's neither here nor there.

He has to put more important things first.

"Has to", no - by no means. That seems to imply that there is a moral law or something beyond God that is governing God. God out of his own nature does what is right and in the way that is best to accomplish His good purpose. I know that's a matter of semantics and a bit of a paradoxical statement, but when we say "God has to do this" or "God would do that" then we are erecting our own false god and misunderstand what the true God is doing and for what purpose.

So the fact that He isn't preventing terrible things from happening or putting an immediate stop to them does not mean either that He does not care or that He doesn't exist.

To finish the thought - Nor does it mean that He is not doing anything about them. To say that he isn't preventing individual tragedies or putting an immediate stop to evil, does not in anyway negate the point of whether or not God is doing something about them right this moment - correct? That's like saying that while I am typing this message, you haven't seen it yet, thus I must not be typing at all. Which we know from practical experience is non-sense.

I agree with your point in regards to what is done to the least of these, is as though it is done to Him - its clearly the case, but I can't see how anyone can read the breadth of scripture, believe it is true and conclude that God is on any type of hiatus.

I can.

Really? You can understand how someone can believe the breadth of scripture and conclude that God is on hiatus? John 5:17 alone would negate that, not to mention that the breadth of scripture is pointing to God's redemptive work. I can see where someone who doesn't believe would assume that, but that wasn't my OQ.

When people see Chrisitanity and the Bible used as a tool of power and manipulation acting against what is good and right, then how can they think it is either good or right to submit to such a thing?

That has no bearing on whether or not God is at work doing something to end evil and suffering. There comes the question of what is good and right and how do we know it is good and right - that must be answered before you can think of submitting to it. While those who don't believe might use that as pretext for unbelief, its a separate question entirely, dealing with the state of mankind and the Church - and our perception and opinion of them. As we both agree, I am sure, there are many things that we don't see, that actually exist and accomplish tasks, whether we like them or not.

And if one does not submit to the will and timing of God because of such obstacles (as in Romans 2:17-24), then how can one see that God is doing anything?

That seems like you are saying something akin to "if we don't look through a telescope into space, how can we see far off galaxies?" I can simply lift my head and look - that doesn't mean that I will understand what I am seeing. We see things everyday that we don't acknowledge and unbelievers don't have to submit to the will and timing of God to see the work of God - they simply won't acknowledge it, or see it for what it really is. That is until God does some work on their heart first (giving the telescope through which to look). There are all kinds of obstacles that keep us from seeing the work of God - and yes we should not make ourselves on of them (as Romans 2 tells us) - I can't agree with that more.

[mitchellmckain]

We know that God does what needs to be done according to His timetable, right?

Right

But that means that there are lots of times when it is the perception many human beings that God is not doing anything.

But, as we know from real world experience, perception and reality are not always equal. Whether the perception is that God is not doing something, does not impact whether or not God is actually doing that thing. (and visa versa) Is that not the case?

And that is irrelevant to anything that human beings have to say to one another because all that they ever know or can know is what they perceive to be the case, by whatever cause or reason.

The unalterable fact is that many people frankly have no reason to believe that God is doing anything at all (or rather more reason to believe that no God is doing anything than reason to believe there is a God doing something), and so your all declarations that this is not the case is at best just a noisy gong or clanging cymbal, and at worst an example of something irrational or even immoral.

God has responsibilities that are far beyond those of our comfort and physical survival, right?

Right - although I would word it differently, but that's neither here nor there.

He has to put more important things first.

"Has to", no - by no means.

No God is not required to be responsible, putting the most important things first. He simply chooses to be. God is not required to do what is right and good. He simply chooses to.

But then this may indeed be something on which we disagree. For where I believe that logically inconsistent things we say about God simply have no meaning you may believe that you can contradict yourself whenever you like as long as it agrees with what you have been told. And no I do not assume that my understanding of logical consistency is perfect and complete, but only that rules of logic do exist.

You may believe that there is no reason whatsoever for the things that God does, but I do. You may beleive that God simply decides things for no reason whatsoever and that it is these decisions that decide what is right and good. But I think this renders completely meaningless any statement that God is good.

I have no interest in magical Christianity where it is all just some kind of fairy story about some powerful being seeking to rule us with the tactics of a mafia boss threating those who disobey his demands regarding what to think or do with torture, and promising all kinds of rewards for those who cower likes craven worms to do whatever despicable things he demands. It is rather obvious to me that this sort of christianity has been twisted to serve the machinations of power by people with the same morality as the mafia boss they paint their made up god to be. I do see great value, however, in a rational Christianity that instead looks beneath mere appearances to probe fundamental truths about human desires and our ability find the things that are truly worthwhile.

That seems to imply that there is a moral law or something beyond God that is governing God.

Incorrect. I believe in a God that is perfectly free to do whatever He chooses, but yes I certainly do believe that He chooses to do things for good reasons. So yes I definitely believe that things are good for a reason and not just because God says so. I utterly repudiate divine relativism as being just as morally vacuous as other types of relativism.

God out of his own nature does what is right and in the way that is best to accomplish His good purpose. I know that's a matter of semantics and a bit of a paradoxical statement, but when we say "God has to do this" or "God would do that" then we are erecting our own false god and misunderstand what the true God is doing and for what purpose.

When we say that God must do things by some nature that we decide and say that He has so that He is not free to do as he chooses then we are erecting a false god of man-made dogmas and all we are understanding are these fabrications of the human mind and nothing of a living God.

I agree with your point in regards to what is done to the least of these, is as though it is done to Him - its clearly the case, but I can't see how anyone can read the breadth of scripture, believe it is true and conclude that God is on any type of hiatus.

I can.

Really? You can understand how someone can believe the breadth of scripture and conclude that God is on hiatus? John 5:17 alone would negate that, not to mention that the breadth of scripture is pointing to God's redemptive work. I can see where someone who doesn't believe would assume that, but that wasn't my OQ.

No I missed that clause ("believe it is true") in your statement, though frankly I really don't see the point of it. We are not talking about a statement, but a collection of many different types of literature with different individual purposes.

If we are going to talk about its overall purpose, then I think that purpose is given rather unambigously by Jesus in John 5:39-40 which is not to make an assertion we have to judge to be either true or false but rather to bear witness to Jesus so we would come to Him that we may have life. Frankly I think it is people who want to change scripture into a tool of power that use such arguments as this, so that they can take some part of it and use it to justify all kinds of abominations like slavery, racism, misogyny or even genocide.

When people see Chrisitanity and the Bible used as a tool of power and manipulation acting against what is good and right, then how can they think it is either good or right to submit to such a thing?

That has no bearing on whether or not God is at work doing something to end evil and suffering. There comes the question of what is good and right and how do we know it is good and right - that must be answered before you can think of submitting to it. While those who don't believe might use that as pretext for unbelief, its a separate question entirely, dealing with the state of mankind and the Church - and our perception and opinion of them. As we both agree, I am sure, there are many things that we don't see, that actually exist and accomplish tasks, whether we like them or not.

And if one does not submit to the will and timing of God because of such obstacles (as in Romans 2:17-24), then how can one see that God is doing anything?

That seems like you are saying something akin to "if we don't look through a telescope into space, how can we see far off galaxies?" I can simply lift my head and look - that doesn't mean that I will understand what I am seeing. We see things everyday that we don't acknowledge and unbelievers don't have to submit to the will and timing of God to see the work of God - they simply won't acknowledge it, or see it for what it really is. That is until God does some work on their heart first (giving the telescope through which to look). There are all kinds of obstacles that keep us from seeing the work of God - and yes we should not make ourselves on of them (as Romans 2 tells us) - I can't agree with that more.

I can easily see how being willing to submit to God's decision about the right things to do about such things and the correct timing for doing them, can make it so we cannot see that God is doing anything, and if we see Christianity and the Bible being routinely used for things that are wrong and evil, then we have very good reasons to refuse demands that we submit to what they say.

Yes I am quite familiar with Romans 1:20, but no I don't think it means what you are saying, for I read it in context and that is a context which includes Romans 2:13-24.

YOU are not the only one who is perfectly willing to say that everyone who disagrees with you is just stupid and willfully ignorant. I meet both Christians and atheists like that all the time. But I am not willing. I recognize that people can and often do have very good reasons that are rational, reasonable and moral to believe very differently than I do. Furthermore I have absolutely no desire to return to the dark ages of mankind where everyone would pretend that they are doing the will of God. Thus I will defend the principles of religious freedom and tolerance at the cost of my life.

[reallyRyan]

The unalterable fact is that many people frankly have no reason to believe that God is doing anything at all (or rather more reason to believe that no God is doing anything than reason to believe there is a God doing something), and so your all declarations that this is not the case is at best just a noisy gong or clanging cymbal, and at worst an example of something irrational or even immoral.

I think you misread. I didn't say "this is not the case". I asked, "is that not the case?" You say many people have no reason to believe... yet I say they disregard perfectly rational reasons to believe because there is enmity between them and God.

God has responsibilities that are far beyond those of our comfort and physical survival, right?

Right - although I would word it differently, but that's neither here nor there.

He has to put more important things first.

"Has to", no - by no means.

No God is not required to be responsible, putting the most important things first. He simply chooses to be. God is not required to do what is right and good. He simply chooses to.

As I said, I would have worded it differently. So thanks for restating it in different terms.

But then this may indeed be something on which we disagree. For where I believe that logically inconsistent things we say about God simply have no meaning you may believe that you can contradict yourself whenever you like as long as it agrees with what you have been told.

I don't believe that in anyway shape or form. But, if I have contradicted myself, please show me where.

You may believe that there is no reason whatsoever for the things that God does, but I do.

I don't know where you are getting the idea that I think God has no reason. I absolutely believe there is reason.

You may beleive that God simply decides things for no reason whatsoever and that it is these decisions that decide what is right and good.

I don't believe that.

I have no interest in magical Christianity where it is all just some kind of fairy story about some powerful being seeking to rule us with the tactics of a mafia boss threating those who disobey his demands regarding what to think or do with torture, and promising all kinds of rewards for those who cower likes craven worms to do whatever despicable things he demands.

Nor do I.

It is rather obvious to me that this sort of christianity has been twisted to serve the machinations of power by people with the same morality as the mafia boss they paint their made up god to be. I do see great value, however, in a rational Christianity that instead looks beneath mere appearances to probe fundamental truths about human desires and our ability find the things that are truly worthwhile.

Great, join the club.

Incorrect. I believe in a God that is perfectly free to do whatever He chooses,

So why say God "has to" do anything at all? A misstatement, perhaps?

God out of his own nature does what is right and in the way that is best to accomplish His good purpose. I know that's a matter of semantics and a bit of a paradoxical statement, but when we say "God has to do this" or "God would do that" then we are erecting our own false god and misunderstand what the true God is doing and for what purpose.

When we say that God must do things by some nature that we decide and say that He has so that He is not free to do as he chooses then we are erecting a false god of man-made dogmas and all we are understanding are these fabrications of the human mind and nothing of a living God.

First, I didn't say "God must do" anything. I said God does what is in His nature to do. Those are slightly different, but the difference is important. I have a nature, and even lowly ol me doesn't "have to" do anything (apart from dying of course). The difference of course is God's nature is pure and good, while mine is not. So God does what is right and good, freely and willfully and it is in His nature to do so. Meanwhile, as a fallen and broken human being, it is in my nature to sin, yet I can fight against my nature. Saying that God does what is in His nature, does not remove free choice, it amplifies it, just as if I do what is in my sinful nature amplifies the sinful nature - thus saying God does what is in His nature, simply describes God as shown to us through Christ.

I can easily see how being willing to submit to God's decision about the right things to do about such things and the correct timing for doing them, can make it so we cannot see that God is doing anything, and if we see Christianity and the Bible being routinely used for things that are wrong and evil, then we have very good reasons to refuse demands that we submit to what they say.

We routinely see science used for wrong and evil too, does that mean we shouldn't trust, or submit to anything it says? Or, for that matter, I see my government do wrong, should I not submit to what they say? What about my wife? How far do we take that idea? If you think you have a valid excuse to refuse God, then why have you submitted yourself?

Yes I am quite familiar with Romans 1:20, but no I don't think it means what you are saying, for I read it in context and that is a context which includes Romans 2:13-24.

I didn't say anything about Romans 1:20.

YOU are not the only one who is perfectly willing to say that everyone who disagrees with you is just stupid and willfully ignorant.

Mitchell - brother. I have not and will not say you are stupid or willfully ignorant (or any other pejorative). I simply disagreed with some minor points and agreed with some other major points that you have made and engaged in discussion about them. I say what is on my mind and heart. If you find value in it, great - if not, that's fine too.

Furthermore I have absolutely no desire to return to the dark ages of mankind where everyone would pretend that they are doing the will of God. Thus I will defend the principles of religious freedom and tolerance at the cost of my life.

Great! I'm happy to hear that.

[mitchellmckain]

The unalterable fact is that many people frankly have no reason to believe that God is doing anything at all (or rather more reason to believe that no God is doing anything than reason to believe there is a God doing something), and so your all declarations that this is not the case is at best just a noisy gong or clanging cymbal, and at worst an example of something irrational or even immoral.

I think you misread. I didn't say "this is not the case". I asked, "is that not the case?" You say many people have no reason to believe... yet I say they disregard perfectly rational reasons to believe because there is enmity between them and God.

I don't think I misread at all because I plainly disagree with you here. The message I see over and over and over in the Bible is that the enemies of God are not those who refuse to buy into the con that the religious ideologues perpetrate on the world, but rather the religious ideologues themselves. The enemies of God are not the poor in spirit who are filled with doubt or those who know nothing of God, but those who use God for their own sinful objectives under the pretense of acting or speaking for God themselves. It is not the suck ups who interest God, doing works because they think it earns them God's favor, but rather those who do what is right for its own sake. All the cermonies the suck ups use to convince themselves and others that God is "on their side" and all the legalisms they used to justify themselves, avail them nothing whatsoever. But those who know nothing of God or scripture or law, but do what is right for its own sake, show that they have the law of God written on their hearts, and it is they who will be justified by the cross not those crying "Lord Lord, thinking the name of "Jesus" provides them a password and indulgence for all their sins.

So just to check, we can summarize our agreements with the following:

1. Logically inconsistent things we say about God simply have no meaning.

2. God does what he does for good reasons, so things are good and right because of those reasons and not just because God is so powerful that we had better act like whatever he does is good and right regardless.

3. Christianity isn't about a powerful magical being that we had better kow tow to, but rather fundamental truths about human desires and our ability find the things that are truly worthwhile.

4. We have absolutely no desire to return to the dark ages of mankind where everyone would pretend that they are doing the will of God. Thus we will defend the principles of religious freedom and tolerance at the cost of our lives.

Incorrect. I believe in a God that is perfectly free to do whatever He chooses,

So why say God "has to" do anything at all? A misstatement, perhaps?

No. It has to do with the fact that God's omnipotence does not mean that He can do whatever we say in whatever rationally inconsistent manner we care to dictate. So yes, that God does things for a reason means that He cannot accomplish what He intends by acting in a manner contrary to those reasons.

That is the difference between a magical God and rational one. It means that God accomplishes things because He has the knowledge and the means by which to do them Himself not because He has some sort of magic to call on unknown powers to do things for Him without any understanding of how things can be done. A God that does things for a reason, does not mean that there is a higher power dictating what God must do, but only that God has a rational existence where the things He does has meaning.

First, I didn't say "God must do" anything. I said God does what is in His nature to do. Those are slightly different, but the difference is important.

And I disagree. This is semantics only. The result is the same, which is an attempt to make God a creature of your own dogma, and this is what I repudiate. God does not do what He does because of some nature you say He has but because He chooses to for the reasons that chooses to do them for.

I have a nature, and even lowly ol me doesn't "have to" do anything (apart from dying of course). The difference of course is God's nature is pure and good, while mine is not.

Sure I have a nature as a physical living organism and God has a nature as a spiritual being. But what I deny is that either these dictate our actions. I deny that an "evil nature" is any excuse for our sins, and I deny that a "nature of goodness" dictates what God does. We do what we do out of our own choices and thus we are responsible it all. God does what He does out of His own choices and thus we can say that He is responsible and good. Love is not something that comes from being made to act a certain way. Love comes from choosing, and God is Love, not nature or dogma.

In fact I completely deny that we have any "evil nature" at all. We are in fact created by God and when we were created God said that it was very good. Our nature is basically good. The problem is that we are living organisms rather than products of design and thus we are NOT simply what we are made to be. Life is a process of self-organization and thus it is our very nature to have a hand in our own creation. Our choices do not simply determine what we do but also what we become. Our choices is what we are. The same is true of God, actually. Yes God is an all powerful omniscient spiritual being, but His choices are His real identity and so what defines God is neither power or knowledge, but Love, because that is what He chooses to do with all that He has.

Saying that God does what is in His nature, does not remove free choice, it amplifies it, just as if I do what is in my sinful nature amplifies the sinful nature - thus saying God does what is in His nature, simply describes God as shown to us through Christ.

Like I said, I disagree. What you describe is a creature of human dogma not a living God.

I can easily see how being willing to submit to God's decision about the right things to do about such things and the correct timing for doing them, can make it so we cannot see that God is doing anything, and if we see Christianity and the Bible being routinely used for things that are wrong and evil, then we have very good reasons to refuse demands that we submit to what they say.

We routinely see science used for wrong and evil too, does that mean we shouldn't trust, or submit to anything it says?

No more than the misuse of any good thing means that we should throw it away, BUT that does not mean that we cannot understand and appreciate the motivations of people like the Amish and others who think it is better to live only with what God has given them apart from all the accomplishments of the world.

If you think you have a valid excuse to refuse God, then why have you submitted yourself?

I never said that I or anyone else has a valid excuse to refuse God, but I utterly deny that Christians speak for God and that submitting to God must be equated with submitting to what Christians say. On the contrary, Christians like all the religious are simply the blind trying to lead the blind. Salvation is the work of God alone and nobody acts or speaks for God at all. Which is not to say that God does not use people to speak and accomplish things, but all too often this is seen in spite of what people intend to say and do rather than because of it, and it is certainly not something which is in any way confined to Christians.

I didn't say anything about Romans 1:20.

No but it was a possible Biblical source of what you were saying and so I thought it worth clarifying.

Mitchell - brother. I have not and will not say you are stupid or willfully ignorant (or any other pejorative). I simply disagreed with some minor points and agreed with some other major points that you have made and engaged in discussion about them. I say what is on my mind and heart. If you find value in it, great - if not, that's fine too.

Good. I very much find value in people saying frankly what is on their mind and heart. It is what I do also, though to my sorrow, people quite often do not appreciate it when I do so. I am a flawed and sinful creature and there is much to criticize and condemn in me. But I truly mean no harm and do the best that I can in good faith.

[reallyRyan]

I don't think I misread at all because I plainly disagree with you here. The message I see over and over and over in the Bible is that the enemies of God are not those who refuse to buy into the con that the religious ideologues perpetrate on the world, but rather the religious ideologues themselves. The enemies of God are not the poor in spirit who are filled with doubt or those who know nothing of God, but those who use God for their own sinful objectives under the pretense of acting or speaking for God themselves. It is not the suck ups who interest God, doing works because they think it earns them God's favor, but rather those who do what is right for its own sake. All the cermonies the suck ups use to convince themselves and others that God is "on their side" and all the legalisms they used to justify themselves, avail them nothing whatsoever. But those who know nothing of God or scripture or law, but do what is right for its own sake, show that they have the law of God written on their hearts, and it is they who will be justified by the cross not those crying "Lord Lord, thinking the name of "Jesus" provides them a password and indulgence for all their sins.

I feel you have made a false distinction, because someone does what is right for its own sake was never my point of disagreement. Neither was whether empty ceremonies are right. Nor was salvation. It was whether or not people are right to believe God is on hiatus. But, since you brought it up, do you think belief and faith play no role? Did God send His only begotten Son so that whoever believed in Him would have eternal life? Or no? Salvation comes to those who do right for its own sake? A salvation by works or salvation by faith?

1. Logically inconsistent things we say about God simply have no meaning.

Logically inconsistent things we say about anything has no meaning, but they do have consequences.

2. God does what he does for good reasons, so things are good and right because of those reasons and not just because God is so powerful that we had better act like whatever he does is good and right regardless.

Right

3. Christianity isn't about a powerful magical being that we had better kow tow to, but rather fundamental truths about human desires and our ability find the things that are truly worthwhile.

No, I wouldn't agree with that statement. Christianity, as the name implies is about following Christ.

4. We have absolutely no desire to return to the dark ages of mankind where everyone would pretend that they are doing the will of God. Thus we will defend the principles of religious freedom and tolerance at the cost of our lives.

Of course.

Incorrect. I believe in a God that is perfectly free to do whatever He chooses,

So why say God "has to" do anything at all? A misstatement, perhaps?

No. It has to do with the fact that God's omnipotence does not mean that He can do whatever we say in whatever rationally inconsistent manner we care to dictate. So yes, that God does things for a reason means that He cannot accomplish what He intends by acting in a manner contrary to those reasons.

Who is dictating?

That is the difference between a magical God and rational one. It means that God accomplishes things because He has the knowledge and the means by which to do them Himself not because He has some sort of magic to call on unknown powers to do things for Him without any understanding of how things can be done. A God that does things for a reason, does not mean that there is a higher power dictating what God must do, but only that God has a rational existence where the things He does has meaning.

That feels like a false distinction, like you are arguing against something that I myself have not said. I do not advocate a "magical God" by saying that He does what it is in His nature to do and what is in His nature is good and right. There is nothing magical about that. Nor does it imply that what God does is not by choice as I have already explained. We can choose to do what is in our nature or to do the opposite. Nor does it imply that God has no reason or he calls on "unknown powers to do things for Him without any understanding of how things can be done." Have I said such things?

First, I didn't say "God must do" anything. I said God does what is in His nature to do. Those are slightly different, but the difference is important.

And I disagree. This is semantics only. The result is the same, which is an attempt to make God a creature of your own dogma, and this is what I repudiate. God does not do what He does because of some nature you say He has but because He chooses to for the reasons that chooses to do them for.

So, its not in God's nature to do what is right? He is just choosing to do right because it is right? How can you say that I am attempting to make God a creature of my own dogma by saying He does what he does because its in His nature to do them and he chooses to follow that nature. While it is not you attempting to make God a creature of your own dogma by saying He chooses to do right because He chooses to for the reasons that He chooses to do them? Please explain that to me.

Sure I have a nature as a physical living organism and God has a nature as a spiritual being. But what I deny is that either these dictate our actions.

A: I didn't say His nature dictates His action B: I clearly stated that He chooses to follow what is in His good and nature.

I deny that an "evil nature" is any excuse for our sins, and I deny that a "nature of goodness" dictates what God does. We do what we do out of our own choices and thus we are responsible it all.

C: I didn't say it is an excuse for our sins. D: As I clearly stated, we have a choice to follow a sinful nature or to fight against it, which puts us squarely in the realm of responsibility.

God does what He does out of His own choices and thus we can say that He is responsible and good. Love is not something that comes from being made to act a certain way. Love comes from choosing, and God is Love, not nature or dogma.

I have never disagreed with that.

In fact I completely deny that we have any "evil nature" at all. We are in fact created by God and when we were created God said that it was very good. Our nature is basically good.

So, let me get this straight, sin did not come into the world through one man, Adam? It comes into the world through many men and women because our nature is basically good and we choose to do wrong? God said that it was very good at the time he made man in creation, but later says the heart of man is only evil continually... clearly contradicting the "basically good" argument. Obviously I believe it is our choice that causes sin, but

Yes God is an all powerful omniscient spiritual being, but His choices are His real identity and so what defines God is neither power or knowledge, but Love, because that is what He chooses to do with all that He has.

How is that any different than saying that its in His nature and He chooses to follow that nature? Really you are just saying the same thing in reverse.

Like I said, I disagree. What you describe is a creature of human dogma not a living God.

Agree to disagree then I guess?

BUT that does mean that we cannot understand and appreciate the motivations of people like the Amish and others who think it is better to live only with what God has given them apart from all the accomplishments of the world.

LOL I can completely understand and appreciate it and have many times thought it would be better to do so.

If you think you have a valid excuse to refuse God, then why have you submitted yourself?

I never said that I or anyone else has a valid excuse to refuse God, but I utterly deny that Christians speak for God and that submitting to God must be equated with submitting to what Christians say. On the contrary, Christians like all the religious are simply the blind trying to lead the blind. Salvation is the work of God alone and nobody acts or speaks for God at all. Which is not to say that God does not use people to speak and accomplish things, but all too often this is seen in spite of what people intend to say and do rather than because of it, and it is certainly not something which is in any way confined to Christians.

I also deny that Christians speak for God and that submitting to God equates to submitting what Christians say and I agree with the rest of your statement... that's all well and good, but you didn't answer my question. Why then have you submitted yourself?

It is what I do also, though to my sorrow, people quite often do not appreciate it when I do so. I am a flawed and sinful creature and there is much to criticize and condemn in me. But I truly mean no harm and do the best that I can in good faith.

If I may, perhaps its not so much what you say as how you say it? That goes for most of us of course (me being chief among the many).

[mitchellmckain]

I feel you have made a false distinction, because someone does what is right for its own sake was never my point of disagreement. Neither was whether empty ceremonies are right. Nor was salvation. It was whether or not people are right to believe God is on hiatus.

Incorrect. YOU raised the issue of emnity with God and it was that issue that I was addressing and on that issue where we apparently have a disagreement.

But, since you brought it up, do you think belief and faith play no role? Did God send His only begotten Son so that whoever believed in Him would have eternal life?

It depends on what you mean by "faith". If you mean that you can be saved simply by saying or believing the right dogmas then no I certainly do not believe in such a blatantly gnostic doctrine as salvation by works of the mind. And that right there is what is wrong with what so many Christians do with John 3:16. They turn it into a legalistic formula of salvation by mental works. This isn't faith. The difference is explained right at the beginning of Romans 10, a righteousness which is based on faith doesn't even ask the question of who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Once you put together some criterion by which you think you can say who goes to heaven and who goes to hell then you have made it salvation by this law you have invented rather than faith.

A salvation by works or salvation by faith?

Niether, it is salvation by the grace of God. It is God who does it not human beings.

Consider the story in Matt 19:13-26, which so many Christians have misunderstood and continue to misunderstand because of they keep trying to legalize everything. "Teacher what good deed must I do, to have eternal life." The problem from the beginning was the that man wants to make a bargain with God for his salvation. A fools errand if there ever was one. He thinks to do a good deed not for its own sake, (for acting in good faith we would simply do what is good whenever we can), but because he thinks he can buy God's favor with it. Jesus tells him to keep the commandments and what is his response??? He asks which as if we get to choose!!! The miserable man is even looking for a legal loophole rather than acting in good faith. The man's basic problem is that he is looking for what is enough, when the fact is that there IS NO ENOUGH! So of course Jesus tells him what more He can do, he can sell all he owns and give to the poor. That will always be God's answer to such a stupid question because there is always more that we can do. But of course many silly christians have tried to legalize this the same way they have John 3:16 and make this about having give all your money and posessions (and the abusers of religion love that one). But the real point is right there in black and white in verse Matt 19:25-26, when the disciples as "Who then can be saved?" And Jesus answers, "With men this is impossible but with God all things are possible."

Salvation comes to those who do right for its own sake?

All throughout the Old Testament, God says that his objective is to raise up a people who have the law of God written on their hearts. This IS salvation by the grace of God.

3. Christianity isn't about a powerful magical being that we had better kow tow to, but rather fundamental truths about human desires and our ability find the things that are truly worthwhile.

No, I wouldn't agree with that statement. Christianity, as the name implies is about following Christ.

By that definition, the moslems and even many of the hindus are Christian too. So while true, it is so empty of content that your christianity disolves into Islam and Hinduism, and thus if what you are seeking to do here is make a better definition of Christianity (something I certainly wasn't doing) then it is a big failure. So what you have effectively done is dodged the issue. I was NOT saying that latter defines Christianity OR that the latter is all that Christianity is about. Rather it is a dichotomy between a magical Christianity which only seeks to appease some powerful supernatural being and rational Christianity which seeks to help people understand fundamental truths about human desires and to find the things that are truly worthwhile.

Incorrect. I believe in a God that is perfectly free to do whatever He chooses,

So why say God "has to" do anything at all? A misstatement, perhaps?

No. It has to do with the fact that God's omnipotence does not mean that He can do whatever we say in whatever rationally inconsistent manner we care to dictate. So yes, that God does things for a reason means that He cannot accomplish what He intends by acting in a manner contrary to those reasons.

Who is dictating?

Where is your secretary?

Just returning one completely meaningless question for another.

That is the difference between a magical God and rational one. It means that God accomplishes things because He has the knowledge and the means by which to do them Himself not because He has some sort of magic to call on unknown powers to do things for Him without any understanding of how things can be done. A God that does things for a reason, does not mean that there is a higher power dictating what God must do, but only that God has a rational existence where the things He does has meaning.

That feels like a false distinction, like you are arguing against something that I myself have not said. I do not advocate a "magical God" by saying that He does what it is in His nature to do and what is in His nature is good and right. There is nothing magical about that. Nor does it imply that what God does is not by choice as I have already explained. We can choose to do what is in our nature or to do the opposite. Nor does it imply that God has no reason or he calls on "unknown powers to do things for Him without any understanding of how things can be done." Have I said such things?

Have I said that you said such things?

So, its not in God's nature to do what is right? He is just choosing to do right because it is right?

Correct.

How can you say that I am attempting to make God a creature of my own dogma by saying He does what he does because its in His nature to do them and he chooses to follow that nature.

Mister. You are the one who started this, with your talk of "erecting our own false god" and so I was showing you how this is exactly what you are doing yourself, because as you judge others so shall you be judged also (Matt 7:2).

While it is not you attempting to make God a creature of your own dogma by saying He chooses to do right because He chooses to for the reasons that He chooses to do them? Please explain that to me.

We have agreed that God does what He does for good reasons. Have you changed your mind about that. Because if you have then that changes the situation entirely.

A: I didn't say His nature dictates His action B: I clearly stated that He chooses to follow what is in His good and nature.

Sound like a lot of made up rigamarole and I don't know why your are talking about all this "nature" that I sincerely doubt that you can know anything of substance about anyway. You were the one connecting it with what He does not me. As for me, it seems quite sufficient to me to say that he simply has good reasons for what he does. It would be good know what those reasons are don't you think? If we understood the reasons why God does things then don't think that would help us great deal in understanding what is good to do? So I think we should go back to that question once again. DOES GOD have a good reason for what He does or NOT?

I deny that an "evil nature" is any excuse for our sins, and I deny that a "nature of goodness" dictates what God does. We do what we do out of our own choices and thus we are responsible it all.

C: I didn't say it is an excuse for our sins. D: As I clearly stated, we have a choice to follow a sinful nature or to fight against it, which puts us squarely in the realm of responsibility.

Right and I don't believe that God created us with any sinful nature for us to fight against. That sounds like your tricksy god again that you have described before. What we do have is bad habits and those are created by our own choices as well. So what I am saying sit that we are not just somewhat responsible for our sin because we can choose to follow a sinful nature or not but we are completely responsible for our sin because whether we are choosing to follow bad habits or not, we are responsible for the bad habits also.

So, let me get this straight, sin did not come into the world through one man, Adam? It comes into the world through many men and women because our nature is basically good and we choose to do wrong?

Not right. Sin came into the world by the choice of one man, Adam. But we did not become sinners by his choices but by our own.

God said that it was very good at the time he made man in creation, but later says the heart of man is only evil continually... clearly contradicting the "basically good" argument. Obviously I believe it is our choice that causes sin, but

Incorrect. What God created was very good. What human beings made of themselves from the time of Adam to the flood was something else and that is where we find the "only evil continually." So in so far as we are a creation of God we are indeed basically good. But being a creation of God is not the whole story because we are not a product of design. We are not simply what God made us to be. God has created living things that participate in their own creation making their own choices about what they become. Yep its back to evolution, the only reason that I can believe any of this stuff, because it is the only thing that punches a hole straight through all the atheists criticisms of Christianity. For if we are a product of design then Adam's sin was God's own failure, but this is not the case because human beings are not a product of design and what we are is not just what God has made us to be and nothing more.

Yes God is an all powerful omniscient spiritual being, but His choices are His real identity and so what defines God is neither power or knowledge, but Love, because that is what He chooses to do with all that He has.

How is that any different than saying that its in His nature and He chooses to follow that nature? Really you are just saying the same thing in reverse.

Not that I can see. I don't see God choosing to follow anything but his own good reasons for what he does. The difference is that those reasons exist. The difference is that things are good for a reason and not just because somebody says so.

But as I said before I really don't understand your "nature" gobbledigook. I have tried. It looked like an invention to avoid saying that God has a good reason for what he does and now that you have denied this I don't know what the point of it may be.

Perhaps you have simply tried to nitpick my OP and found that I can nipick your nitpicking just as well.

Agree to disagree then I guess?

With great pleasure!

If you think you have a valid excuse to refuse God, then why have you submitted yourself?

I also deny that Christians speak for God and that submitting to God equates to submitting what Christians say and I agree with the rest of your statement... that's all well and good, but you didn't answer my question. Why then have you submitted yourself?

Ah! Since the premise of the question was invalid, I didn't know that the question was still of interest to you.

It is a such big question that I have so many ways to answer that it is hard to pick just one.

But ok, here is one way of answering it.

I believe that the natural state of man after death is governed by what I call the law of sin and human desire and it is a law that is a bit like gravity in that the farther you fall the faster you fall and in that everyone under this law has the same destination no matter how well they may be looking good, flying up into the air by their own power. And I can even explain why. It is the nature of sin that it erodes our integrity and destroys our free will enslaving us more and more to bad and worse habits of thought and action till there is nothing left but evil alone, and that is the path to hell. For that is what evil does. It makes every thing and place it touches into a hell. And that is where our own foolish desires will bring us.

(You can say that this is my own personal vision of hell. For I tell you that the picture in many fundie tracks only makes me laugh. For would defy an evil mafia boss god even though he would send me to a fiery tortue chamber, because I would be contented to defy his evil, and would continue to sing the praises of the God of Love that I will follow anywhere He may lead. But I cannot say the same of the hell which I describe above and whose existence I see most clearly not only in the ways of the world but even in the dark pit of my own being. That is a hell which terrifies me indeed. But in truth it is not that which motivates me, for this is really nothing but the other side of my love what is good, which is what does motivate me.)

I see one escape from that doom and one alone and that is instead being under the law of sin and desire, to be in the hands of the living God, surrendering our human desires to follow His will for us instead. How? Well obviously God's hand is there because he has reached down and caught us obviously. It is by the grace of God that we are saved. But it is an open hand, so we have to make a choice. Why? Because He demands it. Why? Because He is love and love requires a choice. It is a gift offered to all, and accepting the gift does not change it into something that is earned. For this purpose He left everything behind to become a helpless human infant and humbled Himself even to His death on a cross (Phillipians 2:5-8). He was murdered by the sin and evil of human beings but He poured our his life willingly so that in His life we would know God as He really is -- the suffering servant who sets no limit whatsoever on what He will give of Himself for the sake of those whom he loves. And thus we would know that the only limitations are inside of us -- in our own hears and minds.

In summary I often say that, hell is the place we find our heart's desire and heaven is the place we find God's desire for us. The important thing to understand from this is that I do not believe in the big bad mafia boss god of the fundies who is saving us from his own terrible wrath, but instead I believe in a God of Love who only does what is in our own best interest, for what he saving us from, our own worse enemy, is none other than ourselves.

[reallyRyan]

YOU raised the issue of emnity with God and it was that issue that I was addressing and on that issue where we apparently have a disagreement.

Apparently not the only issue.

It depends on what you mean by "faith". If you mean that you can be saved simply by saying or believing the right dogmas then no I certainly do not believe in such a blatantly gnostic doctrine as salvation by works of the mind. And that right there is what is wrong with what so many Christians do with John 3:16. They turn it into a legalistic formula of salvation by mental works. This isn't faith. The difference is explained right at the beginning of Romans 10, a righteousness which is based on faith doesn't even ask the question of who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Once you put together some criterion by which you think you can say who goes to heaven and who goes to hell then you have made it salvation by this law you have invented rather than faith.

I have invented no law at all, scripture says it plainly.
When Paul says in Romans 10:4 "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." He doesn't really mean "believes"? and in verse 9 when he says "because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." He doesn't really mean that? Obviously I am not saying that living righteously and turning from sin plays no role, that is after all the heart of repentance. But, I do disagree with your reading and think what he is saying is that the questions are already answered. He says, don't ask in your heart who will go to heaven or who will go to the abyss - but he continues and says.. "But, what does it say?" (verse 8 ) He then quotes the answer to the for-mentioned questions: 9 "because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Romans 10:9-13

My point in posting all that is to say that it seems absent from your interpretation. Or, are you saying he didn't mean what it says there? He doesn't say that if you do right for rights sake, you can get grace... nor does he say that God saves everyone for some as of yet unknown, but good reason. He clearly says that there is some action and belief that is part of the process through which God does His work and through which He justifies pouring out grace.

A salvation by works or salvation by faith?

Niether, it is salvation by the grace of God. It is God who does it not human beings.

I like the last part of your answer, but... What is grace apart from faith? Grace without faith is arbitrary. And what is faith with out works? Its dead (as James says) Salvation as described throughout scripture is by grace through faith, completed in works - that would have been my answer to the question. Ephesians 2 in relation to James 2 if you will. To say that salvation is by the grace of God leaves out a whole lot and is basically the Islamic understanding. If its grace, without justification, how then can we know (as John clearly says we can know) that we are saved?

Consider the story in Matt 19:13-26, which so many Christians have misunderstood and continue to misunderstand because of they keep trying to legalize everything. ... But of course many silly christians have tried to legalize this the same way they have John 3:16 and make this about having give everything to the church (and the abusers of religion love that one)

I have never read any commentary, nor heard in any of the thousands of sermons Ive listened too.. not even heard anyone mention in passing, such an interpretation of Matthew 19. Where have you heard that "so many" Christians believe such a thing? Please name one place so I can research it.

Salvation comes to those who do right for its own sake?

All throughout the Old Testament, God says that his objective is to raise up a people who have the law of God written on their hearts. This IS salvation by the grace of God.

Ok, so where does faith fit in, because I am having trouble finding any room at all in your statements, for Romans 10. That isn't to say that I don't agree in principle that it is by grace, because I do, but through what vehicle does it become actualized, and what justifies grace in your view? It sounds like grace without cause, or without a reason... which you have made clear you believe in. (read my comments on Romans 10)

No, I wouldn't agree with that statement. Christianity, as the name implies is about following Christ.

By that definition, the moslems and even many of the hindus are Christian too.

Your definition of "follow" would be much much wider then mine then. My definition requires believing what He says... which means believing who he claimed to be... which neither Muslims nor Hindu practitioners do. It would mean following (or trying to follow more precisely) all of his teachings, not just a few. Muslims don't follow Jesus, they believe he was a prophet for the Jews thus don't follow all of his teachings save a few that found their way into the Quaran that don't necessarily apply to anyone but Jews. Hindus don't follow Jesus at all, rather they say he might be a good teacher and have some good ideas about select topics. Following requires a dedication... neither are dedicated to Jesus. Now if you are talking about the "Insider" movement, that's a different problem altogether.

Rather it is a dichotomy between a magical Christianity which only seeks to appease some powerful supernatural being and rational Christianity which seeks to help people understand fundamental truths about human desires and to find the things that are truly worthwhile.

Ok, so what is truly worthwhile? But its a false dichotomy. Its not two distinct views, either A or B. The majority of Christians - including myself, don't fall into either of those two camps. Furthermore, what is worthwhile for you might not be worthwhile for me, and neither are probably worthwhile in God's eyes.

So, its not in God's nature to do what is right? He is just choosing to do right because it is right?

Correct.

That seems inconsistent and arbitrary. What makes it right? If its not what comes from God's very nature, and its not because God says so, and its just right because its right, then how can it follow that it is not a moral law above God?

Sound like a lot of made up rigamarole and I don't know why your are talking about all this "nature" that I sincerely doubt that you can know anything of substance about anyway.

LOL rigamarole and gobbledygook - what about hogwash and bullfeathers? I am talking about God's nature and mankind's sinful nature, because its both described in scripture as "the divine nature" as an attribute of God and "the mortal nature" or "corrupt nature" as it pertains to sin and both are a logical deduction when looking at the idea of morality.

DOES GOD have a good reason for what He does or NOT?

As I have repeatedly said, and say again... yes I believe He does have good reason. But what makes it good? What makes it right? That's the point of disagreement or misunderstanding.

Incorrect. What God created was very good. What human beings made of themselves from the time of Adam to the flood was something else and that is where we find the "only evil continually."

How is that any different than what I said?

Not that I can see. I don't see God choosing to follow anything but his own good reasons for what he does. The difference is that those reasons exist. The difference is that things are good for a reason and not just because somebody says so.

Again, where does the right in those reasons come from? Where do the reasons exist? What reason makes something good? If its not because God said so, and its not because its in His nature, then its external to God and therefore a law of morality above God.

I believe that the natural state of man after death is governed by what I call the law of sin and human desire and it is a law that is a bit like gravity in that the farther you fall the faster you fall and in that everyone under this law has the same destination no matter how well they may be looking good

That description, for all intents and purposes, is indistinguishable from what I have described with the term sin nature (although you say after death - while I say after birth).


Thanks for explaining. Obviously I will disagree with some of it, but appreciate the explanation none the less.

Because I have been having so much trouble piecing together your view, could you please answer this question. Why did Jesus die on the cross?

The reason I ask this is because I have to read your words and then try to assess the purpose of His death through that lens. If salvation is by grace alone, needing no belief in right ideas (dogmas or mental works as you say), no proclamation and no work then it seems to me, from reading what you have said, that your view is either incomplete or lacking any justification (good reason) on which to say "Salvation is by the grace of God". Without that justification, I really see no difference between the "grace" of Islam and the "grace" that you have spoken about. I can however see that you are pragmatic, but can't seem to square your statements with what is clearly stated in the scripture that you yourself have pointed to. If you are pragmatic, I can't see where your idea of grace would have any practical application and thus we would have no reason what-so-ever to share the gospel. Please tell me, what am I missing in your view that fills those gaps?

[mitchellmckain]

I have invented no law at all, scripture says it plainly.
When Paul says in Romans 10:4 "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." He doesn't really mean "believes"? and in verse 9 when he says "because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." He doesn't really mean that? Obviously I am not saying that living righteously and turning from sin plays no role, that is after all the heart of repentance. But, I do disagree with your reading and think what he is saying is that the questions are already answered. He says, don't ask in your heart who will go to heaven or who will go to the abyss - but he continues and says.. "But, what does it say?" (verse 8 ) He then quotes the answer to the for-mentioned questions: 9 "because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Romans 10:9-13

My point in posting all that is to say that it seems absent from your interpretation. Or, are you saying he didn't mean what it says there? He doesn't say that if you do right for rights sake, you can get grace... nor does he say that God saves everyone for some as of yet unknown, but good reason. He clearly says that there is some action and belief that is part of the process through which God does His work and through which He justifies pouring out grace.

Yes Romans 10:9-13 can be taken out of context and turned into a legalistic formula for salvation by works of the mind. But putting it back into context means that you understand that it is NOT taking about some criteria by which you can say who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. A righteousness which is base on faith doesn't ask that question. It doesn't ask the question that the man asked in Matt 19:13 looking a way to buy God's favor, looking for loopholes and looking for something that is enough so that you can say that you have earned it and list it as one of your accomplishments in life AS SO MANY Christians have done, looking down their noses at the rest of the world, earning the contempt of God no less than it earns the contempt of other people. There is no room for self-righteousness in a Christian because you haven't accomplished ANYTHING!

Is it not PERFECTLY obvious that Romans 10:9-13 is NOT an answer to the mans question in Matt 19:13. Do you not believe that Jesus is God? Was Roman 10:9-13 Jesus answer to the mans question? The fact is that there IS NO straightforward answer to the man's question in Matt 19:13, for there IS NO way to buy God's favor, there IS NO loopholes through which to escape the consequences of your sin, there IS NO ENOUGH, there is no way for you to accomplish salvation. NONE! Jesus says it RIGHT THERE in Matt 19:13-26. "For man this is impossible"! There is no way to God. Yes Jesus is the "way the truth and the life". How could He not be. He is God Himself and so once you come to Jesus, you are not on the way to God. You are already there.

Thus what is Romans 10:1-13 saying when you put it all together? What is the righteousness which is based on faith? It says that you don't ask the question. It says that you don't do things in order to buy God's favor and earn your way into heaven. It says that you simply go forward in faith to believe and do what is asked. It says frankly that you do what is right for its own sake alone rather than because you are looking for rewards. Because if you are doing the latter then you are lost! If you think you have it made, then there is another answer waiting for you. If you think you have found an escape from the consequences of your sin then you are in for a nasty surprise. If you think that you have done enough, then you are wrong, because Jesus is waiting with the words, "I never knew you" as He said in Matt 7:23 for all who seek to buy the favor of God.

This is why the emnity of God is NOT found among the unbelievers but instead among the religious.

A salvation by works or salvation by faith?

Niether, it is salvation by the grace of God. It is God who does it not human beings.

I like the last part of your answer, but... What is grace apart from faith? Grace without faith is arbitrary.

Incorrect. It is not arbitrary. Salvation is offered to everyone as a gift. It is not earned by knowledge, or words or declarations of belief. It is simply a gift which is accepted and that is all. It is a choice. You either choose your own way and your own desires or you choose what God wants for you instead. That is what faith is. But accepting this gift does not change it into something which is earned. So faith does NOT earn you salvation. It is God who saves you and not anything that you do at all.

And what is faith with out works? Its dead (as James says)

That is 100% correct! Faith is a choice to go forward in life when there is no proof. This does not mean that it is irrational, for we may have VERY good reasons indeed but it is a fact of life that proof is available for very little, far too little to base the living of our lives only upon that which is absolutely proven. So the fact is that we MUST make choices in order to live our lives. And the reality is therefore that ALL knowledge is founded on faith, because we always have to make choices when proof is far from complete, and frankly this is the case in science as much as any other part of life. So anyway, without living our lives accordingly there is no faith at all. Faith goes forward in concrete actions. Faith that a bridge is sound has no meaning if we do not use the bridge and trust our lives to it. So yes indeed, faith without works is dead -- it is no faith at all.

Salvation as described throughout scripture is by grace through faith, completed in works - that would have been my answer to the question. Ephesians 2 in relation to James 2 if you will.

Yes I have no problem with the saying that salvation is by grace through faith completed in works. But there is the matter of understanding what this means. Salvation BY grace means that it is God who does it and God alone. God is the only savior, and salvation is entirely a work of God. To say that salvation is through faith does not mean that human beings are co-saviors with God and making their own contribution to their own salvation. What it means is that, although salvation is a work of God alone it is not a work of magic. It is a work in man. It is a transformation of the human mind, heart and life. It is God who does it, but the result is a new creation of man. And part of that new creation process is faith. The words "through faith" are very appropriate indeed because faith is the gate so to speak. That is where we enter in, and it is a decision we make whether to accept this gift that God offers to all or not.

To say that salvation is by the grace of God leaves out a whole lot and is basically the Islamic understanding. If its grace, without justification, how then can we know (as John clearly says we can know) that we are saved?

I would not call it Islamic but Calvinist, and I am not Calvinist in any way shape or form. I utterly reject all 5 points of TULIP. We have covered total depravity somewhat. It is not that the words "total depravity" are not apt but that the teaching it represents is wrong. All have sinned it is true, but it is just plain wrong that we are completely sinful, or that we are by nature evil, or that we are incapable of any good thing. That is all wrong. We are not damned because of any such things but because of the nature of sin which corrupts and destroys. We are infected with a disease that will lead to all of those results. That is certainly true. But it is patently obvious that such claims of all people being completely sinful, evil by nature, or incapable of any good thing are not only dead wrong but are not supported by the whole of the Bible at all.

As for unconditional election, it is true that salvation does not depend on any merit in ourselves, but it is wrong that God is selecting some to be saved. Salvation is a gift offered to everyone and it we not God who decides whether we accept it. Likewise, limited atonement is wrong. Jesus died for everyone past, present and future in order to make this gift of salvation to everyone. Likewise this idea that salvation is irresistable is also completely wrong, for a gift which is forced upon people is not gift at all but an assault. Finally there is the perseverence of the saints and the problem with that is not the logic of the answer but with the question itself. This doctrine is clearly devised by a faithless people who have transformed chritianity into a legalistic religion by the criterion of Romans 10.

But back to the question of faith. I utterly reject the widespread distortion that faith is some kind of power that God gives us so that we can save ourselves with it. That is not faith. So what is faith. Faith is a choice we make in the unavoidable reality of uncertainty in life. It is how we go forward in life when there is no proof or guarantees. So salvation by grace through faith, means that salvation is entirely the work of God in which he requires us to make a choice, and it is a choice to go with Him where there is no proof and no guarantees. Why? It is because guarantees would stand in the way. A guarantee becomes itself an idol and false god to which we would cling instead of the real and living God Himself.

If its grace, without justification, how then can we know (as John clearly says we can know) that we are saved?

No I do not accept an understanding of 1 John 4:13-17 that contradicts Romans 10. But perhaps I can clarify with a consideration of the concept of assurance. Can we have assurance? Yes. Can we have assurance of our salvation? No. What is it then that we can have assurance of? We can be completely assured of the love and goodness of God. That love does gives us a confidence and knowledge but it is always a confidence knowledge that is based on faith. In that, it is much like the confidence and knowledge we have in a spouse, for it is not based on proof or guarantee but a choice to put our trust in them. Of course there is a big difference between a spouse and God in that the love and goodness of God is perfect. There is no one more reliable and worthy of trust. So I know you may want to say what is the difference then, and that is your logic speaking. But this isn't logic here at all. It is love. It is a love that we choose to believe in and a love that we choose to give ourselves to. The point is that love doesn't exist without such choice and faith and the moment you try bringing guarantees into it, the love isn't there any more and the only basis on which there can be assurance is gone. We must love God because of who He is and not because of what we can get from him because the latter isn't love at all but an attempt to manipulate God and that just cannot work, EVER!

One of the most perfect analogical descriptions of this whole situation was made by C.S. Lewis in the Silver Chair.

"If you are thirsty, you may drink."
"Are you not thirsty?" said the Lion.
"I'm dying of thirst," said Jill.
"Then drink," said the Lion.
"May I--could I--would you mind going away while I do?" said Jill.
The Lion answerd this only by a look and a very low growl. And as Jill gased at its motionless bulk, she realized that she might as well have asked the whole mountain to move aside for her convenience.
The delicious rippling noise of the stream was driving her nearly frantic.
"Will you promise not to--do anything to me, if I do come?" said Jill.
"I make no promise," said the Lion.
Jill was so thirsty now that, without noticing it, she had come a step nearer.
"Do you eat girls?" she said.
"I have swallowed up girls and boys, women and men, kings and emperors, cities and realms," said the Lion. It didn't say this as if it were boasting, nor as if it were sorry, nor as if it were angry. It just said it.
"I daren't come and drink," said Jill.
"Then you will die of thirst," said the Lion.
"Oh dear!" said Jill, coming a step nearer. "I suppose I must go and look for another stream then."
"There is no other stream," said the Lion.

I have never read any commentary, nor heard in any of the thousands of sermons Ive listened too.. not even heard anyone mention in passing, such an interpretation of Matthew 19. Where have you heard that "so many" Christians believe such a thing? Please name one place so I can research it.

I can hear a Pharisee speaking like this to Jesus. And his response I imagine would be about those who hear but never understand. Why do you avoid point of the story which such irrelevant things?

Ok, so where does faith fit in, because I am having trouble finding any room at all in your statements, for Romans 10. That isn't to say that I don't agree in principle that it is by grace, because I do, but through what vehicle does it become actualized, and what justifies grace in your view? It sounds like grace without cause, or without a reason... which you have made clear you believe in. (read my comments on Romans 10)

Oh yes you make it clear that you think faith is something by which you earn salvation, and that certainly makes sense if you have turned chrisitanity into this gnostic legalization of salvation by works of the mind. How can you have strayed so far to ask this question of what justifies grace, looking for something which human beings do. HOW? There is only one possible CHRISTIAN answer to such a question and it is someone nailed to a cross in a place called Calvary or Golgotha, something again which God did, not which human beings did. It is not grace without cause. God did it because He loves us. He certainly did not do it because we earned it. His love is the only reason.


And having spent nearly the whole day on this response, I really have to stop here...

[StillSearching]

Really enjoyed reading that Mitch.

[mitchellmckain]

Really enjoyed reading that Mitch.

Before I read what you wrote I jumped to a conclusion about what you were going to say. Just the fact that you were responding made me think about how it would sound to another person, making me look at it with different eyes. And thus, this is my important caveat to what I was saying.

I did not mean anything I said as a some kind of criterion for who is saved and who is damned. I did not mean it that way. Jesus warns us that as we judge other, so shall we be judged ourselves. And so I would not dare to do any such thing. I absolutely would not rest my salvation on something so foolish as the quicksand of theology. All I meant to do really is clarify what I see is the gospel message that Jesus and the apostle Paul is putting before us. And I grant that I am a nitpicking demon on the matter, perfectionist personality that I have. But the fact of the matter is that I DO NOT believe that one has to understand ANY of this to be saved. It is God's understanding that saves and not our own. So forgive the forcefulness of my argument if it seems to condemn anyone who believes different. That is not what I mean at all. On the contrary, I would assert quite the opposite that not the tiniest bit of what I have said is in any way required for salvation. Why then do I talk about this stuff? It is simply a hobby of mine just as physics and science fiction and board games and a lot of other things. I like thinking about stuff like this. That is all.

[reallyRyan]

Mitch, I read your comments to StillSearching and have the same feeling. Its my hope that I haven't implied that I think I know who is saved and who is not. Or that I think we can save ourselves, because it is only by God's work. I also hope that I haven't come across as though I was being forceful or disrespectful. The questions I ask do not necessarily represent my view, they were probative in order to understand your position. If what I have said was misleading or disrespectful, it wasn't my intention.

The fact is that there IS NO straightforward answer to the man's question in Matt 19:13,

(Matt 19:13 aside) But there is a straightforward answer to the rich man... give everything you have to the poor and follow me. Seems straightforward to me anyway.

Incorrect. It is not arbitrary. Salvation is offered to everyone as a gift. It is not earned by knowledge, or words or declarations of belief. It is simply a gift which is accepted and that is all. It is a choice.

Right, its not earned... we agree on that. But, how can you accept something you don't believe? A story: You bring me a gift but I can't see it, you try to hand it to me, I say "Where is it?" You say,"It's right here", I have a choice... I can either say "I don't believe it exists" or "Ok, I believe you, now how can I accept it from you?" In the case of God's gift, it is accepted through faith (a confident trust).

You either choose your own way and your own desires or you choose what God wants for you instead.

Impossible without belief.

As for Unconditional election, it is true that salvation does not depend on any merit in ourselves, but it is wrong that God is selecting some to be saved. Salvation is a gift offered to everyone and it we not God who decides whether we accept it.

How can anyone accept it if they don't believe? How does us making a choice of whether or not to be saved not make us co-saviors (to use your words)? A choice is no less a mental work than belief is. Even more so actually, because a choice requires belief to begin with.

No I do not accept an understanding of 1 John 4:-17 that contradicts Romans 10. But perhaps I can clarify with a consideration of the concept of assurance. Can we have assurance? Yes. Can we have assurance of our salvation? No.

13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.
1 John 5:13 (ESV)

Certainly sounds like assurance of salvation to me...

And having spent nearly the whole day on this response, I really have to stop here...

Good idea, I was thinking the same thing. I have concluded that I simply am not going to be able to internalize your argument and figure out what it is you are saying. Maybe I am incredibly dense. (Not sarcasm)

Thanks for the interesting conversation none-the-less.
If you feel like responding to the above, great I will give you the last word. If not, hope we can talk again on a different subject in the future.

[mitchellmckain]

By that definition, the moslems and even many of the hindus are Christian too.

Your definition of "follow" would be much much wider then mine then. My definition requires believing what He says... which means believing who he claimed to be... which neither Muslims nor Hindu practitioners do. It would mean following (or trying to follow more precisely) all of his teachings, not just a few. Muslims don't follow Jesus, they believe he was a prophet for the Jews thus don't follow all of his teachings save a few that found their way into the Quaran that don't necessarily apply to anyone but Jews. Hindus don't follow Jesus at all, rather they say he might be a good teacher and have some good ideas about select topics. Following requires a dedication... neither are dedicated to Jesus. Now if you are talking about the "Insider" movement, that's a different problem altogether.

No it has nothing whatsoever to do with my definition of "follow" compared with yours. It has to do with the fact I recognized the simple fact that people are going to understand the meaning of "follow Jesus" very differently. I do not measure the rationality, reasonableness, sincerity, truthfulness or Godliness of other people by the degree to which their beliefs agree with my own, and I very much consider the practice of doing that to be so unreasonable that it borders on being irrational.

Your understanding of Islam and Hinduism is extremely poor. The muslims do not think that Jesus was a prophet for other people, they revere him quite highly as a great prophet for all God's people. The Qur'an mentions the name of Jesus 25 times and the name of Mohammed only 4 times. Jesus is widely venerated in muslim literature and music. So you are wrong, the believers of Islam very much do consider themselves the true followers of Jesus.

Hinduism is a vast cauldron of different religious beliefs but a very great number of Hindus, especially those among non-Indian people and culture believe that Jesus was an incarnation of God like Krishna 3200 years earlier. And thus as an incarnation of the same God that they believe in, they very much do see themselves as followers of Jesus.

Furthermore, what is worthwhile for you might not be worthwhile for me, and neither are probably worthwhile in God's eyes.

But that is very close to the point! What you say here is a bit of a distortion as if what is worthwhile is completely subjective. It is not. However much we may find different things worthwhile, the fact is that all such choices are not all equal -- not on the scale of eternity. So again I say that, Christianity is not about appeasing some powerful magic being but about understanding what is truly worthwhile and that is not what we might think it is but rather what God knows it to be, which is not to say that it is same for everyone but only that God knows us better than we know ourselves.

So, its not in God's nature to do what is right? He is just choosing to do right because it is right?

Correct.

That seems inconsistent and arbitrary. What makes it right? If its not what comes from God's very nature, and its not because God says so, and its just right because its right, then how can it follow that it is not a moral law above God?

Wrong. It is arbitrarty if there is no reason why something is right. But there IS a reason why some things are right and other things are wrong and God knows these reasons. It is this idea of it being in the nature of God that is completely arbitrary because that is empty of reason. You can say it is in the nature of God to torture children and thus torturing children is a good thing. That is the problem with this divine relativism and it is with any relativism, it makes what is good into something that is completely arbitrary.

DOES GOD have a good reason for what He does or NOT?

As I have repeatedly said, and say again... yes I believe He does have good reason. But what makes it good? What makes it right? That's the point of disagreement or misunderstanding.

And again I say that God knows the reason why something is good and right and it is that reason that makes it good and right, and NOT because you say it is good and right or because you say it is part of God's nature.

Again, where does the right in those reasons come from? Where do the reasons exist? What reason makes something good? If its not because God said so, and its not because its in His nature, then its external to God and therefore a law of morality above God.

We are talking about reasons why something is right, so they are right because of those reasons. "Where do reasons exist?" is a nonsenical question. Not everything that exists has a location. Where does God exist? I suppose we can say that reasons exist in the understanding of a person, and the reasons we are talking about have always existed in the understanding of God. Again the point here is that just don't see any point in this talk of God's nature. The point is that there is a reason why some things are right and some things are wrong and that is what is important. Of course the problem with this for many Christians is that it blows the moral argument for the existence of God, that so many like so much, right out of the water.

If its not because God said so, and its not because its in His nature, then its external to God and therefore a law of morality above God.

That is empty rhetoric that I do not accept. It is rhetoric that makes the statement "God is good" completely meaningless. By your reasoning you cannot say that God is good for any reason except because he says that he is good, and that makes him no different from Satan. Indeed this sounds to me like a kind of reasoning that the devil would invent. The devil would want you accept that something is good simply because he says so. The devil would want you to accept that things are right and good because such things are part of his own nature. Thus I am sorry, but the god you describe sounds to me a lot like the god of this world.

Why did Jesus die on the cross?

God counted divine power and knowledge as nothing, but emptied Himself to become a helpless innocent human infant. He humbled Himself to the laws of nature which He Himself had created in order to live and die among us as one of us, even to be mocked and murdered by evil men. God did this to show Himself to us as He really is, Jesus saying to us that when we see Him we see the Father. And what it shows to us is that God is love, for power and knowledge are nothing to Him compared to that. He showed us, in accordance with what He told us in Matthew 23:11, that greatness is not to be found in the powerful or the knowledgeable, but in the servant. God showed us that His character is not to exalt Himself over others but rather to Humble himself and to serve others even at the cost of everything.

Why was this necessary?

Because ever since Adam said "It was that woman you gave me", blaming both God and Eve in one breath for his own sin, this habit of blaiming everything but ourselves for what is wrong in our lives has been an impassible barrier between man and God. God loves us and only wants what is best for us. But we had adopted an attitude and habit that made the very presence of God in our lives something that was not of any benefit to us at all. We made the one who could help us more than anyone into an excuse for taking no responsibility for our own lives. God had no choice, for own good, but to withdraw from our lives, so that we would live by our own efforts alone, for even though that was frankly hopeless at least we might learn that excuses and blaiming others would get us nowhere. It was a no win situation. But God had a plan to overcome it.

God came among us to show that there was absolutely no limit to what He was willing to give and do for us. So that when we saw our sin crucify the living God on a cross, we would finally understand that our sin was the problem and that there are no excuses that can justify it, and on that basis we would be able to have a relationship with God that would be of benefit to us, giving us the help that we so deperately need.

The reason I ask this is because I have to read your words and then try to assess the purpose of His death through that lens. If salvation is by grace alone, needing no belief in right ideas (dogmas or mental works as you say), no proclamation and no work then it seems to me, from reading what you have said, that your view is either incomplete or lacking any justification (good reason) on which to say "Salvation is by the grace of God". Without that justification, I really see no difference between the "grace" of Islam and the "grace" that you have spoken about. I can however see that you are pragmatic, but can't seem to square your statements with what is clearly stated in the scripture that you yourself have pointed to. If you are pragmatic, I can't see where your idea of grace would have any practical application and thus we would have no reason what-so-ever to share the gospel. Please tell me, what am I missing in your view that fills those gaps?

Well you have certainly jumped to a lot of incorrect conclusions and have missed a great deal indeed, so I hope that with these two posts responding to yours, you will indeed see what you were missing and completely wrong about.

There is a difference between being a pragmatist and fashioning Christianity into a tool of power. Pragmatism is an epistemological philosophy that says that the effect of believing something is part of its truth value. For some people, just the fact that something is the truth is sufficient motivation for sharing it with other people. But I don't believe in a Christianity that can be used for the manipulation of other people, I see that facet of Christianity as coming from human beings who have twisted Christianity for such purpose, and so I discard it. Maybe you see the result as leaving out something vital to its practability, but I see it as leaving out that which is most dangerous and harmful. And one of the most dangerous and cultlike of the things which I discard is the belief that the salvation of people and the world depend on believers going out and sharing their beliefs with the world. Sure that motivates evangelical zeal like nothing else, but it also motivates lying and cheating for Jesus types of behavior. This doesn't mean discarding the Great Commission, because that command of Jesus never said anything of the sort.

---------------------

The fact is that there IS NO straightforward answer to the man's question in Matt 19:13,

(Matt 19:13 aside) But there is a straightforward answer to the rich man... give everything you have to the poor and follow me. Seems straightforward to me anyway.

You asked for an example of the legalization that Christians typically make of the story, and you have provided one yourself. It misses the point completely. The story could easily have gone on with the man saying that he had already sold all he has and given it all to the poor and Jesus would simply have had to tell the man something else he could do. Come on! Think about it. That will always be the answer to a question like this because there is always more. Again I repeat that the fact is that there is no way to buy God's favor, there is no loophole through which to escape the consequences of your sin and there is NO ENOUGH by which you can say that you have finally made it and accomplished your salvation. It just doesn't work that way.

But, how can you accept something you don't believe?

People can accept the same thing with different words because they do it all the time in different languages and cultures.

Maybe I am incredibly dense.

And maybe I just see things differently than you do.