Why are you fixated with the Buddha's existence? I've not said anything about that.
It's an analogy.
Even if it is generally accepted that the Buddha existed, that's not related to whether Jesus Christ existed.
I only brought it up as an example of how events which are accepted within religions are not accepted by those outside.
The existence of the Buddha is however related to the standard of evidence needed for the existence of a person accepted within a religion to be accepted by those outside the religion.
The evidence for the existence of Jesus more than clears the standard of evidence needed by those outside Buddhism to accept the existence of the Buddha. (Whether Buddhists care about this is neither here or there.)
But not the supernatural claims about him. Including the meaningless particular 'mystery' of the Trinity even if he were Love incarnate.
We have been saved; we are being saved; we will be saved.
Belief is an assurance that we have been saved, a response to being saved, and an anticipation of the fact that we will be saved.
It is a theological mistake to see it as something we do to get salvation or a condition God sets for us to be saved. Both of those treat faith and belief as a special kind of works.
We have been saved; we are being saved; we will be saved.
Belief is an assurance that we have been saved, a response to being saved, and an anticipation of the fact that we will be saved.
It is a theological mistake to see it as something we do to get salvation or a condition God sets for us to be saved. Both of those treat faith and belief as a special kind of works.
In theological terms, treating faith and belief as a kind of works is quite novel.
The suggestion that faith and belief are not necessary for salvation sounds like an inclusivist theological position. Whether or not it is a theological mistake depends on your theology. A more exclusivist theology would be that faith and/or belief in Jesus are necessary for salvation by virtue of being the means by which salvation is received. That doesn't mean they are a condition to salvation, any more than acceptance of a gift is a condition of receiving a gift. But for a gift to be received, it has to be accepted.
We have been saved; we are being saved; we will be saved.
Belief is an assurance that we have been saved, a response to being saved, and an anticipation of the fact that we will be saved.
It is a theological mistake to see it as something we do to get salvation or a condition God sets for us to be saved. Both of those treat faith and belief as a special kind of works.
In theological terms, treating faith and belief as a kind of works is quite novel.
The suggestion that faith and belief are not necessary for salvation sounds like an inclusivist theological position. Whether or not it is a theological mistake depends on your theology. A more exclusivist theology would be that faith and/or belief in Jesus are necessary for salvation by virtue of being the means by which salvation is received. That doesn't mean they are a condition to salvation, any more than acceptance of a gift is a condition of receiving a gift. But for a gift to be received, it has to be accepted.
That seems like a distinction without a difference.
It also seems to be untrue, although a favourite illustration for some evangelists. If I find your bank account details and dump a grand in there for you, its yours whether you actively accept it or not. Unless you take positive steps to reject it by giving it back, it's yours even if your bookkeeping is lax enough, or your account wealthy enough, that you don't notice you've received it. Or even if you believe I'm lying and didn't deposit it.
We have been saved; we are being saved; we will be saved.
Belief is an assurance that we have been saved, a response to being saved, and an anticipation of the fact that we will be saved.
It is a theological mistake to see it as something we do to get salvation or a condition God sets for us to be saved. Both of those treat faith and belief as a special kind of works.
In theological terms, treating faith and belief as a kind of works is quite novel.
The suggestion that faith and belief are not necessary for salvation sounds like an inclusivist theological position. Whether or not it is a theological mistake depends on your theology. A more exclusivist theology would be that faith and/or belief in Jesus are necessary for salvation by virtue of being the means by which salvation is received. That doesn't mean they are a condition to salvation, any more than acceptance of a gift is a condition of receiving a gift. But for a gift to be received, it has to be accepted.
That seems like a distinction without a difference.
It also seems to be untrue, although a favourite illustration for some evangelists.
To the extent that the idea of salvation being a gift from God is a biblical notion, it's a topic of theology.
If I find your bank account details and dump a grand in there for you, its yours whether you actively accept it or not.
Afraid not. Money that is wrongly, mistakenly or accidentally credited to a bank account is not ours to keep.
Unless you take positive steps to reject it by giving it back, it's yours even if your bookkeeping is lax enough, or your account wealthy enough, that you don't notice you've received it. Or even if you believe I'm lying and didn't deposit it.
I would also need to believe that the money was given in good faith, trust that it was not the proceeds of illegal activity (or immoral, for most of us), and that it was not intended as a bribe or in order to elicit some other favour. Or that it was intended as a loan.
Only then might I have any confidence that it was intended as a gift and thus be willing to accept it. (Which, given the circumstances, seems rather unlikely.) Otherwise it would be incumbent on me to return it and maybe report the matter to the authorities.
Possible interpretations of your analogy include salvation by mistake, salvation by malice, and returnable salvation.
We have been saved; we are being saved; we will be saved.
Belief is an assurance that we have been saved, a response to being saved, and an anticipation of the fact that we will be saved.
It is a theological mistake to see it as something we do to get salvation or a condition God sets for us to be saved. Both of those treat faith and belief as a special kind of works.
In theological terms, treating faith and belief as a kind of works is quite novel.
The suggestion that faith and belief are not necessary for salvation sounds like an inclusivist theological position. Whether or not it is a theological mistake depends on your theology. A more exclusivist theology would be that faith and/or belief in Jesus are necessary for salvation by virtue of being the means by which salvation is received. That doesn't mean they are a condition to salvation, any more than acceptance of a gift is a condition of receiving a gift. But for a gift to be received, it has to be accepted.
That seems like a distinction without a difference.
It also seems to be untrue, although a favourite illustration for some evangelists.
To the extent that the idea of salvation being a gift from God is a biblical notion, it's a topic of theology.
If I find your bank account details and dump a grand in there for you, its yours whether you actively accept it or not.
Afraid not. Money that is wrongly, mistakenly or accidentally credited to a bank account is not ours to keep.
Unless you take positive steps to reject it by giving it back, it's yours even if your bookkeeping is lax enough, or your account wealthy enough, that you don't notice you've received it. Or even if you believe I'm lying and didn't deposit it.
I would also need to believe that the money was given in good faith, trust that it was not the proceeds of illegal activity (or immoral, for most of us), and that it was not intended as a bribe or in order to elicit some other favour. Or that it was intended as a loan.
Only then might I have any confidence that it was intended as a gift and thus be willing to accept it. (Which, given the circumstances, seems rather unlikely.) Otherwise it would be incumbent on me to return it and maybe report the matter to the authorities.
Possible interpretations of your analogy include salvation by mistake, salvation by malice, and returnable salvation.
Find the negative and miss the point. Never look on the bright side of Love.
Salvation, i.e. rescue, from a blip of meaningless suffering before nullifying oblivion would be what Love would owe, should give.
We have been saved; we are being saved; we will be saved.
Belief is an assurance that we have been saved, a response to being saved, and an anticipation of the fact that we will be saved.
It is a theological mistake to see it as something we do to get salvation or a condition God sets for us to be saved. Both of those treat faith and belief as a special kind of works.
In theological terms, treating faith and belief as a kind of works is quite novel.
The suggestion that faith and belief are not necessary for salvation sounds like an inclusivist theological position. Whether or not it is a theological mistake depends on your theology. A more exclusivist theology would be that faith and/or belief in Jesus are necessary for salvation by virtue of being the means by which salvation is received. That doesn't mean they are a condition to salvation, any more than acceptance of a gift is a condition of receiving a gift. But for a gift to be received, it has to be accepted.
That seems like a distinction without a difference.
It also seems to be untrue, although a favourite illustration for some evangelists.
To the extent that the idea of salvation being a gift from God is a biblical notion, it's a topic of theology.
If I find your bank account details and dump a grand in there for you, its yours whether you actively accept it or not.
Afraid not. Money that is wrongly, mistakenly or accidentally credited to a bank account is not ours to keep.
Unless you take positive steps to reject it by giving it back, it's yours even if your bookkeeping is lax enough, or your account wealthy enough, that you don't notice you've received it. Or even if you believe I'm lying and didn't deposit it.
I would also need to believe that the money was given in good faith, trust that it was not the proceeds of illegal activity (or immoral, for most of us), and that it was not intended as a bribe or in order to elicit some other favour. Or that it was intended as a loan.
Only then might I have any confidence that it was intended as a gift and thus be willing to accept it. (Which, given the circumstances, seems rather unlikely.) Otherwise it would be incumbent on me to return it and maybe report the matter to the authorities.
Possible interpretations of your analogy include salvation by mistake, salvation by malice, and returnable salvation.
I think you're misinterpreting me intentionally or at the very least looking for ways to dismiss my analogy by reference to irrelevant ephemera or overextension and as such I have no intention of wasting my time carrying on talking to you.
If I find your bank account details and dump a grand in there for you, its yours whether you actively accept it or not. Unless you take positive steps to reject it by giving it back, it's yours even if your bookkeeping is lax enough, or your account wealthy enough, that you don't notice you've received it. Or even if you believe I'm lying and didn't deposit it.
If I discovered that a credit of £1000 or $1000 that I wasn't expecting had been made from an account that I didn't recognise, my initial reaction would not be that it was a gift, it would be that someone had made a mistake.
I think you're misinterpreting me intentionally or at the very least looking for ways to dismiss my analogy by reference to irrelevant ephemera or overextension and as such I have no intention of wasting my time carrying on talking to you.
I'm not sure how you expected me to respond to an analogy that regards the idea of receiving the unique gift of life from God as equivalent to someone making a payment into my bank account.
Maybe you don't think that the idea of salvation being the gift of God says anything about the means by which that gift is accepted, which is fair enough. Alternatively, if you are in the habit of receiving gifts, maybe you don't see any difference between unwrapping & opening them, and leaving them wrapped & unopened, which is another common analogy. Like most analogies, it too leaves much to be desired.
If I find your bank account details and dump a grand in there for you, its yours whether you actively accept it or not. Unless you take positive steps to reject it by giving it back, it's yours even if your bookkeeping is lax enough, or your account wealthy enough, that you don't notice you've received it. Or even if you believe I'm lying and didn't deposit it.
If I discovered that a credit of £1000 or $1000 that I wasn't expecting had been made from an account that I didn't recognise, my initial reaction would not be that it was a gift, it would be that someone had made a mistake.
I think you're misinterpreting me intentionally or at the very least looking for ways to dismiss my analogy by reference to irrelevant ephemera or overextension and as such I have no intention of wasting my time carrying on talking to you.
I'm not sure how you expected me to respond to an analogy that regards the idea of receiving the unique gift of life from God as equivalent to someone making a payment into my bank account.
Maybe you don't think that the idea of salvation being the gift of God says anything about the means by which that gift is accepted, which is fair enough. Alternatively, if you are in the habit of receiving gifts, maybe you don't see any difference between unwrapping & opening them, and leaving them wrapped & unopened, which is another common analogy. Like most analogies, it too leaves much to be desired.
We have been saved; we are being saved; we will be saved.
Belief is an assurance that we have been saved, a response to being saved, and an anticipation of the fact that we will be saved.
It is a theological mistake to see it as something we do to get salvation or a condition God sets for us to be saved. Both of those treat faith and belief as a special kind of works.
In theological terms, treating faith and belief as a kind of works is quite novel.
We have been saved; we are being saved; we will be saved.
Belief is an assurance that we have been saved, a response to being saved, and an anticipation of the fact that we will be saved.
It is a theological mistake to see it as something we do to get salvation or a condition God sets for us to be saved. Both of those treat faith and belief as a special kind of works.
In theological terms, treating faith and belief as a kind of works is quite novel.
It's a theological mistake. But people do it. They don't do so explicitly. But a work by any other name is still a work. For example, as I understand it the late scholastic theologians that Luther reacted against did so: for them faith was a human action that God freely chose to take as a necessary requirement to qualify for salvation.
Whether or not it is a theological mistake depends on your theology. A more exclusivist theology would be that faith and/or belief in Jesus are necessary for salvation by virtue of being the means by which salvation is received. That doesn't mean they are a condition to salvation, any more than acceptance of a gift is a condition of receiving a gift. But for a gift to be received, it has to be accepted.
You appear to be arguing for the "don't resist being pulled into the lifeboat" view of faith that you previously said you rejected.
We have been saved; we are being saved; we will be saved.
Belief is an assurance that we have been saved, a response to being saved, and an anticipation of the fact that we will be saved.
It is a theological mistake to see it as something we do to get salvation or a condition God sets for us to be saved. Both of those treat faith and belief as a special kind of works.
In theological terms, treating faith and belief as a kind of works is quite novel.
It's a theological mistake. But people do it. They don't do so explicitly. But a work by any other name is still a work. For example, as I understand it the late scholastic theologians that Luther reacted against did so: for them faith was a human action that God freely chose to take as a necessary requirement to qualify for salvation.
Hmm. It does look rather messed up. But "a work by any other name is still a work" depends on your definition of work. If everything we think and do is a "work", including faith and belief, there're not a lot of places to go. But if "faith without works is dead", faith does not sound like a category of works. (Whatever else that might mean, "Work without works" is a null concept.)
Whether or not it is a theological mistake depends on your theology. A more exclusivist theology would be that faith and/or belief in Jesus are necessary for salvation by virtue of being the means by which salvation is received. That doesn't mean they are a condition to salvation, any more than acceptance of a gift is a condition of receiving a gift. But for a gift to be received, it has to be accepted.
You appear to be arguing for the "don't resist being pulled into the lifeboat" view of faith that you previously said you rejected.
Not as such. The nature of human engagement required to accept a gift, and to be rescued, seem to be two different kinds of thing. But looking at either of these in terms of "works" looks more like a category error.
Another metaphor I've seen used theologically is that faith / belief is the medium through which salvation is received. An analogy would be the air through which sound travels from mouth to ear. Sound doesn't travel in a vacuum. The air between someone's mouth and your ear is not a condition for speech - but it is necessary to being heard. As usual, as an analogy, it also leaves a lot to be desired.
Receiving and/or accepting salvation is none of these (analogies). And I'm not convinced it's even *like* any analogies in any particularly informative way. I get the impression that, whatever else Luther achieved, he contributed to the situation whereby all understandings about "salvation through faith" continue to be assessed primarily by what they say about works, regardless of what else they say about other aspects of how we receive salvation.
In the NT, I understand there to be over 100 references to salvation being through faith or belief. It seems likely that this concept is intended to convey something important. It suggests to me something more than assurance or response or anticipation, and not something related to works. Beyond that, I have more confidence in what it doesn't mean than what it does.
Salvation being by faith, i.e. believing, makes God a total bastard. And we make up faith. Desperately. That's hard works.
I don't like your language (I find it somewhat offensive to be honest) but I agree that salvation by faith, when faith is a gift of God is problematic, to say the least.
Salvation being by faith, i.e. believing, makes God a total bastard. And we make up faith. Desperately. That's hard works.
I don't like your language (I find it somewhat offensive to be honest) but I agree that salvation by faith, when faith is a gift of God is problematic, to say the least.
A good evangelical Protestant would say that salvation is 'by grace through faith.' Grace comes first.
However we understand it, Christ saves. Now I'm Orthodox I'm less inclined to fillet it all out into bit-sized chunks. Salvation is of the Lord. It's the whole of the 'Christ event' as it were - his Incarnation, life, moral teachings, example, his identification with the poor and the marginalised, his healings and 'signs', his sufferings and his atoning death, his glorious resurrection and ascension and his continuing intercession for us.
And the descent of the Holy Spirt of course - who proceeds eternally from the Father - and his work in and through the Church and other agencies and in the individual believer - and beyond.
And the intercession of our Holy Mother and all the Saints - whether 'recognised' or otherwise ...
And ...
Of course, that's not exclusively an Orthodox 'take' and others will take some or all of that or leave some on the plate. Or order something from another menu.
Whatever the case, Love wins and I don't see a great deal of value in unpicking all the components to see which one 'saves' us over and above all the others. Is it that cog there, that nut, that bolt?
I feel saddened, rather than offended at @Martin54's constant 'God's a bastard' mantra. I'm sure the Lord has been called worse. Christ as the Incarnate Son and Ever-Word of God certainly suffered more than exasperated insults.
Love can take it.
Which doesn't excuse it, of course. There's nothing wrong with being provocative but we all know you've lost your faith Martin54 and may be feeling pretty raw at spending so much time pursuing something you now feel is illusory. I get that.
But we've heard it all before. It gets wearing after a while. Stick around and rail, but vary the track a wee bit. The needle's stuck.
I feel saddened, rather than offended at @Martin54's constant 'God's a bastard' mantra. I'm sure the Lord has been called worse. Christ as the Incarnate Son and Ever-Word of God certainly suffered more than exasperated insults.
Love can take it.
Which doesn't excuse it, of course. There's nothing wrong with being provocative but we all know you've lost your faith Martin54 and may be feeling pretty raw at spending so much time pursuing something you now feel is illusory. I get that.
But we've heard it all before. It gets wearing after a while. Stick around and rail, but vary the track a wee bit. The needle's stuck.
This is probably Stygian, but agreed. It is becoming problematic for discussion to happen.
A good evangelical Protestant would say that salvation is 'by grace through faith.' Grace comes first.
However we understand it, Christ saves. Now I'm Orthodox I'm less inclined to fillet it all out into bit-sized chunks. Salvation is of the Lord. It's the whole of the 'Christ event' as it were - his Incarnation, life, moral teachings, example, his identification with the poor and the marginalised, his healings and 'signs', his sufferings and his atoning death, his glorious resurrection and ascension and his continuing intercession for us.
And the descent of the Holy Spirt of course - who proceeds eternally from the Father - and his work in and through the Church and other agencies and in the individual believer - and beyond.
And the intercession of our Holy Mother and all the Saints - whether 'recognised' or otherwise ...
And ...
Of course, that's not exclusively an Orthodox 'take' and others will take some or all of that or leave some on the plate. Or order something from another menu.
Whatever the case, Love wins and I don't see a great deal of value in unpicking all the components to see which one 'saves' us over and above all the others. Is it that cog there, that nut, that bolt?
I feel saddened, rather than offended at @Martin54's constant 'God's a bastard' mantra. I'm sure the Lord has been called worse. Christ as the Incarnate Son and Ever-Word of God certainly suffered more than exasperated insults.
Love can take it.
Which doesn't excuse it, of course. There's nothing wrong with being provocative but we all know you've lost your faith Martin54 and may be feeling pretty raw at spending so much time pursuing something you now feel is illusory. I get that.
But we've heard it all before. It gets wearing after a while. Stick around and rail, but vary the track a wee bit. The needle's stuck.
Och no mate. Any defense of God the (Utter and Absolure and Useless) Bastard has to be met full on.
Arguably both Luther and Calvin were late-Scholastic theologians themselves.
How could they not be?
For better or worse they couldn't help but imbibe the same tendencies of those they were reacting against.
That's not to denigrate or dismiss them but it is to acknowledge the wider context.
If their theology doesn't have Scholastic tendencies I'm a Dutch man.
The impression I get is that's it's more a consequence of Luther trying to explain how he didn't throw out the baby with the bathwater:
Luther had promised Georg Spalatin, Elector Frederick the Wise’s private secretary, to write a sermon to counter the criticism that his theological teachings prohibited good works. He completed the work in May and it appeared in print in June 1520.
The first, highest, and most precious of all good works is faith in Christ, and as it says in John 6 [:28-29], when the Jews asked him, ‘What must we do, to be doing the good work of God?’ Jesus answered, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.’ Now when we hear that or even preach it, we pass over it: we think nothing of it and think it easy to do, but actually we ought to pause a long time and think it over properly. For in this work all good works exist, and from faith these works receive a borrowed goodness. We must make this absolutely clear, so that men can understand it.
Which sounds more like someone trying to untie some of the knots he inadvertently tied.
Arguably both Luther and Calvin were late-Scholastic theologians themselves.
How could they not be?
For better or worse they couldn't help but imbibe the same tendencies of those they were reacting against.
That's not to denigrate or dismiss them but it is to acknowledge the wider context.
If their theology doesn't have Scholastic tendencies I'm a Dutch man.
The impression I get is that's it's more a consequence of Luther trying to explain how he didn't throw out the baby with the bathwater:
Luther had promised Georg Spalatin, Elector Frederick the Wise’s private secretary, to write a sermon to counter the criticism that his theological teachings prohibited good works. He completed the work in May and it appeared in print in June 1520.
The first, highest, and most precious of all good works is faith in Christ, and as it says in John 6 [:28-29], when the Jews asked him, ‘What must we do, to be doing the good work of God?’ Jesus answered, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.’ Now when we hear that or even preach it, we pass over it: we think nothing of it and think it easy to do, but actually we ought to pause a long time and think it over properly. For in this work all good works exist, and from faith these works receive a borrowed goodness. We must make this absolutely clear, so that men can understand it.
Which sounds more like someone trying to untie some of the knots he inadvertently tied.
Sure. But those knots were inevitable given the frame of reference he was working with. I don't mean that as a criticism, but as an observation.
I could go further and suggest he untangled one set of knots only to create another. But that would be supposition on my part.
I feel saddened, rather than offended at @Martin54's constant 'God's a bastard' mantra. I'm sure the Lord has been called worse. Christ as the Incarnate Son and Ever-Word of God certainly suffered more than exasperated insults.
Love can take it.
Which doesn't excuse it, of course. There's nothing wrong with being provocative but we all know you've lost your faith Martin54 and may be feeling pretty raw at spending so much time pursuing something you now feel is illusory. I get that.
But we've heard it all before. It gets wearing after a while. Stick around and rail, but vary the track a wee bit. The needle's stuck.
This is probably Stygian, but agreed. It is becoming problematic for discussion to happen.
Yes! But I’m not quite sure how to frame such a Stygian thread.
Salvation being by faith, i.e. believing, makes God a total bastard. And we make up faith. Desperately. That's hard works.
I don't like your language (I find it somewhat offensive to be honest) but I agree that salvation by faith, when faith is a gift of God is problematic, to say the least.
(a) A good evangelical Protestant would say that salvation is 'by grace through faith.' Grace comes first.
(b) However we understand it, Christ saves. Now I'm Orthodox I'm less inclined to fillet it all out into bit-sized chunks. Salvation is of the Lord. It's the whole of the 'Christ event' as it were - his Incarnation, life, moral teachings, example, his identification with the poor and the marginalised, his healings and 'signs', his sufferings and his atoning death, his glorious resurrection and ascension and his continuing intercession for us.
(c) And the descent of the Holy Spirt of course - who proceeds eternally from the Father - and his work in and through the Church and other agencies and in the individual believer - and beyond.
(d) And the intercession of our Holy Mother and all the Saints - whether 'recognised' or otherwise ...
And ...
Of course, that's not exclusively an Orthodox 'take' and others will take some or all of that or leave some on the plate. Or order something from another menu.
(e) Whatever the case, Love wins and I don't see a great deal of value in unpicking all the components to see which one 'saves' us over and above all the others. Is it that cog there, that nut, that bolt?
(f) I feel saddened, rather than offended at @Martin54's constant 'God's a bastard' mantra. I'm sure the Lord has been called worse. Christ as the Incarnate Son and Ever-Word of God certainly suffered more than exasperated insults.
(g) Love can take it.
(h) Which doesn't excuse it, of course. There's nothing wrong with being provocative but we all know you've lost your faith Martin54 and may be feeling pretty raw at spending so much time pursuing something you now feel is illusory. I get that.
(i) But we've heard it all before. It gets wearing after a while. Stick around and rail, but vary the track a wee bit. The needle's stuck.
(a) That's that not good enough though is it. Grace isn't good enough. And it's outrageous. How dare God be gracious. He could try being incontrovertible Love. Love in which there is no doubt. But He doesn't even try to be God in Whom is no doubt.
(b) He would save if He existed, if there were anything about the framing of the story of Him that is unnatural, that is an impossible anachronism. All else would follow. The story of Him atoning for us would actually mean something. What would still be as infinitely debatable as it is. His incarnate existence would mean transcendence. Would mean eternal (not infinite) life.
(c) That would mean something too. (d) Even that might. And I really rate Mary.
(e) Love wins if Love is the ground of being. Grace and faith have nothing to do with it.
(f) Love is not a bastard. If your God damns anyone, He is. If your God cannot, will not, save any that have suffered, He is. Every time that God is defended, justified, or regarded from the fence, Love lies bleeding.
(h) There is nothing to excuse. Not by Love. And it's nothing to do with losing faith, i.e. mere belief, which is no loss. And no, I don't feel raw at wasting my life on meaningless belief. I feel raw for the other inadequacies that go with that.
(i) You, collectively, all have heard one man all before. And not heard yourselves? All the time. Unchallengeable. I'm amazed I'm this powerful. That you are this afraid. This worn. Do really you want to be all left alone together in your echo chamber? You can't have a 'debate' because of one man? Wow. I say all, as you @Gamma Gamaliel, are speaking for everybody.
I didn't say I was speaking for everyone. I simply outlined what I believe. Others are free to believe differently.
In fact, I myself am free to believe differently or to abandon my beliefs or swap them for others. We all are ... and yes, yes, I know, someone will say there are limits on free will, but you know what I mean.
I don't speculate about whether people are 'damned' or not. Hell could be empty for all we know. In the icons of the Harrowing of Hell, Adam and Eve reach out to Christ as well as him reaching down to them.
A glib answer might be that if people are damned then they damn themselves.
It's not up to me or anyone else here to determine who are sheep and who are goats. To sort the wheat from the tares. All any of us can do is to walk according to our conscience and convictions.
Even being a universalist, the tolerance of the Divine Lover for the suffering of creation is more than a little trying, and can lead to violent ranting.
Even being a universalist, the tolerance of the Divine Lover for the suffering of creation is more than a little trying, and can lead to violent ranting.
Yes it can. I have to see a difference in kind between what God doesn't prevent and what God deliberately does, according to Hell doctrines.
It depends on which Hell doctrines we are talking about.
Some Orthodox - and indeed RCs, Anglo-Catholics and others - believe that what some will experience as Heaven - the eternal Light of God's presence - others will experience as Hell because they don't want that and remain wrapped up in their own egos.
In which case it's not what God 'does' - he doesn't roast them on spits - but what people do to themselves by rejecting his love and grace.
Ok, I'm not saying this 'solves' all the problems, as it were, but it does take us away from the Jonathan Edwards 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' thing where the Almighty delightedly suspends sinners over eternal hell-fire like a cruel schoolboy torturing a spider.
Martin54, could you start your own thread on the subject, so you can say everything you want there and not drive us all nuts? And possibly get yourself sanctioned for crusading? Please.
Martin54, could you start your own thread on the subject, so you can say everything you want there and not drive us all nuts? And possibly get yourself sanctioned for crusading? Please.
No I don't. A God who damns, who grounds the being of beings He cannot save, is not worthy of Love.
But you are being saved currently. By the people in the church you love and who believe in Love and in a God who may or may not exist. Whether that 'being saved' extends to beyond this life we may never know. But living as though we are created to love and be loved is not a bad way to live.
PS I am no academic or philosopher but a god who doesn't exist can't be a bastard because they can't be anything. No doubt I've misunderstood this!?
I think what Martin54 is saying is that God doesn't exist but the concept of God that Christians entertain would mean that if he did exist he'd be a bastard.
The issue isn't that he holds this view but that he introduces it onto almost every thread irrespective of the topic and that's why there's been a kerfuffle.
Comments
But not the supernatural claims about him. Including the meaningless particular 'mystery' of the Trinity even if he were Love incarnate.
--C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
We have been saved; we are being saved; we will be saved.
Belief is an assurance that we have been saved, a response to being saved, and an anticipation of the fact that we will be saved.
It is a theological mistake to see it as something we do to get salvation or a condition God sets for us to be saved. Both of those treat faith and belief as a special kind of works.
The suggestion that faith and belief are not necessary for salvation sounds like an inclusivist theological position. Whether or not it is a theological mistake depends on your theology. A more exclusivist theology would be that faith and/or belief in Jesus are necessary for salvation by virtue of being the means by which salvation is received. That doesn't mean they are a condition to salvation, any more than acceptance of a gift is a condition of receiving a gift. But for a gift to be received, it has to be accepted.
That seems like a distinction without a difference.
It also seems to be untrue, although a favourite illustration for some evangelists. If I find your bank account details and dump a grand in there for you, its yours whether you actively accept it or not. Unless you take positive steps to reject it by giving it back, it's yours even if your bookkeeping is lax enough, or your account wealthy enough, that you don't notice you've received it. Or even if you believe I'm lying and didn't deposit it.
To the extent that the idea of salvation being a gift from God is a biblical notion, it's a topic of theology.
Afraid not. Money that is wrongly, mistakenly or accidentally credited to a bank account is not ours to keep.
I would also need to believe that the money was given in good faith, trust that it was not the proceeds of illegal activity (or immoral, for most of us), and that it was not intended as a bribe or in order to elicit some other favour. Or that it was intended as a loan.
Only then might I have any confidence that it was intended as a gift and thus be willing to accept it. (Which, given the circumstances, seems rather unlikely.) Otherwise it would be incumbent on me to return it and maybe report the matter to the authorities.
Possible interpretations of your analogy include salvation by mistake, salvation by malice, and returnable salvation.
This reflects the calvinistic description of arminianism that I am familiar with.
Find the negative and miss the point. Never look on the bright side of Love.
Salvation, i.e. rescue, from a blip of meaningless suffering before nullifying oblivion would be what Love would owe, should give.
I think you're misinterpreting me intentionally or at the very least looking for ways to dismiss my analogy by reference to irrelevant ephemera or overextension and as such I have no intention of wasting my time carrying on talking to you.
I'm not sure how you expected me to respond to an analogy that regards the idea of receiving the unique gift of life from God as equivalent to someone making a payment into my bank account.
Maybe you don't think that the idea of salvation being the gift of God says anything about the means by which that gift is accepted, which is fair enough. Alternatively, if you are in the habit of receiving gifts, maybe you don't see any difference between unwrapping & opening them, and leaving them wrapped & unopened, which is another common analogy. Like most analogies, it too leaves much to be desired.
"When you're chewing on life's gristle, always grumble" What is Love without trust?
We're unwrapped in transcendence.
You appear to be arguing for the "don't resist being pulled into the lifeboat" view of faith that you previously said you rejected.
How could they not be?
For better or worse they couldn't help but imbibe the same tendencies of those they were reacting against.
That's not to denigrate or dismiss them but it is to acknowledge the wider context.
If their theology doesn't have Scholastic tendencies I'm a Dutch man.
Not as such. The nature of human engagement required to accept a gift, and to be rescued, seem to be two different kinds of thing. But looking at either of these in terms of "works" looks more like a category error.
Another metaphor I've seen used theologically is that faith / belief is the medium through which salvation is received. An analogy would be the air through which sound travels from mouth to ear. Sound doesn't travel in a vacuum. The air between someone's mouth and your ear is not a condition for speech - but it is necessary to being heard. As usual, as an analogy, it also leaves a lot to be desired.
Receiving and/or accepting salvation is none of these (analogies). And I'm not convinced it's even *like* any analogies in any particularly informative way. I get the impression that, whatever else Luther achieved, he contributed to the situation whereby all understandings about "salvation through faith" continue to be assessed primarily by what they say about works, regardless of what else they say about other aspects of how we receive salvation.
In the NT, I understand there to be over 100 references to salvation being through faith or belief. It seems likely that this concept is intended to convey something important. It suggests to me something more than assurance or response or anticipation, and not something related to works. Beyond that, I have more confidence in what it doesn't mean than what it does.
I don't like your language (I find it somewhat offensive to be honest) but I agree that salvation by faith, when faith is a gift of God is problematic, to say the least.
It can't offend Love.
However we understand it, Christ saves. Now I'm Orthodox I'm less inclined to fillet it all out into bit-sized chunks. Salvation is of the Lord. It's the whole of the 'Christ event' as it were - his Incarnation, life, moral teachings, example, his identification with the poor and the marginalised, his healings and 'signs', his sufferings and his atoning death, his glorious resurrection and ascension and his continuing intercession for us.
And the descent of the Holy Spirt of course - who proceeds eternally from the Father - and his work in and through the Church and other agencies and in the individual believer - and beyond.
And the intercession of our Holy Mother and all the Saints - whether 'recognised' or otherwise ...
And ...
Of course, that's not exclusively an Orthodox 'take' and others will take some or all of that or leave some on the plate. Or order something from another menu.
Whatever the case, Love wins and I don't see a great deal of value in unpicking all the components to see which one 'saves' us over and above all the others. Is it that cog there, that nut, that bolt?
I feel saddened, rather than offended at @Martin54's constant 'God's a bastard' mantra. I'm sure the Lord has been called worse. Christ as the Incarnate Son and Ever-Word of God certainly suffered more than exasperated insults.
Love can take it.
Which doesn't excuse it, of course. There's nothing wrong with being provocative but we all know you've lost your faith Martin54 and may be feeling pretty raw at spending so much time pursuing something you now feel is illusory. I get that.
But we've heard it all before. It gets wearing after a while. Stick around and rail, but vary the track a wee bit. The needle's stuck.
This is probably Stygian, but agreed. It is becoming problematic for discussion to happen.
Och no mate. Any defense of God the (Utter and Absolure and Useless) Bastard has to be met full on.
What's losing belief got to do with it?
Sure. But those knots were inevitable given the frame of reference he was working with. I don't mean that as a criticism, but as an observation.
I could go further and suggest he untangled one set of knots only to create another. But that would be supposition on my part.
Or Orthodox prejudice perhaps ... 😉
Ah, these Latins and Germans ...
Ho ho ho ...
But it can offend me. Where's the love in that?
(a) That's that not good enough though is it. Grace isn't good enough. And it's outrageous. How dare God be gracious. He could try being incontrovertible Love. Love in which there is no doubt. But He doesn't even try to be God in Whom is no doubt.
(b) He would save if He existed, if there were anything about the framing of the story of Him that is unnatural, that is an impossible anachronism. All else would follow. The story of Him atoning for us would actually mean something. What would still be as infinitely debatable as it is. His incarnate existence would mean transcendence. Would mean eternal (not infinite) life.
(c) That would mean something too. (d) Even that might. And I really rate Mary.
(e) Love wins if Love is the ground of being. Grace and faith have nothing to do with it.
(f) Love is not a bastard. If your God damns anyone, He is. If your God cannot, will not, save any that have suffered, He is. Every time that God is defended, justified, or regarded from the fence, Love lies bleeding.
(g) As I said.
(h) There is nothing to excuse. Not by Love. And it's nothing to do with losing faith, i.e. mere belief, which is no loss. And no, I don't feel raw at wasting my life on meaningless belief. I feel raw for the other inadequacies that go with that.
(i) You, collectively, all have heard one man all before. And not heard yourselves? All the time. Unchallengeable. I'm amazed I'm this powerful. That you are this afraid. This worn. Do really you want to be all left alone together in your echo chamber? You can't have a 'debate' because of one man? Wow. I say all, as you @Gamma Gamaliel, are speaking for everybody.
If there were Love, They would win.
In fact, I myself am free to believe differently or to abandon my beliefs or swap them for others. We all are ... and yes, yes, I know, someone will say there are limits on free will, but you know what I mean.
I don't speculate about whether people are 'damned' or not. Hell could be empty for all we know. In the icons of the Harrowing of Hell, Adam and Eve reach out to Christ as well as him reaching down to them.
A glib answer might be that if people are damned then they damn themselves.
It's not up to me or anyone else here to determine who are sheep and who are goats. To sort the wheat from the tares. All any of us can do is to walk according to our conscience and convictions.
None of us have 'arrived.'
'Glory to Thee who hath shown us the Light.'
As per commandment 8:
8. Don’t crusade – Don’t promote personal crusades. This space is not here for people to pursue specific agendas and win converts.
Hosts have already warned you in regard to your rapid fire posting across the forum often on this theme.
Doublethink, Admin
[/Admin]
Nobody is, 'we' aren't, free to believe.
You sit on the fence of whether God is a bastard or not.
No, if people are damned then God damns them.
Your needle is stuck on the fence we see.
Some of of us have in Love.
For which I'm truly grateful.
Nor do I. Because I'm a universalist.
Nah, that's too reductionist. I think certain versions of non-universalism do question God's character rather damningly (haha) however.
Yes it can. I have to see a difference in kind between what God doesn't prevent and what God deliberately does, according to Hell doctrines.
Some Orthodox - and indeed RCs, Anglo-Catholics and others - believe that what some will experience as Heaven - the eternal Light of God's presence - others will experience as Hell because they don't want that and remain wrapped up in their own egos.
In which case it's not what God 'does' - he doesn't roast them on spits - but what people do to themselves by rejecting his love and grace.
Ok, I'm not saying this 'solves' all the problems, as it were, but it does take us away from the Jonathan Edwards 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' thing where the Almighty delightedly suspends sinners over eternal hell-fire like a cruel schoolboy torturing a spider.
😉
You don't speak for Us All, @Lamb Chopped.
But you are being saved currently. By the people in the church you love and who believe in Love and in a God who may or may not exist. Whether that 'being saved' extends to beyond this life we may never know. But living as though we are created to love and be loved is not a bad way to live.
PS I am no academic or philosopher but a god who doesn't exist can't be a bastard because they can't be anything. No doubt I've misunderstood this!?
The issue isn't that he holds this view but that he introduces it onto almost every thread irrespective of the topic and that's why there's been a kerfuffle.