The Kerygma - God's Requirement for Salvation
- Thread starter GWH
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Yes, judge, as in decide who qualifies for heaven and who must reap justice in hell (Rev. 22:11-15).
^*^In fact all your terms are just a little bit off - qualifies, souls? Even on salvation, your words and understanding of scripture are limited - when you delineate who “qualifies” for salvation.
again, still stuck at salvation. Never moving further past it.
again, still stuck at salvation. Never moving further past it.
Re "We all know about the judgment, but nowhere in those verses is the term soul. I know what you’re trying to say.
It’s just an odd term to use.": Scriptural is odd? Isn't saying that what is odd for a Christian?! Would you prefer "sinner"?
How about "sinful soul"?
And merely saying "your words and understanding of scripture are limited" does not add to my understanding,
so the ball is still in your court for furthering the discussion.
Amended/improved:
God’s Epistle
Christ is the image of the invisible God,
By whom all things were created,
And he is the head of his body, the church…
First from the dead resurrected.
For God was pleased in him to dwell fully,
Through him to reconcile sinners
Made peace through his blood, shed on the cross
To make us holy without blemish.
If we continue in faith and stand firm,
Not moved from our hope in the gospel.
The gospel we heard that has been proclaimed
To all, of which Paul is a servant.
Preaching the mystery of God once hidden,
But now is disclosed to the saints:
Christ in you who believe in the Lord,
The hope of glory in heaven.
Continue to live in the way you were taught,
Growing in faith with thanksgiving,
Freed from philosophy and hollow myths,
Depending on human tradition.
For you have received circumcision by Christ,
Being buried with him in baptism
And raised with him through faith in God’s power
The fullness of love and life.
(Colossians 1:15-28 & 2:6-13, paraphrased excerpts)
My previous reply focused on the first paragraph, but regarding the second paragraph I should have mentioned that
moving beyond salvation is the focus of the thread I started on the Didache (no, not the ancient document of that title).
Anyone interested in discussing doctrines that build on the Gospel is invited to participate there.
The works themself are not good works. It is the motivation for them that matters to God. Read 1 Cor 13. It doesn't matter what good work you do if not done with love in your heart. The "good works" spoken of are works motivated by love.
Let us not split hairs regarding the difference between twisting and changing.
Actually, as someone who has studied Augustine in some detail, I can explain how he preserved free will along
the line of "so we will accept it", if you are interested. (Calvin did not notice and so did not reiterate that part of A's theology).
Regarding John 6:28-29, it can be better interpreted in light of Ephesians 2:8-10.
Over...
Eph 2: 8-9 clearly states that even our faith is the work of God and not our doing. Augustine of Hippo lived from 354 AD to 430 AD. That is the time that Nicene Emperor Theodocius declared the Edict of Thessalonica which declared that the Trinity had to be taught throughout the Roman empire, and anyone teachig anything different would be punished by the Roman government. This punishment would include confisation of property and death.
The enforcement of these laws culminated in a grim precedent: in 384 AD, the Spanish ascetic Priscillian and several of his followers were tried and executed by a secular court on charges of heresy, marking the first time that Christians were put to death for their beliefs by a Christian Roman state. Augustine was a member of this Christian Roman state. So, why would I be interested in his views. We have a lot more resources than he did, and I would rather place my trust on what is revealed to me through the Holy Spirit and the Bible, than a human that was part of the philosophy of that Roman Catholic state.
Yes, saving faith in Christ as Lord is manifested by, produces, or results in godly/loving works (per Paul most succinctly in Eph. 2:8-10),
but it is salvation that is graced/given/offered by God, and whether or not it is opened/received/efficacious depends on "any man" repenting of sin (Matt. 4:17), seeking God (Matt. 7:7, Heb. 11:6) and believing the Gospel (Rom. 3:21-5:1), which saving faith is NOT meritorious or grounds for boasting.
Oh well, never mind.
Random teachings re faith:
We must be willing to walk by faith (2Cor. 5:7), although desire for proof/miracles is understandable (John 20:24-29),
but the demand for them was denounces by Jesus (Matt. 12:39).
However, we can supplement faith with reason, because faith is quite reasonable rather than blind.
Any open-minded truthseeker who compares the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul with the founding scriptures of other religions will conclude that the NT is the most credible canon or collection of writings purporting to be a communique from God.
The NT hope for heaven is based on evidence in support of Jesus’ claim to be Messiah/Christ, which includes: the prophecy or foreshadowing of His life (in various OT scriptures, including Isa. 53 and Psa. 22, and by the sacrificial system), the purpose of His death (as explained in the NT, such as Heb. 7:18-10:18), and the probability or credibility of His resurrection (in history as recorded by the last chapters of the Gospels and Rom. 1:3-4).
Christianity qualified OT theism, which emphasized God’s love for some people (physical descendants of Abraham), with a universal moral imperative (UMI) aka a command to love everyone by reflecting His love, beginning with God and continuing with one-self and one’s neighbors (whether Jew or Gentile--and even including one’s enemies (per Matt. 22:37-39 & 5:44).
The best reason to hope in God is Christ. Paul calls those who have saving faith/cooperate with God’s will "the spiritual or righteous children of Abraham" (Rom. 3:28-30 & 4:9-16).
Your thoughts re these teachings?
Random teachings re faith:
We must be willing to walk by faith (2Cor. 5:7), although desire for proof/miracles is understandable (John 20:24-29),
but the demand for them was denounces by Jesus (Matt. 12:39).
However, we can supplement faith with reason, because faith is quite reasonable rather than blind.
Any open-minded truthseeker who compares the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul with the founding scriptures of other religions will conclude that the NT is the most credible canon or collection of writings purporting to be a communique from God.
The NT hope for heaven is based on evidence in support of Jesus’ claim to be Messiah/Christ, which includes: the prophecy or foreshadowing of His life (in various OT scriptures, including Isa. 53 and Psa. 22, and by the sacrificial system), the purpose of His death (as explained in the NT, such as Heb. 7:18-10:18), and the probability or credibility of His resurrection (in history as recorded by the last chapters of the Gospels and Rom. 1:3-4).
Christianity qualified OT theism, which emphasized God’s love for some people (physical descendants of Abraham), with a universal moral imperative (UMI) aka a command to love everyone by reflecting His love, beginning with God and continuing with one-self and one’s neighbors (whether Jew or Gentile--and even including one’s enemies (per Matt. 22:37-39 & 5:44).
The best reason to hope in God is Christ. Paul calls those who have saving faith/cooperate with God’s will "the spiritual or righteous children of Abraham" (Rom. 3:28-30 & 4:9-16).
Your thoughts re these teachings?
Applying God-given reasoning for the purpose of deciding what to believe about salvation from sin and death might begin
as Descartes did by considering whether there is some truth that is not subjective or deniable but rather everyone including
skeptics believes at least implicitly and uses as a common point of departure in discussing ultimate reality. The study of reality
assumes at least the reality of the student, and so absolute skepticism in philosophy is like absolute zero in physics: it serves as a hypothetical point that is not actually achieved or else nothing would happen.
The truth discovered by Descartes and represented by skepticism is that finite human beings cannot know much beyond their own existence absolutely, infallibly, perfectly or objectively. This truth is expressed by the apostle Paul (in 1Cor. 13:9&12). However,
uncertainty does not prevent would-be skeptics from talking as if faith with some degree of confidence were possible the moment they attempt to communicate their doubts. An agnostic has “certain” assumptions at least implicitly: that truth is believable, rational and meaningful, even though unprovable or subjective. We can designate this implication as a priori truth or unavoidable belief.
We demonstrate our belief in this implication as we discuss issues on CC: Reality is meaningful and communicable or able to be discussed rationally in fellowship with other truthseekers. Perhaps whoever invented language should be regarded as the founder
of this fact, because our discussion of reality uses language as the means, and in order to communicate sufficiently for attaining agreement or unity, it is necessary to have a common language and cultural context. (I hope that as Earthlings using English these needs are met for you and me :^) As Isaiah 1:18a (c.735 B.C.) says, “Come now, let us reason together.”
as Descartes did by considering whether there is some truth that is not subjective or deniable but rather everyone including
skeptics believes at least implicitly and uses as a common point of departure in discussing ultimate reality. The study of reality
assumes at least the reality of the student, and so absolute skepticism in philosophy is like absolute zero in physics: it serves as a hypothetical point that is not actually achieved or else nothing would happen.
The truth discovered by Descartes and represented by skepticism is that finite human beings cannot know much beyond their own existence absolutely, infallibly, perfectly or objectively. This truth is expressed by the apostle Paul (in 1Cor. 13:9&12). However,
uncertainty does not prevent would-be skeptics from talking as if faith with some degree of confidence were possible the moment they attempt to communicate their doubts. An agnostic has “certain” assumptions at least implicitly: that truth is believable, rational and meaningful, even though unprovable or subjective. We can designate this implication as a priori truth or unavoidable belief.
We demonstrate our belief in this implication as we discuss issues on CC: Reality is meaningful and communicable or able to be discussed rationally in fellowship with other truthseekers. Perhaps whoever invented language should be regarded as the founder
of this fact, because our discussion of reality uses language as the means, and in order to communicate sufficiently for attaining agreement or unity, it is necessary to have a common language and cultural context. (I hope that as Earthlings using English these needs are met for you and me :^) As Isaiah 1:18a (c.735 B.C.) says, “Come now, let us reason together.”
As a person begins to reason beyond the unavoidable beliefs and wonder about the purpose of life, he/she would discover that there are only two qualitatively different beliefs:
1. There is no ultimate “whyness” or purpose beyond survival and avoiding pain, so it does not ultimately matter what one believes or does, because humanity merely evolved from eternal energy/matter, into which it “devolves” at death. One may desire for some reason to survive and to save the world, but if life becomes too painful one may wish they were never born and want to destroy the world, because there is no good reason for being like Messiah rather than like Mania or to be loving rather than maniacal. You may believe and act like evil exists or not, because life is a farce, having no ultimate or universal moral imperative (UMI/God).
2. Life is NOT a farce because existence has meaning, and how one believes and behaves does matter for some non-arbitrary reason (the UMI/God).
The first type of answer can be called "cosmaterialism", because it views reality as consisting only of the material cosmos or universe and as having only four dimensions (space plus time), which are perceived by the five physical senses. The second way of believing might be called "moralism", because—while accepting the reality of the physical/material—it also affirms a fifth dimension perceived by a sixth intuitive or spiritual sense that gives reality a logical basis for meaning and morality (a UMI/God).
The choice between believing cosmaterialism/atheism or moralism/God logically is the first fundamental choice in life (cf. Gen. 3:5).
It can be thought of as a watershed decision/belief that divides all people into two essentially different philosophical categories or world-views like a continental divide.
A person who believes cosmaterialism, moral nihilism and that life’s struggles are meaningless frequently tends to seek escape even via suicide, whether by one act or by a downward spiral of self-destructive behavior. Until/unless this option were somehow proven beyond doubt, moralism or viewing life as meaningful seems to be the better belief.
1. There is no ultimate “whyness” or purpose beyond survival and avoiding pain, so it does not ultimately matter what one believes or does, because humanity merely evolved from eternal energy/matter, into which it “devolves” at death. One may desire for some reason to survive and to save the world, but if life becomes too painful one may wish they were never born and want to destroy the world, because there is no good reason for being like Messiah rather than like Mania or to be loving rather than maniacal. You may believe and act like evil exists or not, because life is a farce, having no ultimate or universal moral imperative (UMI/God).
2. Life is NOT a farce because existence has meaning, and how one believes and behaves does matter for some non-arbitrary reason (the UMI/God).
The first type of answer can be called "cosmaterialism", because it views reality as consisting only of the material cosmos or universe and as having only four dimensions (space plus time), which are perceived by the five physical senses. The second way of believing might be called "moralism", because—while accepting the reality of the physical/material—it also affirms a fifth dimension perceived by a sixth intuitive or spiritual sense that gives reality a logical basis for meaning and morality (a UMI/God).
The choice between believing cosmaterialism/atheism or moralism/God logically is the first fundamental choice in life (cf. Gen. 3:5).
It can be thought of as a watershed decision/belief that divides all people into two essentially different philosophical categories or world-views like a continental divide.
A person who believes cosmaterialism, moral nihilism and that life’s struggles are meaningless frequently tends to seek escape even via suicide, whether by one act or by a downward spiral of self-destructive behavior. Until/unless this option were somehow proven beyond doubt, moralism or viewing life as meaningful seems to be the better belief.
The second watershed decision flows immediately and implicitly from the moralist viewpoint—choosing what (or who) to believe gives existence meaning and undergirds moral conscience. As one analyzes the variety of moralistic beliefs, there seem to be three main atheistic denominations:
1. the ground of meaning/morality is human power (humanism, cf. Gen. 11:4),
2. there is a natural moral law or karma in the universe (karmaism, cf. Gal. 6:7),
3. there is natural “meaning” with an instinct or proclivity toward morality (naturalism, cf. Rom. 2:14), or
Humanism has three sects including: egoism (meaning is self-dictated), elitism (“might makes right”) and popularism (“the majority rules”). These isms implicitly recognize that souls are forced by the structure of reality to choose what to believe; humans are volitional beings, paradoxically forced to make free moral decisions. However, this choice or affirmation does not necessarily mean people determine or create truth ultimately. (Is mankind the pinnacle?)
The truth of egoism is that each individual is responsible for his/her choices (but to whom; is there a Higher Authority?).
The truth of elitism is that the ruling class of people has political power over those who are governed (although a superhuman Governor of the universe may exist).
And the truth of popularism is that in a democracy the majority may be the governors (however, this does not mean its decisions are objective or right).
In short, selfish people may be I-dolatrous, but they cannot become God.
Karmaism, (found mainly in Hinduism/Buddhism), has a doctrine of reincarnation according to one’s karma or performance of good and evil deeds. This belief provides a rationale for universal morality (a UMI), but its fallacy may be assuming that the ground of meaning is impersonal, merely natural or even subhuman. Although there are occasional claims by someone to have memories of previous lives, if karmaism were true one might expect that everyone who was a mainly moral sentient human being in the previous life would remember much of it. Thus, I find insufficient evidence for karmaism (reaping what is sown naturally).
The adherents of naturalism posit that humans instinctively accept the validity of morality or of acting in accordance with a reciprocity principle or the “golden rule” (do unto others as you would have them do unto you, cf. Matt. 7:12), and they are satisfied with whatever meaning can be derived from this earthly existence. The problem with this view is that humanity has also had a proclivity toward evil throughout history, so there is no basis for saying the negative force toward others is not equally valid and for mandating a universal golden rule or moral imperative. Logically, all it can offer is a “pyrite suggestion”. Morally, it merely continues KOTH (might makes right).
Pantheism or belief that nature is god and polytheism or belief in many gods envision a vitiated or diminished divinity and thus are tantamount to atheism. Also, deism says God created the world but does not interact with it (as though He died), which amounts to practical or functional atheism. The cry of Jesus on the cross, “My God, why have you forsaken me?” (in Matt. 27:46) expresses feelings in accord with this view, while the resurrection of Jesus (Matt. 28:5-7) provides hope that such feelings do not match the facts.
1. the ground of meaning/morality is human power (humanism, cf. Gen. 11:4),
2. there is a natural moral law or karma in the universe (karmaism, cf. Gal. 6:7),
3. there is natural “meaning” with an instinct or proclivity toward morality (naturalism, cf. Rom. 2:14), or
Humanism has three sects including: egoism (meaning is self-dictated), elitism (“might makes right”) and popularism (“the majority rules”). These isms implicitly recognize that souls are forced by the structure of reality to choose what to believe; humans are volitional beings, paradoxically forced to make free moral decisions. However, this choice or affirmation does not necessarily mean people determine or create truth ultimately. (Is mankind the pinnacle?)
The truth of egoism is that each individual is responsible for his/her choices (but to whom; is there a Higher Authority?).
The truth of elitism is that the ruling class of people has political power over those who are governed (although a superhuman Governor of the universe may exist).
And the truth of popularism is that in a democracy the majority may be the governors (however, this does not mean its decisions are objective or right).
In short, selfish people may be I-dolatrous, but they cannot become God.
Karmaism, (found mainly in Hinduism/Buddhism), has a doctrine of reincarnation according to one’s karma or performance of good and evil deeds. This belief provides a rationale for universal morality (a UMI), but its fallacy may be assuming that the ground of meaning is impersonal, merely natural or even subhuman. Although there are occasional claims by someone to have memories of previous lives, if karmaism were true one might expect that everyone who was a mainly moral sentient human being in the previous life would remember much of it. Thus, I find insufficient evidence for karmaism (reaping what is sown naturally).
The adherents of naturalism posit that humans instinctively accept the validity of morality or of acting in accordance with a reciprocity principle or the “golden rule” (do unto others as you would have them do unto you, cf. Matt. 7:12), and they are satisfied with whatever meaning can be derived from this earthly existence. The problem with this view is that humanity has also had a proclivity toward evil throughout history, so there is no basis for saying the negative force toward others is not equally valid and for mandating a universal golden rule or moral imperative. Logically, all it can offer is a “pyrite suggestion”. Morally, it merely continues KOTH (might makes right).
Pantheism or belief that nature is god and polytheism or belief in many gods envision a vitiated or diminished divinity and thus are tantamount to atheism. Also, deism says God created the world but does not interact with it (as though He died), which amounts to practical or functional atheism. The cry of Jesus on the cross, “My God, why have you forsaken me?” (in Matt. 27:46) expresses feelings in accord with this view, while the resurrection of Jesus (Matt. 28:5-7) provides hope that such feelings do not match the facts.
only one will that matters
Yes, that will be posted next in this logical train of thought designed for atheists--and to inoculate Christians
(raised in churches such as the one my parents attended that only taught the Gospel) against atheism.