"What gift of grace is Jesus my redeemerThere is no more for heaven now to giveHe is my joy, my righteousness, and freedomMy steadfast love, my deep and boundless peace
To this I hold, my hope is only JesusFor my life is wholly bound to HisOh how strange and divine, I can sing, "All is mine"Yet not I, but through Christ in me
To this I hold, my hope is only JesusAll the glory evermore to HimWhen the race is complete, still my lips shall repeatYet not I, but through Christ in me"
45 comments:
Are you one who affirms the notion that God selects us humans (and then, only a percentage of us - even a small percentage of us) and if God doesn't select us, then we have no hope for heaven, no hope for joy, no hope for freedom and steadfast love?
If so, such a hymn seems to be a great good news for the "selected ones," but not so much for the rest of us slobs. And presumably, the singer in this song doesn't even have any assurance that this hope he has is anything more than a feeling.
Is that fair?
Amen.
I'll have to find this on YouTube to hear how it's done. I can't place it, though it seems familiar.
Dan,
I affirm that salvation relies 100% on YHWH through the finished work of Jesus The Christ. Scripture contains some clues as to how it works, but I am content to simply trust that I can't do anything to earn my salvation.
Dan,
You seem absolutely convinced that "God selects us humans(and then, only a percentage of us - even a small percentage of us) and if God doesn't select us, then we have no hope for heaven,...". Or at least convinced that anyone who does affirm that is wrong.
If you do consider the notion that "God selects us humans..." to be wrong, the please let us know how does one get to "heaven"? Or, instead of asking you to actually provide the specific option you affirm, how about just provide a few alternatives.
I believe we're saved by God's grace. Period.
I don't think God forces it upon us, so we are free to reject that grace, so, I'm not a universalism in that sense.
I think if it were true, as some evangelicals believe, that God only chooses a select few and the rest of us are damned because God chose NOT to choose us, then that would not be good news or grace.
So, your answer to my question is that you simply don't know if God chooses some and not others?
If so, that's a very fair answer. I'm always glad to hear an honest, I don't know.
Dan
Provide a few alternatives?
God saves us by God's grace. Period. That too would be an alternative to God picking and choosing for reasons unknown and still be in fitting with grace and good news.
Dan
"So, your answer to my question is that you simply don't know if God chooses some and not others?"
No, it wasn't. You can read my answer above, there is no need for you to make something up.
So, grace period.
1. How is that different from my answer?
2. If our accepting/rejecting of this grace is the determining factor, then how can it be "God's grace. Period."?
3. Wouldn't it actually be "God's grace. Plus human acceptance/rejection of "God's grace"?
1. You said...
"I affirm that salvation relies 100% on YHWH through the finished work of Jesus The Christ..."
I said, we're saved by God's grace. Period. God kindly, graciously has offered us salvation as a gift. Grace.
Is that you meant with your answer? It sounds like ("finished work") you're alluding to some blood payment of debts to appease an angry god rather than a loving God simply welcoming and givingand forgiving., but you tell me.
2. If God doesn't stand ready to extend grace, then there's nothing for us to reject or embrace. Grace is what saves us and grace is what would allow us to choose.
3. See above.
Dan
1. Yes. I meant that salvation relies 100% on YHWH through the finished work of Jesus The Christ. The reason why I said that, is because I meant to say it. Because that, in my mind, boils it down the the absolute minimum.
I'll acknowledge that the language of scripture, and of Christ Himself does point to some sort of atonement, of course YHWH does love and welcome His people.
The only difference I can see between the two positions is where the power of choice is located. You give humanity the ultimate power of choice, I give that power to YHWH.
2. This is incoherent. If "God" extends "grace" and humans do nothing with it, then grace means nothing unless a human chooses to accept it.
3. Yes, I do. I see "God's grace" plus human action as being necessary for salvation. As you seem to make clear, there is no salvation until after the acceptance of the extended grace.
The manner in which Dan continually refers to "grace" is meaningless. Throughout Scripture, including the New Testament, obedience to God's Will is a lesson which persists. Dan's rote reference to "grace" doesn't account for that...unless he's forced into a corner. Also routinely referenced in Scripture is being called by God, His sheep hearing and responding. "Selection" is a rational understanding of Scriptural teaching, while Dan's reference to "grace", as is the case with everything else he says when explaining his opinion about the faith, serves to allow one to live in rebellion to God and still gain entry into His Eternal Presence. How convenient "grace" makes following the Lord. No rules. Live on one's own terms. YOU'RE STILL IN!!
1. Yes. I meant that salvation relies 100% on YHWH through the finished work of Jesus The Christ. The reason why I said that, is because I meant to say it. Because that, in my mind, boils it down the the absolute minimum.
So, does that mean you think Grace AND the "finished work of Jesus," dying on the cross to pay (somehow) for a "sin debt" that is owed to God by mortals?
Or do you just mean grace, period, as I think?
2. This is incoherent. If "God" extends "grace" and humans do nothing with it, then grace means nothing unless a human chooses to accept it.
? Why? I mean, if I extend to you forgiveness and grace and welcome, then EVEN IF you don't accept it, it's still my forgiveness, grace and welcome, right? I just didn't force you to accept it (because forcing wouldn't be grace, would it?)
Why does grace, love, forgiveness, etc mean nothing unless it's accepted? According to whom? I think it means a great deal.
3. Yes, I do. I see "God's grace" plus human action as being necessary for salvation. As you seem to make clear, there is no salvation until after the acceptance of the extended grace.
Well, I think that we can accept grace or NOT accept grace, that God does not force heaven or grace upon us.
Do you disagree?
But as with any gift, the GIFT is given whether or not the person accepts it. If they reject the gift, then that's on them. But it does not diminish in any way the gift or the gifter, does it?
If so, how?
As you seem to make clear, there is no salvation until after the acceptance of the extended grace.
I don't think I'm saying that at all... or maybe I am, but I certainly wouldn't put it that way.
Do you think God "forces" grace and salvation on us, whether we want it or not? I doubt that you do, but you tell me.
So, if a human rejects salvation/grace/the Gift of salvation, then I guess there would be no salvation for them, but the gift was still given. And God didn't force it upon them.
But then, again, I think you can agree to that, right?
The only difference I can see between the two positions is where the power of choice is located. You give humanity the ultimate power of choice, I give that power to YHWH.
No. The power of the GIFT is in and from and within and dependent 100% upon the Giver. If the Giver doesn't Give, then there is NO gift, right?
But a good and gracious Giver is not going to force a recipient to receive it, even against their will, I don't think.
Do you?
If so, how is that grace? How is it not just the rule of an iron fist?
I don't think we disagree about who has the power - we BOTH believe it is God. But I don't think that a gracious God forces a gift upon anyone and I doubt that you do, either, but you tell me.
'So, does that mean you think Grace AND the "finished work of Jesus," dying on the cross to pay (somehow) for a "sin debt" that is owed to God by mortals?"
No.
"Or do you just mean grace, period, as I think?"
1. I'm not sure what "grace, period" means to you, so I have no idea how that lines up with anything else.
2. You keep insisting that human acceptance of this "grace" is the deciding factor that actually causes salvation to happen.
"? Why?"
Because, if the point of "grace" is salvation, then there is no salvation without human acceptance of "grace".
"I mean, if I extend to you forgiveness and grace and welcome, then EVEN IF you don't accept it, it's still my forgiveness, grace and welcome, right?"
I guess, although your "grace and welcome" aren't salvic, and the person who didn't accept those things gets nothing from them. As far as the intended recipient is concerned, you've given them nothing.
" I just didn't force you to accept it (because forcing wouldn't be grace, would it?)"
If you say so.
"Why does grace, love, forgiveness, etc mean nothing unless it's accepted?"
See above. If the goal is for YHWH to save His people, then the failure of humans to accept His offered "grace" means that they don't end up with salvation. If, as in your example, the goal is for you to feel good about yourself because you're so incredibly loving and forgiving then merely offering those things allows you to feel good with no change in the other person or in your relationship with them.
"According to whom? I think it means a great deal."
Well, since the person who you offered those things has gotten absolutely nothing from you, I'd suggest that from their perspective they've been offered a meaningless gift. I don't care that you value yourself so highly.
"Well, I think that we can accept grace or NOT accept grace, that God does not force heaven or grace upon us."
So you agree that human acceptance of grace is the deciding, crucial, pivotal aspect of salvation.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes, I disagree that humans play any role in salvation.
"But as with any gift, the GIFT is given whether or not the person accepts it. If they reject the gift, then that's on them. But it does not diminish in any way the gift or the gifter, does it?"
As I said earlier, that depends on the goal of the gift, doesn't it? If you are drowning and I offer you a life preserver, but you choose not to accept is, has my gift accomplished anything? The life preserver still has some intrinsic value, but if you choose not to use it for it's intended purpose then how has it benefited either of us?
"If so, how?"
!?!??? "how" what? This makes no sense in the context of the preceding statement.
"I don't think I'm saying that at all... or maybe I am, but I certainly wouldn't put it that way."
Well, if you say so.
"Do you think God "forces" grace and salvation on us, whether we want it or not?"
No, I don't think that YHWH "forces" "grace and salvation" on us. I also see absolutely zero evidence that leads me to conclude that salvation is anything but 100% the work of YHWH.
"So, if a human rejects salvation/grace/the Gift of salvation, then I guess there would be no salvation for them, but the gift was still given. And God didn't force it upon them."
No, which would indicate that the ultimate control of salvation lies with the human who can accept or reject.
"But then, again, I think you can agree to that, right?"
In the future if you feel like you must ask this question, don't. The answer will virtually always be no.
"No. The power of the GIFT is in and from and within and dependent 100% upon the Giver. If the Giver doesn't Give, then there is NO gift, right?"
No.
"Do you?"
I have concluded that I have zero interest in what you "think". Your hunches about things are of no value to me.
"If so, how is that grace? How is it not just the rule of an iron fist?"
The exact mechanism of how it all specifically works is one of those things that "we see through a mirror darkly" and that we won't understand in this sphere of existence.
"I don't think we disagree about who has the power - we BOTH believe it is God. But I don't think that a gracious God forces a gift upon anyone and I doubt that you do, either, but you tell me."
I have, but you keep asking for me to repeat myself.
Salvation is 100% from YHWH, through the work of Jesus The Christ, we as humans play no role in salvation.
Art,
Dan's vague, undefined, meaningless "grace" seems to be just a hair shy of universalism (but only because he seems to think that full universalism is bad for some reason), and also seem to ignore the myriad of references to exactly what you mention. I suspect that it comes from His insistence that The Gospel must be always interpreted in the light if his eisegesis of the passage where Jesus reads the prophecy of Isaiah in the synagogue. It also doesn't help that he's never really clarified whether or not he believes in the notion of something akin to "heaven and hell". If there is no punishment to fear, then the whole notion of being "saved" from this mild punishment becomes less important.
Indeed. There's a huge difference between "saved by grace"...even without the necessary acceptance of what Christ did to open us up to that provision...and who is saved. While God desires that none should perish, it's quite clear many will, likely more than will not. Throughout all that, grace is extended to all. There are enough passages which connect "belief" with "obedience" and it's the latter where Dan goes wrong, as he dares to pick and choose what to believe is worthy of or requires obedience. And while he pretends he could be mistaken on what is so crystal clear, he has "grace" to enable him to carry on in his mistake...which is truly no mistaking at all.
Art,
There are two instances in Jesus' ministry that seem germane to this conversation.
1. When Jesus said, "“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.". It seems clear that He is indicating that those who are to be "saved" are much fewer in number than those who are not. The argument could be made that the term "find" indicates that the onus is on the "finder", although I'd have to see some detailed study of the original word.
2. Jesus said that He came to be a "ransom for many", again indicating that HE did not come to ransom all.
As far as obedience goes, it is portrayed as a result of salvation. "IF you love Me, you will keep my commandments.", never do I recall it being a prerequisite for salvation.
Dan's vague, undefined, meaningless "grace"
?
Grace: A Gift, a kindness, a welcoming.
God’s grace is usually defined as undeserved favor. Grace cannot be earned; it is something that is freely given.
Grace: noun ; a · approval, favor ; b · mercy, pardon ; c · a special favor : privilege ; d · disposition to or an act or instance of kindness, courtesy, or clemency
Grace (in the Bible): Charis (from which we get Charity) meaning, good will, loving-kindness, favor, in particular to God's merciful grace
I'm defining grace just the way it's defined and understood in English and in the Bible.
How are you defining grace?
Are you saying that grace is dependent upon God giving it to us? And that God may or may not give us grace?
Is that just, in your thinking?
Is it grace, in your thinking?
Marshal...
There's a huge difference between "saved by grace"...even without the necessary acceptance of what Christ did to open us up to that provision
"The necessary acceptance of what Christ did to open us up to that provision..." Does that mean WE humans have to do something to "get" that grace? Affirm and accept "what Christ did for us..."?
I find it strange how much emphasis you place, Craig, on the notion that accepting God's gift, God's welcome, God's grace is some great and mighty act on our part. It's just accepting a gift and that's not the important thing... the important thing is what GOD does - OFFER the gift.
I also find it hard to reconcile your theory that God can save us "by grace" AND by Jesus' blood sacrifice (without which God can't save us??) AND that God doesn't force anyone to accept salvation BUT that none of us who are saved can turn it down without diminishing God's sovereignty.
But whatevs.
Not a fan of the song. I will say they did a good job of making it sound like an old hymn lyrically.
To each their own.
My reference to obedience is as it is presented, an indication of one saved. Therefor, is one saved if one rejects obeying on clearly sinful behaviors? I think Dan takes advantage of the concept of Grace and further dresses it up with the "mistaken" angle.
Art,
I assumed that was what you meant, but wanted to clarify. I agree that Dan places too much emphasis on the notion of a kind of unlimited grace, and "mistakes" as a way to avoid the notion of following YHWH's commands.
It's not about the ability of coming up with a dictionary definition that is the problem so much as your vagueness about how your version of "grace" actually works out.
?
Vague?
Again:
Grace (in the Bible): Charis (from which we get Charity) meaning, good will, loving-kindness, favor, in particular to God's merciful grace
Sort of like Good News to the poor means some real world message that is literally good news for literally poor people. Grace is kindness, a gift to anyone willing to pick up the gift.
But God doesn't force anyone to pick it up, for that would not be grace, would it?
I'm taking a plain, straight-forward understanding of Grace and Good News as talked of biblically and you find that vague? GOOD NEWS, God's Grace is extended to ALL. COME, accept that grace, that forgiveness, that welcome to be a part of God's beloved community. IF you choose, Jesus said, you are welcome. Be welcome!
What is vague about this?
Grace = Welcome and Gift to ALL
Grace does not force
but WHOSOEVER believeth can come, whosoever accepts this welcome IS welcome to be part of the Realm of God, the Beloved Community.
I mean just literally what I'm saying. How is that vague?
Maybe it's the case that you're looking for some formula, some system, some Other method, some hoops to jump through beyond just the straightforward understanding of the words. I don't. I mean just literally what the words says.
God's grace is God's loving kindness, extended to us. Charis, in the Greek. Welcome. Beloved community. Come, follow me.
What is vague about this understanding?
And is that more vague than the suggestion that when Jesus that one time used the word "ransom," that he was implying some system of payment (of some sort) to... some ONE... to pay for "the sins" of people, some how... without any of the details of what all that means? Is there a literal ransom? Of what? Blood? How would literal blood "pay" for anything? Or do you mean figurative blood and, if so, what is that?
This is part of the reason that I had to abandon the angry god being paid off to push that god to forgive, otherwise that god wouldn't forgive idea... It's just so vague and full of ... wha?? sorts of questions.
I just can't see what's possibly vague about mine.
You want the gift, HERE IT IS. You don't want it, that's on you, I won't force you to take it.
I agree that Dan places too much emphasis on the notion of a kind of unlimited grace, and "mistakes" as a way to avoid the notion of following YHWH's commands.
So, you believe in a "limited grace..."?
And I've never said ANYTHING once to suggest I think we should avoid following God's ways. I do not believe that, because of course, I don't.
Do you think I've said something that makes you think I think it's okay to avoid God's ways? That would be the entire OPPOSITE of what I believe. If you read my words for understanding, you can see that.
I have noted the reality that we do regularly make mistakes, being imperfect humans and all. But the vast majority of those mistakes are rather petty and small in nature. It's not like we're out there killing, raping, abusing, warring, stealing day in and day out.
"You have decided to sell your house. You listed it for $200,000. If I come to you and say that I will offer you $500,000 for your house, does that verbal offer mean that you sold your house for $500,000?"
Um... yes? That is, if it's a serious offer, yes.
Not sure of the point though.
So, do you think that God does NOT offer grace to everyone?
Dan
"...but WHOSOEVER believeth can come, whosoever accepts this welcome IS welcome to be part of the Realm of God, the Beloved Community...."
So, you are saying that the single factor that allows one to access the "Realm of God, The Beloved Community", is that someone "believeth", or "accepts this welcome"?
Yes, it's vague. It's just a bunch of buzzwords and talking points strung together with no detail, nothing specific.
"And is that more vague than the suggestion that when Jesus that one time used the word "ransom," that he was implying some system of payment (of some sort) to... some ONE... to pay for "the sins" of people, some how... without any of the details of what all that means?"
If you choose to take one verse completely out of the context of the entirety of Jesus teachings, OT prophecy, and the rest of the NT, then I guess that's possible. Of course that one verse is still more evidence than you've provided for your claim that "gay marriage" is "blessed" by YHWH. Of course, then you'd also have to ignore the thousands of years of study of the matter by experts as well.
"Is there a literal ransom? Of what? Blood? How would literal blood "pay" for anything? Or do you mean figurative blood and, if so, what is that?"
I'm sorry, I'm not going to write a treatise on this subject. I'll point out that you haven't provided one shred of evidence to demonstrate that that interpretation is wrong, just bullshit. I'm not going to recreate the entirety of the linkage between shedding of blood/sacrifice and the remission of sin from Genesis through Revelation because you're too lazy or stupid to do your own research.
"So, you believe in a "limited grace..."?"
No.
"And I've never said ANYTHING once to suggest I think we should avoid following God's ways. I do not believe that, because of course, I don't."
Ok, if you say so.
"Do you think I've said something that makes you think I think it's okay to avoid God's ways? That would be the entire OPPOSITE of what I believe. If you read my words for understanding, you can see that."
If you say so.
"I have noted the reality that we do regularly make mistakes, being imperfect humans and all. But the vast majority of those mistakes are rather petty and small in nature. It's not like we're out there killing, raping, abusing, warring, stealing day in and day out."
If you say so. That's quite a claim to make without data, but as long as you say so...
"Um... yes? That is, if it's a serious offer, yes."
Then you're an idiot who has no idea of how contracts of home sales actually work. The reality is that your home isn't sold just because someone says they'll give you $500,000 for it. It's impossible to sell a house unless both sides perform on the contract.
"Not sure of the point though."
It's simple. The existence of an offer from one person to another, is not a completed sale. Just like your example where salvation requires human acceptance of this "gift", the sale of the house requires 2 parties to perform to make it final. Just like your concept of "grace".
"So, do you think that God does NOT offer grace to everyone?"
I think scripture is clear that YHWH completed "The Lambs Book of Life" before He created humanity. I think that the decision of who is saved is 100% YHWH's decision and that we contribute nothing to our salvation.
So, maybe you could provide your opinions about the details that are clear and not vague in your personal theory about grace?
And maybe you could clarify that you and I can agree that grace is rightly understood by the definition of that Greek work, Charis, meaning clearly, simply, "good will, loving-kindness, favor, in particular to God's merciful grace..."? Or do you have some other definition of grace you're operating under.
I see you cite the "Lambs Book of Life" and believe it to be something like a literal book (is that correct?)... created before there were humans (is that correct?) to formulate your theory that not all humans are literally (?) in this literal book (?) so you "know," (hypothesize) that not all humans are saved or had grace extended to them (?) because not all human names were/will be in that literal (?) book?
And are those the sorts of details you think you find in your theory? That we have a specific literal book with a literal title with literal names written upon it? And (from the same chapters in Revelation you find this theoretical book) that there was/will be a speaking dragon yelling out all manner of blasphemous what nots, which dragon was there when a literal beast with seven heads and ten horns (or was it the other way around) literally arises/will arise from the sea which beast resembled a bear-footed, lion-mouthed leopard arising from the sea which ten-headed beast had ONE head that was wounded and killed, and yet came back to life and, the theory goes, the literal people of the literal world will literally be pretty impressed with this ten-headed bear-footed, lion-mouthed leopard beast arising from the literal sea (which one? Or does it matter...?)... AND there was a second beast coming out of the land (as opposed to coming out of the sea) which will have two horns like a ram but will speak "like a dragon" (and BOY! do those dragons sometimes yammer on and on, amiright?) which second beast (let's call him Pete) will proceed to place a Mark on humans on their right hands or foreheads (great details, to be sure)... and that will literally be the fate of those humans in that time... EXCEPT for the ones whose aforementioned names are written in the literal (?) aforementioned book...
[phew!]
...THOSE people will be rescued (the ones with their literal names written in that literal (?) book) and taken to a new heaven and earth to a literally square city that is literally 1400 x 1400 miles (we know because the text says it was measured using human measuring tools! good news, right?) oh, and also literally 1400 miles high (according to the text, anyway - again, great scrupulous details!) and there will be literally three gates on each of the four walls and the literally TWELVE foundations will be made up of (bottom to top, presumably) jasper, then sapphire, then agate, then emerald, then, well... eight more layers of material...
And on and on like that. Are THOSE the sort of details my understanding is lacking? Are THOSE the sorts of literal details that you think help provide weight to an opinion? Because I haven't given the dimensions and materials of the Beloved Community, you find it too vague..?
If so, well, you got me there.
And I suspect you may think I'm jerking your chain a bit with all of that... and maybe I am. I just can't imagine what details you need to make my opinion more clear/less vague than what I've already provided.
Is it perhaps the case that you need/want to see details before you can embrace a simple theory of a Beloved Community of God?
Cont'd...
You see, for me, the details of a community of God's grace, a realm of God, a Beloved Community saved by God's grace are the precise details that Jesus literally gives when he talks about his Gospel.
“Go and tell John the things which you hear and see: The blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them."
Or
"I Have been annointed to share good news to the poor and marginalized..."
or Paul's...
"All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along."
etc, etc.
The realm of God is a place of Welcome, of forgiveness, of love, of grace... Where the addict is not belittled for his addiction, but is loved and nurtured and given space until hopeful he finds his way home...
where the woman in prostitution is DEFENDED from her religious attackers and welcomed and loved and made to feel at home...
where the refugees and immigrants are not attacked as outsiders and criminals, but are welcomed, believed, given jobs and assistance with housing...
where those with disabilities are not ignored or institutionalized AND not belittled as "God's sweetsy-peetsy li'l angels!!" and instead, made part of the community, build ramps and provide braille and room made for them to take part, to find jobs and homes...
where women are treated as the brave and wise leaders they are and our daughters are given safe places to grow into strong leaders, mothers, siblings, scientists, senators and presidents...
Like that. THOSE are the specific details of what a Beloved Community, saved by God's grace looks like.
And while that's not a 1400x1400x1400 MILE TALL CITY! those ARE details.
And from there, I could break it down into even more details... Where we find safe and healthy transportation options so that the poor can safely get to work and to school and where we build neighborhoods that are complete and sustainable, well one can walk to the safe stores, community gardens, libraries, schools, synagogues, mosques, churches, parks in a sustainable, practical manner.
The specific details could be endless, but I don't know that providing and more details and specific information about this Realm of God would make it any less "vague" to you, is that right?
I suspect that this does not like a Salvation Plan at all, to you, and that's why you can't see that it's not vague at all. But you tell me.
Craig asked...
You have decided to sell your house. You listed it for $200,000. If I come to you and say that I will offer you $500,000 for your house, does that verbal offer mean that you sold your house for $500,000?
I responded...
Um... yes? That is, if it's a serious offer, yes.
Then you're an idiot who has no idea of how contracts of home sales actually work. The reality is that your home isn't sold just because someone says they'll give you $500,000 for it.
Wow. That got rude, quickly.
IF it were a serious offer, not a scam or a hoax or a Trump real estate deal,
THEN YES, we have agreed upon the selling price. And indeed, IF IT WAS a serious offer, THEN the buyer would be buying it and that would be the selling price.
I even clarified that it was a serious offer.
But it sounds like to you we have to assume some hoax is to be expected, EVEN IN a simple little example you're trying to use to make... SOME point.
It seems that the point is that you don't believe in grace and trust and kindness and prefer to operate from a presumption of evil?
I'm actually sure that's probably not true, but it's what I'm getting from your little illustration/analogy, as far as that goes.
The existence of an offer from one person to another, is not a completed sale. Just like your example where salvation requires human acceptance of this "gift", the sale of the house requires 2 parties to perform to make it final.
It's simple. IF it were a sincere offer and the person intended to purchase it (as I stipulated/clarified), then it WAS a completed sale. For folks for whom their word is their bond, it's a done deal.
You're twisting my pointing in your attempted analogy.
In my understanding of God's grace, God extends salvation/community/welcome by a simple act of gracious Will. And IF a person picks up that gift/accepts that offer, THEN it is a done deal.
That is precisely what I said in response to your house exercise.
The Owner (God) is offering the house and I (for whatever reason) offered to pay $500k instead of the $200k God was asking. Still, that person is picking up the offer/making the deal. There was no deceit in place.
Who is God supposed to be in that analogy??
The more direct comparison to your take on your analogy is that God offers Salvation, the person SAYS they want to pay TWICE as much for salvation... but then, withdraws the offer...?? Well, okay, then in that case, there was no sell. But then, I don't believe the homeowners is willing to FORCE that person to buy it against their will, right?
The existence of an offer from one person to another, is not a completed sale.
I guess I don't think a "sale" is the best way to approach or try to make an analogy of grace. It's precisely NOT a sale or a business arrangement. It's a free offer. Period. Please, pick it up.
Or, if you're the rich young man and choose to walk away, unwilling to accept it, then you're free to do that.
But the offer remains real and valid and would remain valid for that rich young man at any point he wanted to accept it, don't you think?
No, of course you probably don't.
"I think scripture is clear that YHWH completed "The Lambs Book of Life" before He created humanity. I think that the decision of who is saved is 100% YHWH's decision and that we contribute nothing to our salvation."
The reason, in case you missed it, in pointing out the literary context of that Great Judean Novel, LBOL, is that you're taking some of the most exotically wildly hallucinogenic beautifully far out biblical writing as if we can cherry pick out some potentially literal facts to hypothesize a literal Book of Life to formulate some notions about grace via blood sacrifice and appear to think (you tell me) you've found some believable specific details while at the same time, the Gospel and epistle writings told in a more literal informational style and treat teachings about good news for thee poor and marginalized as more figurative, while finding calls for a Beloved Community to be vague and undefined.
It's interesting. That's all.
Dan
I don't think Dan has ever demonstrated he has a proper handle on "grace". To that end, and given his "request" we define it, I offer the following:
https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/what-does-the-bible-teach-about-grace/what-did-grace-mean-in-the-first-century-world
It's important to understand Scripture similarly to how honest people strive to understand the Constitution: What was intended by the authors and how was it understood by those who were first privileged to receive it? (referenced the US Constitution because we constantly see how the left perverts that, too) Within the link are three others which are also clarifying as regards the word, with one which cites Jude in a manner appropriate for describing Dan as a godless man, who changes the grace of God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. The understanding of charis at that time was distinct and our role in the relationship requires more than Dan cares to deliver.
Dan continues to mock the concept of Christ paying our debt to the Father with His Blood. The payment was His suffering...the taking of punishment we deserve...described as "His Blood". It wasn't "OK, that's about 117 billion sinners up until about 2023. That'll be four pints of your Blood!" But that's what comes to. Christ suffered on behalf of each of us, tortured and put to death, so that we can have a relationship with the Father as if we have never sinned...if we believe in Him and accept Him as our Savior.
In the meantime, "poor" can only mean the materially poor. Right.
"So, do you think that God does NOT offer grace to everyone?"
I think scripture is clear that YHWH completed "The Lambs Book of Life" before He created humanity. I think that the decision of who is saved is 100% YHWH's decision and that we contribute nothing to our salvation."
I note that you didn't answer the question I asked.
Dan
"And I've never said ANYTHING once to suggest I think we should avoid following God's ways. I do not believe that, because of course, I don't."
Multiple lies in two sentences. Those lies are in conflict with what Dan say and how he defends his choice to indulge in behaviors (or enable others in their indulgence, which is really like he's doing it, too). The "we're imperfect and sometimes make mistakes" might work with regard to some commandment which is universally hard to interpret and historically a source of great debate. Frankly, I don't know if any such commandment exists, as I've never seen one which I found difficult to understand. But more to the point, the behaviors Dan pretends he "might be mistaken" are those which are absolutely unambiguous, and no "journey" of his he's described results in identifying that ambiguity which allows him to say evil is good.
So he does believe in avoiding following God's ways, because it's as crystal clear that he's doing that as are crystal clear commandments he rejects.
"I see you cite the "Lambs Book of Life""
Not exactly. But feel free to make shit up.
"and believe it to be something like a literal book (is that correct?)... created before there were humans (is that correct?) to formulate your theory that not all humans are literally (?) in this literal book (?) so you "know," (hypothesize) that not all humans are saved or had grace extended to them (?) because not all human names were/will be in that literal (?) book?"
I could (and did) parse the above, but alas it disappeared. Then I realized that, much like the rest of this bizarrely punctuated made up pile of shit, it simply wasn't worth the effort to parse an entire screed based on some crap Dan made up and pretended like I said.
"And from there, I could break it down into even more details..."
Those sound like the same old out of context, bullet pointed, proof texts you always trot out as if that's all Jesus said on the topic.
"The specific details could be endless, but I don't know that providing and more details and specific information about this Realm of God would make it any less "vague" to you, is that right?"
This is quite the excuse for not providing any specific details, and making unfounded assumptions.
"I suspect that this does not like a Salvation Plan at all, to you, and that's why you can't see that it's not vague at all. But you tell me."
No, it doesn't. It sounds like a vague, nonspecific, riff about improving social problems, and improving the economic plight of people.
"Wow. That got rude, quickly."
You mean honest.
"IF it were a serious offer, not a scam or a hoax or a Trump real estate deal,
THEN YES, we have agreed upon the selling price. And indeed, IF IT WAS a serious offer, THEN the buyer would be buying it and that would be the selling price."
1. Agreeing on a selling price is NOT a completed sale of a property.
2. Well, you're assuming that the offer was serious, based on what exactly?
3. Are you aware that there are multiple things that can prevent the sale of a property after the selling price is agreed on.
4. Which explains why simply agreeing on a price, is not selling your property.
"I even clarified that it was a serious offer."
Yes, you did make that assumption, you also made the unfounded assumption that a verbal agreement on a price is tantamount to the transaction being completed. Two assumptions not proven to be True.
"But it sounds like to you we have to assume some hoax is to be expected, EVEN IN a simple little example you're trying to use to make... SOME point."
No. It sounds like I know enough to know that the making of an offer, isn't sufficient to consummate the transaction. Yes, I'm making the point that your hunch about YHWH simply dangling an offer of grace out, isn't enough to actually save anyone. In both cases, the offer must be accepted, which places the ultimate power in the hands of the person who receives the offer, not the one who makes it.
"It seems that the point is that you don't believe in grace and trust and kindness and prefer to operate from a presumption of evil?"
If it does, then your discernment sucks.
"I'm actually sure that's probably not true, but it's what I'm getting from your little illustration/analogy, as far as that goes."
Then you're so wrapped up in protecting your self esteem by not acknowledging that your hunch puts the ultimate control of salvation in the hands of humans, that you aren't paying attention.
"It's simple. IF it were a sincere offer and the person intended to purchase it (as I stipulated/clarified), then it WAS a completed sale. For folks for whom their word is their bond, it's a done deal."
No, it's not. You are simply wrong.
"You're twisting my pointing in your attempted analogy."
No, I'm not.
"In my understanding of God's grace, God extends salvation/community/welcome by a simple act of gracious Will. And IF a person picks up that gift/accepts that offer, THEN it is a done deal."
Yes, that is exactly your position as I understand it. The problem is that your position relies 100% on the "person" to "pick up the offer" in order for salvation to occur. It's NOT 100% YHWH, because without the action of someone who "picks up" there is no salvation.
"That is precisely what I said in response to your house exercise."
Actual;y, it's not. But, if your point is that the sale is not complete without specific actions by both parties, then you understand the flaw in your hunch.
"The Owner (God) is offering the house and I (for whatever reason) offered to pay $500k instead of the $200k God was asking. Still, that person is picking up the offer/making the deal. There was no deceit in place."
Deceit is not even a factor. The problem is that in both my analogy, and your hunch, BOTH SIDES are required to act in order for something to happen.
"Who is God supposed to be in that analogy??"
"God" isn't in the analogy. It's interesting that you go through all this bullshit responding to the analogy without even knowing about the analogy, then you ask the question you should have asked before you went off on your responses.
"The more direct comparison to your take on your analogy is that God offers Salvation, the person SAYS they want to pay TWICE as much for salvation... but then, withdraws the offer...??"
No, that's a stupid perversion of my analogy based on your made up assumptions.
"Well, okay, then in that case, there was no sell. But then, I don't believe the homeowners is willing to FORCE that person to buy it against their will, right?"
Whatever.
"I guess I don't think a "sale" is the best way to approach or try to make an analogy of grace. It's precisely NOT a sale or a business arrangement. It's a free offer. Period. Please, pick it up."
As usual, what you think is irrelevant. My point was, that in both your hunch and my example, nothing happens without action on the part of BOTH parties. In your hunch, salvation rests entirely on the one who chooses to "pick it up". Without the picking up, there is NO salvation.
"Or, if you're the rich young man and choose to walk away, unwilling to accept it, then you're free to do that."
In that case, it seems as though the issues was more about his attitude about his goodness in that moment rather than his failure to accept a "gift". Further, there's not reason to conclude that the choice made in that one instance automatically precluded his salvation.
"But the offer remains real and valid and would remain valid for that rich young man at any point he wanted to accept it, don't you think?"
Presumably, which places the entire burden of salvation 100% on the RYR, which has always been my point. It's either 100% YHWH, or X% YHWH and Y% human. You clearly favor the latter.
"No, of course you probably don't."
If you're going to allow you biases, prejudices, preconceptions, and assumptions to make up your mind what I'm going to say, then why waste your time asking the question?
"I note that you didn't answer the question I asked."
I did, you just don't like my answer. It's ultimately YHWH's domain, not mine, only He can answer definitively.
"I did, you just don't like my answer. It's ultimately YHWH's domain, not mine"
You literally did NOT answer the actual question I asked.
Dan
But then, say it clearly: I, Craig, do NOT know and can't answer definitively. That would be answer. What you gave was a response, literally not an answer to the question I asked.
Dan...
"I see you cite the "Lambs Book of Life""
Craig...
Not exactly. But feel free to make shit up.
Also Craig...
I think scripture is clear that YHWH completed
"The Lambs Book of Life"
before He created humanity. I think that the decision of who is saved is 100% YHWH's decision and that we contribute nothing to our salvation.
So, seeing that you literally cited/referenced/mentioned the "Lamb's Book of Life" as at least partial evidence that, in your opinion, it is God's decision of who is and isn't saved, maybe you'd like to answer the questions I asked...
and believe it to be something like a literal book (is that correct?)...
created before there were humans (is that correct?)
to formulate your theory that not all humans are literally (?)
in this literal book (?)
so you "know," (hypothesize) that not all humans are saved or
had grace extended to them (?) because
not all human names were/will be in that literal (?) book?
And are those the sorts of details you think you find in your theory?
And again, I'd ask you to clarify what you mean by my belief that we are saved by grace, period, is not specific enough or is too vague. What details do you need that would make it no longer vague?
That Dan....what a joker!
Ya know...I wasn't going to go more deeply than my previous comment, because I just spent time posting comments the lying coward Dan will delete for BS reasons at his blog. But I just couldn't force myself to walk away from his poop and leave it there on the floor. From his drivel on August 31, 2023 at 1:18 PM
"You see, for me, the details of a community of God's grace, a realm of God, a Beloved Community saved by God's grace are the precise details that Jesus literally gives when he talks about his Gospel.
“Go and tell John the things which you hear and see: The blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them."
Or
"I Have been annointed to share good news to the poor and marginalized..."
or Paul's...
"All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.""
This is Dan setting a foundation for his marxism. But he also lies by saying quoting Christ speaking of "the marginalized". He did not. And of course he perverts what He did say in the same ways I've demonstrated are false renderings for the purpose of pushing Dan's marxism.
"The realm of God is a place of Welcome, of forgiveness, of love, of grace..."
For those who repent and obey God's commandments. Dan doesn't live in such a place.
"Where the addict is not belittled for his addiction, but is loved and nurtured and given space until hopeful he finds his way home..."
Scripture speaks against drunkeness a few dozen times at least. Is the addict any different? I don't think so. Only morons won't "belittle" an addict for his addiction, as the behavior that led to that addiction is worthy of worse than mere belittlement. The behavior is contrary to Scriptural teaching on how we're to live our lives as Christians. And again, repentance and subsequent obedience is required in "God's community".
"where the woman in prostitution is DEFENDED from her religious attackers and welcomed and loved and made to feel at home..."
One of Dan's favorite passages to pervert so as to allow for his enabling of his favored sexually immoral behaviors. She wasn't defended. The Dan-like hypocrites were made to look like the fools they and Dan are. The woman was told to go and sin no more. Christ had no civil authority to have her executed for her sins.
"where the refugees and immigrants are not attacked as outsiders and criminals, but are welcomed, believed, given jobs and assistance with housing..."
That's Dan's marxism, not anything Scripture enables. The people Dan wants us to welcome have transgressed the laws of our nation and in most cases have done so by lying about their situations. Many of them are indeed criminals beyond their dismissal of our immigration policies.
"where those with disabilities are not ignored or institutionalized AND not belittled as "God's sweetsy-peetsy li'l angels!!""
WTF???!!!
"...and instead, made part of the community, build ramps and provide braille and room made for them to take part, to find jobs and homes..."
As if this hasn't been going on for a long time. Who is preventing this? Who is opposing this? No one. Indeed, I know of no one who patronizes them as does Dan...the hypocrite and liar.
"where women are treated as the brave and wise leaders they are and our daughters are given safe places to grow into strong leaders, mothers, siblings, scientists, senators and presidents..."
Dan is not the champion of the fairer sex as he poorly asserts he is. Indeed, he is far more responsible for the harm suffered by women and girls than anyone on our side of the ideological divide. Women are now more at risk because of modern progressive policies than at any other time in history.
"Like that. THOSE are the specific details of what a Beloved Community, saved by God's grace looks like."
No. Those are specific details of what Dan-World looks like. I reject that in favor of truth, wisdom and true Christian philosophy.
"And from there, I could break it down into even more details..."
Oh good gosh, please don't!
"Where we find safe and healthy transportation options so that the poor can safely get to work and to school and where we build neighborhoods that are complete and sustainable, well one can walk to the safe stores, community gardens, libraries, schools, synagogues, mosques, churches, parks in a sustainable, practical manner."
All of these difficulties are the result of modern progressive policies. What a freakin' hypocrite!!!
Post a Comment