Should God always be followed, etc.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:58 pm

Jeff250 wrote:What's the minimum that one has to explicitely know before he can be saved? Does he have to know that there even is an offer? Could he be saved and not know it? Accidental salvation?

I believe so, yes. Salvation without having the slightest clue about it is entirely possible.

What follows is a response I gave to a question sent in a PM, where someone mentioned that they hadn't been able to get a satisfying response to their questions. The key section here is #3, but it doesn't make 100% sense unless you've read the other sections too.

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

Name Withheld wrote:#2 Why does God allow people to go their entire life and not hear about Him? #3 Do they go to heaven or hell? If hell, why? #1 Wouldn't that be "unfair"to go to hell and not have any chance of accepting Christ?

I'm not surprised your dad's answer wasn't satisfying. This question has been around for millenia, and a lot of people have tried to answer it in a lot of ways, but the answers are rarely good. I apologize in advance if my own answers are less than you'd hoped for.

I'll begin with a little rant about what I've marked as #1 first, and then I'll answer the questions marked #2 and #3 in light of that. (The answer to #1, really, doesn't matter that much for answering the others, but it's one of my pet peeves.)

#1) On fairness: People have elevated the concept of "fairness" to the status of an idol. But fairness is not some great virtue that we should strive for in all circumstances. What we should strive for is justice, and fairness often but not always comes out of that. That is, we should strive to give everyone what they deserve (at a minimum), which is what justice is. Sometimes, that leads to us giving everyone exactly the same thing, or exactly the bare minimum they deserve, which is what fairness is -- but sometimes we give some people better than they deserve, and this is not always fair. That's OK though; unfairness is sometimes acceptable if it comes out of generosity. Unfairness is only bad when it's also unjust.

Governments, by their nature, should be perfectly fair. They should never give someone less than they deserve, because that's unjust. But, on the other hand, they should never give people more than they're entitled to, because every resource the government has comes from the people, and it's unjust for them to take extra in order to be extra generous. But individuals who have resources of their own are free to give people more than they deserve, as God does in the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20).

Now, because everybody deserves hell, it would be perfectly fair *and* perfectly just for God to just send everybody there without a chance. The fact that all people have a chance of avoiding hell, and that some people have a fairly GOOD chance of avoiding hell, is a testament to God's generosity. It's not entirely fair, but it is just.

#2) On God allowing people never to hear: As I mentioned in the above paragraph, not everybody has the same chance at avoiding their deserved fate. There are people who go their whole lives never hearing about Jesus, and people who hear but never see a Bible, and people who lived in Old Testament times who could've heard Jewish law but nothing more, and people who grew up with strong Christian parents, and people who had missionaries sent to them by God like the Ethiopian in Acts 8, and people like Ezekiel who had visions from God, and people who met Jesus in person once or twice, and people like the disciples who actually got to live with Him for years, and people like Paul who heard Him speak from heaven. Obviously this is not fair -- if God wanted to be fair, He'd have to give everyone the exact same shot (whatever shot it might be.)

So your question really has two parts -- why does God give some people less chance than others, and why do the chances go so low for some people? The first question is one of fairness, and I think we can throw it out due to my rant above (After all, I don't think you'd be complaining about fairness if everyone had visions from God, but only some got to meet Jesus in person.) It's the second question that's important, and the second question that remains: why are the chances seemingly so low for some people? This is a question of justice. And while we know God would be perfectly justified in giving everybody zero chance, that's not really a satisfying answer.

I think the real answer lies in identifying why the question itself is flawed -- where the bad assumption lies. There's an easy answer to that: the question assumes salvation by works. It assumes that salvation comes from doing the right thing, and then asks if God gives everyone a good enough chance to do that right thing. In this case, "having the right intellectual belief in the entity named Jesus" is the "work" that's assumed to save. But we know that's not right -- we are saved by grace, not by works (see Eph 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5.) God chooses to save some of us, and it does not depend on our own works, not even the "work" of believing (see Romans 9 for a nice discussion of this, especially verses 14-18 to see how it relates to justice.) The idea of "having an equal chance" only makes sense if you're talking about an equal chance to perform well, but salvation doesn't come from performance, it comes from God's grace.

#3) on what happens to those who never hear: Hearing about Jesus is not some magical thing that makes us eligible for salvation; God can choose to save anyone. Many Christian scholars disagree on exactly how God does this, and how often, but all acknowledge that it does in fact come down to God's choice, and He doesn't have to play by the rules we want or expect Him to. He sometimes saves the most unexpected people (like Abraham... read over Abraham's story in Genesis sometime, and ask yourself why God chose to save him.)

My own study has led me to hold a position similar to the one CS Lewis describes at the end of the book "The Last Battle". A great passage from that book is quoted here (in the introduction, starting with "Then I fell at his feet". I didn't read the whole essay, just searched for the CS Lewis quote, so don't take the link as me endorsing the position the essay writer holds.) The basic ideas are: (a) some, perhaps even many, people actually serve God and are saved by Him even without explicitly knowing the name Jesus (or the Hebrew Yeshua) or anything about His life, death, or resurrection; (b) everybody has access to enough knowledge (in some way or another) to be reasonably able to serve God.

I actually wasn't completely sure about (b) until just tonight, when I was studying through the start of Romans. But, right there in Romans 1, verses 19-20 say: "what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." This section of Romans 1 is talking about people turning away from God to sin in various ways, and makes the argument that everyone should know better, based on the verses I quoted. The general idea is that God gives people some ability to know Him just from observing nature (which is repeated other places, especially in the Psalms, as in Psalm 97:6 "the heavens proclaim his righteousness"), and furthermore, God gives people ENOUGH ability to know Him that they are "without excuse" if they still turn away.

If you just keep reading Romans, the very next chapter expands on this.

Rom 2:13-16 wrote:For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous before God, but those who do the law will be declared righteous. For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves. They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them, on the day when God will judge the secrets of human hearts, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus.

Paul was pointing out that sometimes people who were not Jews and didn't have the information the Jews had still served God. While they didn't have the Jewish law written in a book they could read, they had it "written in their hearts", so to speak. I think the same is true for those who never hear of Jesus -- they may naturally understand His love and His righteousness without having anyone teach them specifically. (Jesus Himself once said to Thomas "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed", and I don't think it's much of a stretch to say those who have not heard, and yet still seek the Lord, are equally blessed.) In the next section of Romans 2, Paul says that those who follow God's laws inwardly are Jews (that is, righteous) even if they are not circumcised (that is, followers of Jewish custom) -- and I would say that those who seek after God inwardly are Christians, even if they do not know the name "Christian" or the stories of Jesus.

To further strengthen my points (a) and (b) from above: consider what we know of the character of God. We know He is good, and we know He loves people. We also know He requires more of those who have been given more (see: the parable of the talents in Matt 25, James 3, etc.) It seems pretty safe to assume God will honor even a little response from those who are given little -- that He would be quite willing to save a man on a desert island who never heard of Jesus but who sought after Him.

Two notes of caution:

1) many Christians and many theologians disagree strongly on this issue. I'm not the authority on this subject, and neither are they. Do not take either what I say or what they say as the final truth; until God sees fit to explain in further detail, this isn't completely certain, and it's certainly not worth getting into huge arguments over.

2) it's very easy to take what I've just said and twist it into a major heresy. A lot of people will go a little farther than I did and say it doesn't matter what you believe, everyone goes to heaven. They recognize that little is required of those who are given little, but make the mistake of assuming little is required of those who are given much, as well. God may choose to save a man who tries to do right but has never heard of Him, but it's far less likely that He'll choose to save a man who *has* heard of Him and rejects Him, opting for a Unitarian "whatever God or gods you want to believe in is OK" stance.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:10 am

Kilarin wrote:To clarify, I agree with you completely that everyone who is saved will be saved through Jesus. I'm just not convinced that there won't be any American Indians who died before 1492 in heaven.

Shoku wrote:You fail to take one very important thing into account. ...it is still valid, still waiting to occur, still a central part of God's purpose, still reserved for the majority of everyone who ever lived. It is the RESURECTION of the dead.

Ha! Nope. Note the future tense I used.
I'm a Seventh Day Adventist, you won't get any argument from me about the Resurection being in the Future.

Cuda wrote:PRE OR POST Trib.

definitely POST.

Lothar wrote:God chooses to save some of us, and it does not depend on our own works, not even the "work" of believing

Some clarification on this point.
Are you saying that there are some whom God chooses NOT to save, and so they never had a chance at all?
And on the other side, are you saying that someone whom God has chosen to save can NOT reject that salvation.

Like you said, this position is a twitchy one, and can go in some strange directions.

To clarify my position, I believe that God wants ALL men to be saved:
1 Tim 2:4 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

And this salvation is a gift, no work of ours brings it about. BUT, we can CHOOSE to reject the gift.
Luke 8:13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away

2 Peter 2:20-22 If after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Ezekiel 33:13 When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.

Heb 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

And most of all:
Ro 1:19-20 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

If we do not have a CHOICE, then being "without excuse" is pointless. I THINK we agree on this point, I'd just like to confirm that.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:38 am

Kilarin wrote:Are you saying that there are some whom God chooses NOT to save, and so they never had a chance at all?

There is no "chance" involved; only choice. Speaking of people "having a chance" is the wrong way to think about the question.

All people have an invitation, but God does not choose to give all people the same type of invitation. And some people's character is such that they will not accept the invitation. Not all people have equal character, so not everyone will respond the same way.

And on the other side, are you saying that someone whom God has chosen to save can NOT reject that salvation.

God may choose to offer the invitation to someone who will not accept it. (I should say, God offers the invitation to all people but some reject it.)

This is different from saying "I'm saved because I accepted blah blah blah blah..." That puts the emphasis on me. I accepted. Yay, go me. No, no -- God saves because God chooses. The fact that I accept or reject that offer is relevant, but it's not where the salvation comes from.

(I've seen people who say "you get to heaven by accepting Jesus" and treat it as though that's a magic thing you do in order to force God to let you in to heaven. That's what I'm arguing against here. Yes, you do accept or reject, but it's God who saves.)

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:09 am

Lothar wrote:God saves because God chooses. The fact that I accept or reject that offer is relevant, but it's not where the salvation comes from.

Then I think we are in agreement! Everyone who is saved will have only God to credit. Everyone who is lost will have only themselves to blame.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:20 am

Well I realize that you're hesitant to put the power of salvation into man's hands, but, since as you've said, we are all already offered an invitation, is God really not going to save a person if this person loves him, etc.? Is there nothing a person can do to even put himself into a better position to be saved?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:58 pm

Jeff, please reread my previous post carefully. Your question is already answered.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 6:58 pm

Could God have the ability to choose to not save someone who accepts him? Is it possible according to his nature? Or will accepting him always result in salvation?

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:33 pm

Ok, who opened the predestination can-O-worms?

Jeff, it's like this.

God see and exists in the all time periods (as we see it) simultaneously (omnipresent). He exsits in the end and the beginning. He knows who \"will make it\" and who won't. It is His desire that all man receive the gift of salvation and spend eternity with Him. He knows that most will not. Yet each of us have the CHOICE in our life time to accept or reject it.
So, is your \"destiny\" set in stone as God sees it completed or is it maliable and changable? This is one of the biggest paradoxes that Christianity has to offer.

More over, if you KNOW that you are going to lose a fight or know a certain outcome to something and do NOTHING and say \"oh, it's fated to come out this way or that\" you will be held guilty of appathy. I don't have a specific scripture to support this, but it is a precept that is legitimate.

In all circumstances we are to TRY. We are to do our best to conform to the Will of God while it is still called \"today\".
So, split hairs if you want. Other's salvation is ultimately your responsibility. It is the individual's. (for the 3000th time.

)
In your post

Could God have the ability to choose to not save someone who accepts him? Is it possible according to his nature? Or will accepting him always result in salvation?

is as foolish as saying: \"Could God create a rock too big for himself to lift?\"

A better question is WHY would He want to?

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:38 pm

Jeff250 wrote:Could God have the ability to choose to not save someone who accepts him? Is it possible according to his nature? Or will accepting him always result in salvation?

I know you are looking for Lothar's answer, but I'm going to throw mine out there anyway.

God makes the overtures, and He offers that invitation to EVERYONE. Only by rejecting it can we be lost. Please note that the invitation is NOT something casual. To not reject God means giving Him complete control and lordship over your life. He is our creator and He insists upon being FIRST. NOTHING else can be of higher priority. If there is ANYTHING we want to hold back, the only way to do so is to Reject God, because if we don't, He WILL push it down the list. It doesn't matter what it is, money, sex, football, descent, if you aren't willing to give it up for God (If He asked) then He will start changing your life so that you WOULD be willing to do so. If you don't like that change (and we usually don't) you have to kick God out of your life in order to stop it (and we often do).

The details of sins are unimportant really. Whether you are a murderer or simply someone who insists that they MUST have enough money to be secure, or a guy who loves his PS2 more than anything else in the world, the end result is the same. Either you let God reduce the priority on this thing that is interfering in your relationship with Him, or you reject God and kick him out of your life so that you can keep this other thing. There is no middle ground. There can be no compromise.

Please note, I'm not saying you have to "deal with this sin" before you can come to God. Exactly the opposite. Once God is in your life, He WILL start fixing this problem. To preserve your charished sin, you have to get Him out of your life. Thats why "there can be no excuse". It's never a matter of "I wasn't strong willed enough", or "I wasn't given a chance". It's always a matter of "I Loved something more than God, and unless I kicked Him out, He was going to make it a lower priority, or even take it away!, so I rejected God"

God NEVER rejects us, we reject Him. God isn't some tyrant trying to see who He can keep out of heaven, He is the father in the Prodigal Son story who is anxiously watching down the path for his son to return. He is the Sheppard who goes searching for the one lost sheep. And He is the woman who sweeps every corner of her house searching for the lost coin. He is there, ready and willing, offering to fix us, to MAKE us ready for heaven, to save us, to make us into better creatures. Will we let Him?

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:25 pm

Kilarin wrote:I know you are looking for Lothar's answer, but I'm going to throw mine out there anyway.

NP, it was an open question.

It just seems that there are conflicting concepts here. On one hand, one is not saved by works, even including the work of believing. On the other, we are somehow responsible for responding to God's invitation. How can we respond when any sort of response would seem to be at odds with the no-works rule?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:48 pm

On one hand, one is not saved by works, even including the work of believing. On the other, we are somehow responsible for responding to God's invitation. How can we respond when any sort of response would seem to be at odds with the no-works rule?

Responses are not \"at odds\" with the no-works rule. They're not the thing that saves.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:28 am

Then where does the responsibility for one's salvation lie?

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:03 am

Jeff250 wrote:Then where does the responsibility for one's salvation lie?

Those who are saved will give all Credit to God.
They didn't even know they NEEDED to be saved until God prompted them. They didn't have the ability to change, but God changed them.

Those who are lost will only be able to blame themselves.
Salvation was offered to them on a silver platter, and they rejected it.

How about we use a metaphor.

A plague is sweeping the world. It's 100% fatal. It affects the mind, making people violent and angry. The problem is, folks do not even realize they are incubating the deadly virus. They don't know they are sick, they think the way they are is the way they are supposed to be, and they don't know they could be better, and are going to die from this illness.

Along comes a doctor. He first informs people, hey, you are SICK, you need to be cured. Well, now the folks have a problem, because even if they believe the doc, they have NO WAY to cure themselves.

BUT, now comes the good news. The Doc sent his own son in among the people. The son tried to explain to the people about their disease, but most of them didn't want to listen, and in the end an angry mob killed him. But, the Doc, instead of simply walking away and leaving these nasty folk to die, was able to create a serum from his son's blood that will cure the disease.

So, now the kind Doc goes among the people offering the serum. He has let the people know they are sick, and He has offered the cure (which cost His son's life) and he will give the injection himself.

Only one thing stands between each person and health. The serum "fixes" you. Gets rid of the violence, the anger, the hatred. Some folks don't WANT to change. And the Doc will respect their wishes. If they don't WANT the shot, he won't hold them down and force the needle into their arm against their wishes.

In the end, all of those who are saved can only say that they did NOTHING of themselves to be saved. They didn't know they were sick until the Doc told them. They didn't know how to cure themselves, but the Doc provided the serum from His own Son's blood. They didn't know how to USE the serum, but the Doc did the injections himself. They did NOTHING to save themselves, the good Doc did it all.

And those who die from the disease, will have no one to blame but themselves. The cure was offered, but they rejected it.

Now this analogy is FAR from perfect, but I think it gives the general idea. You can not do ANYTHING to contribute to your own salvation, but you can choose to REJECT that salvation, in which case you are fully responsible for your own loss.

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' -- C. S. Lewis

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:02 pm

In that allegory, it would still make sense to say that you could save yourself by accepting the vaccine. If somebody said, \"Save yourself by taking this vaccine,\" nobody would respond \"You can't save yourself! The vaccine is what saves you!\" or \"You can't save yourself! The doctor is who saves you!\" Contrarily, in the case of Christianity, it has been made clear in this thread that no amount of response does save you.

However, I think that in the case of the vaccine, it makes sense to say that accepting the vaccine saves you just as much as saying that the vaccine itself saves you or that the doctor's grace saved you. That's because these things are necessarily related. In this scenario, if a person accepts the vaccine, he necessarily receives it, and he is necessarily an object of the doctor's grace. The doctor isn't going to say no. Nor is the vaccine not going to work. That's why it doesn't make sense to pick it apart and say that one part is any more crucial than another.

On the other hand, in Christianity, according to what's already been said in this thread, it seems that this picking apart would be justified. To say that accepting God/Jesus saves you has warranted the response that the acceptance is not what saves you--it's God who actually does. But to me, this seems like trivial nitpicking.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:41 pm

If your body rejects the vaccine, you will be lucky not to go into aniphilactic shock. In which case there is a high probability you will still die.

actually, to make the first paragraph valid, we would be parapoligics missing both our arms making us UNABLE to administer the shot ot ourselves. Thus the reason we go to see a the doctor. (and for the smartsasses ...like me.... you are missing your lower jaw as well so you can't use your mouth and frost bite took your toes also!)

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:52 pm

Duper wrote:actually, to make the first paragraph valid, we would be parapoligics missing both our arms making us UNABLE to administer the shot ot ourselves.

Ha! True, like I said, its an analogy/metaphor and all analogies/metaphors have holes.

Jeff250 wrote:..."You can't save yourself! The doctor is who saves you!" Contrarily, in the case of Christianity, it has been made clear in this thread that no amount of response does save you.

How about if I switch to a different analogy that has different holes.

If you were drowning, and a life guard came out and saved you, would it be fair to claim you had "saved yourself" because you didn't fight the lifeguard off? I certainly wouldn't think so.

Yes, you have a part in your own salvation. That part is to not say NO. That's really it. And that's why we say that the people who are saved give all the credit to Christ. Like the drowning person, they DIDN'T save themselves in ANY way, the only thing they did was to not say NO to the lifeguard. And yes, that is a very necessary part of the process, but it doesn't count as "saving yourself", but only as not refusing the salvation that was offered.

The people who DO say no to the lifeguard, have only themselves to blame.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:35 pm

Since you can't say that salvation has anything to do with saying \"Yes\" to God without running into contradiction, you're saying that it has to do with not saying no. But this doesn't seem like a very good place to be.

First, I don't think that it is biblically sound. From what I recall from the Bible, it speaks very actively. Believe in Jesus, become born again, etc., not do not reject in Jesus, not do not not become born again, etc.

Also, I don't think that it really helps the problem of avoiding the no-works rule. Now instead of salvation by commission of works, it's just salvation by omission of works. So long as a person does not say \"no\" (a work), he is saved. It seems to still hinge upon works.

Is not saying no really different than an implied yes anyways?

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:39 am

Jeff250 wrote:From what I recall from the Bible, it speaks very actively. Believe in Jesus, become born again, etc.,

Yes, responding to Jesus is an active thing. But it is RESPONDING. He made the overtures, He makes the changes, we are just responding to the grace given to us.

Jeff250 wrote:Also, I don't think that it really helps the problem of avoiding the no-works rule. Now instead of salvation by commission of works, it's just salvation by omission of works.

It's a big difference though. Let's go back to the drowning swimmer metaphor. The drowner (can't call him a "swimmer", can I?) who thinks he can HELP the life guard with his own motions just gets in the way and causes problems for both of them. The victim who recognizes that he must be still and let the life guard do the work has made great progress.

THIS is the importance of the works/grace conflict. We, naturally, want to "help", because we think our own works are good enough to save us. If we just try harder, if we just discipline ourselves a bit more. But that's not what it's all about.

Our "work", is to accept the work of God within us. If you want to call that work, I guess that is acceptable, since Paul said the same:

Php 2:12-13 work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:32 pm

Kilarin wrote:Yes, responding to Jesus is an active thing. But it is RESPONDING. He made the overtures, He makes the changes, we are just responding to the grace given to us.

Right, and giving the right response will necessarily lead to one's salvation, right?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 5:03 am

Jeff250 wrote:
Kilarin wrote:Yes, responding to Jesus is an active thing. But it is RESPONDING. He made the overtures, He makes the changes, we are just responding to the grace given to us.
Right, and giving the right response will necessarily lead to one's salvation, right?

Only because God's character is such that He will act to save those whose response is of a particular type. In other words, it still comes down to God's action. The fact that His action is predictable doesn't mean His action somehow stops counting and that our response suddenly becomes the thing of primary importance.

I think you're trying too hard to make certain concepts overly technical (and I think it's uproariously funny that you think others are engaging in trivial nitpicking!) It's almost like you're treating God as a purely mechanical force, like gravity or something, and then trying to define how to get saved by manipulating that force in precisely the right way. It's like, because God respects individual desires, you've decided those desires suddenly become more important than God.

It also strikes me as though you're subtly redefining common terms (like "works") and then criticizing certain doctrines because they don't work right with your new definitions. We all know the concept of "not saved by works" is totally Biblical; you don't get saved by being good enough to force God to accept you. But you've redefined that to mean "none of your actions have any bearing whatsoever on salvation" and then shot that down as absurd. Well, of COURSE it's absurd -- it's not what "not by works" means in the first place! "Not by works" means you can't select a particular set of rules to follow and/or break in order to force God to save you and/or "improve your chances".

Yes, of course, your "accepting the vaccine" and "the vaccine itself" and "the doctor's grace" are all related because they're all involved in the salvation process. But it does NOT make sense to say each one saves you "just as much" as the other. One thing (the vaccine) is the active agent in saving you; another thing (the doctor's grace) provides the opportunity to be saved; the third (your acceptance) merely permits the first to function, and even then, only because the being you're dealing with respects your choices.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:32 pm

If I might interject.

It seems that several threads of late (this one included) has become a hair-splitting exercise to the point of releaving any \"blame\" that we should be shoulding at God. Looking for loopholes that make us unresponsible.

Whenever answer is given, it's sidestepped with a \"but what about this?\"

really, for all the content that's been presented over the last 2 months on this forum, if you don't \"get it\" by now, then it seems that you choose not to.

I know this is a rant, but arguing for arguing's sake is a bit vain.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:38 pm

Lothar wrote:It also strikes me as though you're subtly redefining common terms (like "works") and then criticizing certain doctrines because they don't work right with your new definitions. We all know the concept of "not saved by works" is totally Biblical; you don't get saved by being good enough to force God to accept you. But you've redefined that to mean "none of your actions have any bearing whatsoever on salvation" and then shot that down as absurd. Well, of COURSE it's absurd...

Well I'm glad that someone finally agrees! (See below.)

Lothar wrote:...it's not what "not by works" means in the first place! "Not by works" means you can't select a particular set of rules to follow and/or break in order to force God to save you and/or "improve your chances".

If you think that I have been using an incorrect definition of works, it would have been better to have known this earlier on.

But I'm still not clear on what your definition of works is. I mean, I realize you've typed one up for me, but it seems to be at odds with other things that you've said. For instance, you've said that works cannot "improve your chances" of salvation, yet in the very same paragraph, you've accused me of mistakenly using a definition meaning works cannot "have any bearing whatsoever on salvation."

How can works have bearing on salvation yet not improve or harm one's chances for salvation? Have you been objecting to the word "chances" just because it connotes luck?

Lothar wrote:Only because God's character is such that He will act to save those whose response is of a particular type. In other words, it still comes down to God's action. The fact that His action is predictable doesn't mean His action somehow stops counting and that our response suddenly becomes the thing of primary importance.

I think you're trying too hard to make certain concepts overly technical (and I think it's uproariously funny that you think others are engaging in trivial nitpicking!) It's almost like you're treating God as a purely mechanical force, like gravity or something...

That's lukewarm news--they do say laughter is good for the soul, but, unfortunately, we have the advantage of knowing that the only thing capable of saving your soul is God's grace.

If there's a hidden premise somewhere along the lines of "Any mechanistic explanation of an aspect of God must by nature be wrong," then I'd like to see it written out, because it sounds like you've already come to this conclusion, and I don't see yet why this is necessarily the case. However, I don't even know if mechanistic is the right word. I suppose that if we took mechanistic in this context to just mean perfectly predictable or perfectly repeatable, then I don't think I would have any qualms with it. But in that sense, I think that it is valid to apply these characteristics to certain aspects to God. It makes sense to say that God will never do wrong, or even that God will always do the best thing. If these concepts don't threaten our comprehension of God, then I don't think that saying that everyone that accepts God's invitation is always saved by him does.

And about that, I think we've already agreed that accepting God's invitation always leads to salvation (if not, now's the time to speak up). That said, here's what I'm not trying to say. I'm not trying to say that one should not give God the glory for salvation. Nor am I trying to say that God is somehow forced to save us if we accept his invitation. Nor am I trying to say that anyone or anything is more important than God in the salvation process or in general. I am not trying to steal God's significance from the process. However, here's what I am saying: That it makes sense to say that an unbeliever can do something to make himself saved.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:50 pm

Duper wrote:really, for all the content that's been presented over the last 2 months on this forum, if you don't "get it" by now, then it seems that you choose not to.

I know this is a rant, but arguing for arguing's sake is a bit vain.

edit: (I was overly harsh the first time.) This is my rant:

Kilarin and I have already agreed that these threads are enjoyable because they highlight interesting issues and because we walk away from them seeing things in a new light. I suspect that Lothar and other participants would agree. If anyone does not, then I strongly urge that they no longer participate. If some people participate in this thread out of pure obligation to stick up for their worldview with the intent of converting everyone in the thread to their ideology, then at the end of the day they're going to be very frustrated and not have a lot of fun at all.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 5:16 pm

Jeff250 wrote:If you think that I have been using an incorrect definition of works, it would have been better to have known this earlier on.

I've been saying from the start of the thread that your model was bad. It's only been in the last few posts that you've been making a big deal out of "works", though, which is why it's only now that I'm speaking up on that explicit point.

But I'm still not clear on what your definition of works is.... you've said that works cannot "improve your chances" of salvation... Have you been objecting to the word "chances" just because it connotes luck?

"Chances" is not the right word; I've said this too many times for you to not have noticed. It's not like, if you do thing X you have a 30% chance and if you do thing Y you have a 20% chance and if you do X and Y together you improve to 40%. It's not the sort of thing where God is obligated to save 62% of those who say a certain prayer or read a certain book or whatever. So the connotations of "chances" are simply wrong.

Typically, "works" refers specifically to doing "good actions" like helping the poor. The key thing to remember is that works don't save you. You can't just do the right stuff and make yourself saved. You can't just help enough poor people and thereby save yourself. You can't even make it so that God is 20% more likely to save you because you spent so much time volunteering at the food bank.

The only way to be saved is for God to save you. Now, it happens that God *will* save everyone who responds to Him appropriately, but that's His choice; there's nothing about responding appropriately that makes it so He is obligated to save you. And, more importantly... there's nothing about your behavior BEFORE God makes that choice that has any bearing whatsoever. You could be anyone from Jeffrey Dahmer or Osama bin Laden to Mother Theresa, but regardless of which end of the spectrum you lie on, nothing you've done up until that point matters. All that matters is whether you decide to let God take over your life and transform you, or decide you still want to be in charge.

If there's a hidden premise somewhere along the lines of "Any mechanistic explanation of an aspect of God must by nature be wrong," then I'd like to see it written out

That's not the premise I'm stating. It's more like, treating God as entirely mechanistic and thereby ignoring the fact that His will is behind His (predictable) behavior means your model will be glaringly incomplete.

However, here's what I am saying: That it makes sense to say that an unbeliever can do something to make himself saved.

No, it doesn't. The unbeliever cannot do anything to make himself saved. The unbeliever can position himself such that God will save him, but the unbeliever can't do the saving itself.

In terms of your original question: there's no reason for anyone to intentionally not follow God in order to put themselves in a better position for God to save them 3 months down the road. There's also no reason for anyone to intentionally follow God in order to put themselves in a better position for God to save them 3 months down the road. Whatever someone who is not saved does over the course of those 3 months is irrelevant; all that matters is how they respond to God's invitation. And God's invitation was already given long beforehand, so the right thing to do would be to respond immediately, not to try to pick the right behavior to make your response happen 3 months down the road.

To answer the thread title, then, "should God always be followed?" Yes, in the sense that following God is always the right thing to do. No, in the sense that unbelievers don't have any particular compelling reason to follow God so long as they remain unbelievers. An unbeliever who chooses to do good things according to God's commands is no better or worse off than one who chooses to flagrantly violate them. An unbeliever who goes to church, gives 10%, helps the poor, studies the Bible, and so on is no better off (in terms of salvation) than an unbeliever drug-dealing gang leader who runs a child prostitution ring. They might have a more pleasant life, but God can (and does) save either one. It simply doesn't matter how good or bad you've been up until the point where God makes Himself known to you.

Now, once God *has* made himself known, then of course it matters whether you choose to follow God or not. But the choice is not "do the things the pastor says" vs "go get wasted"; it's "let God transform you so that you will naturally follow Him" vs "stay like you are and do whatever your nature currently makes you want to do."

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:55 pm

Lothar wrote:God's invitation was already given long beforehand, so the right thing to do would be to respond immediately, not to try to pick the right behavior to make your response happen 3 months down the road.

Yes, that sums it up well. The idea of trying to put yourself into a better position to be "saved" is flawed. You are already IN the best position, RIGHT NOW. Or, to quote Paul:

Heb 4:7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

And yes, I AM still enjoying and learning from the discussion.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:10 pm

Lothar wrote:I've been saying from the start of the thread that your model was bad. It's only been in the last few posts that you've been making a big deal out of "works", though, which is why it's only now that I'm speaking up on that explicit point.

Yes, I'm quite aware that you've been disagreeing with me on this topic since the beginning.

However, allow me to clarify one important thing: You couldn't have corrected my definition of "works" at the beginning of the thread because at that point I took up a traditional definition (and you can see how I've changed it based on others' responses since then).

I do not prefer the definition of salvation-by-works recently in question. I don't like it at all! That's why I was demonstrating that it was leading to contradictions. (I'm a little rusty on my Latin, but I believe the phrase is "reductio ad absurdum.") I'm glad that I was misunderstanding your definition of works, because that definition doesn't make any sense.

However, based on information in your last post including a disambiguation of your use of the word "chance" (which I originally took to include a 100% chance, such as when accepting God's invitation) I think I now do understand your definition of works (still pending your confirmation). To you, works cannot influence the chance of salvation since salvation is not playing dice, but it still can put a person into a position to be saved by God.

Lothar wrote:No, it doesn't. The unbeliever cannot do anything to make himself saved. The unbeliever can position himself such that God will save him, but the unbeliever can't do the saving itself.

I disagree that it follows from "the unbeliever can't do the saving itself" that "he cannot do anything to make himself saved."

You can pick any procedure apart into any number of different parts. But that doesn't mean that it's necessarily useful to do so. And, in fact, this is evident all the time by the way we speak.

For example, if Sam shoots Billy between the eyes, we say that Sam killed Billy. Of course, the distinction might be made that Sam was not responsible for the killing itself--the bullet was. Sam only fired the gun. We could even say that the bullet was not responsible for the killing itself--the wound to the brain was. The bullet only caused the wound. However, it does not make sense to say that Sam cannot kill Billy or that he did not kill Billy. Because Sam willfully fired the gun such that the bullet would necessarily hit Sam between the eyes necessarily wounding his brain necessarily killing him, we say that Sam killed Billy.

Now, of course, a bullet does not have free will, and this might be an important disanalogy. But we can modify the example to include an elememt of free will where a decision will be made 100% of the time.

Consider the following example. Sam is a Nazi, and Billy is a Jew. Sam has full capacity for free will, but he is so hateful of Jews that he will choose to kill them on site 100% of the time. Another person named Fred is completely aware of all of this and wants to kill Billy for another reason. Fred willfully, with the intent to kill Billy, arranges Sam and Billy to meet at a local Starbucks. When they meet, Sam recognizes Billy and then kills him.

When detectives discover Fred's scheme, would they not also charge Fred for Billy's murder? Doesn't it make sense to say that Fred not only could kill Billy but that he did?

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 11:01 pm

if Sam shoots Billy between the eyes, we say that Sam killed Billy. Of course, the distinction might be made that Sam was not responsible for the killing itself--the bullet was.

Guns don't kill people. Bullets don't kill people. HOLES kill people.

But seriously, I think your analogy is out of sync with the salvation by works situation. This isn't a case of trying to seperate Sam from the Bullet. This is a case of saying was Billy responsible for his own murder because he didn't DUCK. The metaphor is still a big stretch, but at least closer.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:45 am

Didn't we already agree that accepting God's invitation puts us into a position in which God will always save us? (This allows us to sidestep for the moment any potential problems associated with salvation being \"not refusing God's invitation\"--even if this is the case, surely \"accepting\" the invitation qualifies for \"not refusing\" it.)

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:43 pm

Jeff250 wrote:Didn't we already agree that accepting God's invitation puts us into a position in which God will always save us?

I'm not certain I understand your question. With regards to salvation, our situation is similiar to that of the drowning victim who is rescued by a life guard. Yes, accepting the rescue is certainly important, but you wouldn't say that the drownee really had anything to do with saving himself.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:45 pm

I was just making sure that you would agree that accepting is as effective as not rejecting.

I think you're still asking the wrong question. You're asking, \"Does a person really have anything to do with saving himself?\" Well, yes, he says yes. However, if I know what you're getting at here (ultimate responsibility), the question does not have to be satisfied for it to make sense to say that a person can make himself saved. A person does not have to be the final cause in an event to be said to be capable of doing it. I illustrated this in the example where Sam murdered Billy. No trial lawyer is going to ask the jury, \"Did Sam really have anything to do with Billy's death? After all, he did not die from Sam, he died from a hole in the brain.\"

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:16 am

Jeff2250 wrote:"Does a person really have anything to do with saving himself?" Well, yes, he says yes. However, if I know what you're getting at here (ultimate responsibility), the question does not have to be satisfied for it to make sense to say that a person can make himself saved.

But there is a big difference between the gun analogy and the life guard analogy. In the gun analogy, Sam actively pulled the trigger. The means were provided by the gun, but Sam had to pick it up, point it, and pull the trigger. Sam had to have the intent to kill (unless it was an accident). It makes logical SENSE to say that Sam killed Billy.

But with the life-guard analogy, do you think it makes sense to say that the drownee saved themselves? Yes, they had responsibility for not resisting, for saying YES to the life guard, but I think its a very big stretch to say that they rescued themselves.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:58 am

As you said, no analogy is perfect.

But I don't see how picking up the gun relevantly breaks the analogy. It might show intent, but a person could choose to accept salvation with just as much intent. A gun is a useful tool, but there are just as many other useful tools concerning salvation, such as Bibles, etc. You could also think of a mounted gun that doesn't have to be picked up that just happened to be at the right place at the right time.

And remember, in the life guard analogy, the question isn't who did the rescuing, but does it make sense to say that a drownee can make himself rescued. He doesn't have to be the one scooping himself out of the water for this to make sense! If there were a lifeguard extending his hand, it would make sense for a friend to say, \"Save yourself! Grab his hand!\"

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:03 am

Jeff250 wrote:it would make sense for a friend to say, "Save yourself! Grab his hand!"

It only makes sense in the same way that Paul made sense when he said:

Php 2:12-13 work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

God is doing the work. Our work is to accept what he offers, (and we have help for that). That's as far as it goes.

So what exactly is the importance of trying to make certain we get "credit" for our tiny part in this big issue? Where are we going?

Shoku · Post by **Shoku** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:51 pm

I am amazed at how complicated this simple subject has become in this forum.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 3:16 pm

Kilarin wrote:So what exactly is the importance of trying to make certain we get "credit" for our tiny part in this big issue? Where are we going?

As I've said before, the question isn't concerning who gets the credit. The question isn't concerning who's doing all the work. The question is, does it makes sense to say that we can make ourselves saved?

It's an important question because if the answer really is "no," it seems to put a damper on what we can even talk about. We wouldn't be able to say something like, "Accept God's invitation to become saved," since no amount of acceptance of it could ever guarantee your salvation.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 3:35 pm

This is what I don't get. Why people can't accept something truely free? They always want to \"earn\" their way to heaven. That's why many of the other religions have taken off in this country.

There was a song by the Beatles called \"Come and get it\". Lyrics HERE

No, this isn't Christian cannon, but it does give a good prespective on how people view things that are free.

And so the answer to your original question Jeff, \"Should God always be followed, etc\" is No, by your own words because you choose not to. Everyone chooses , either yes or no. Nothing more nothing less. It's not complicated... unless you want to make it that way. This is a question of faith, not a question of deductive reasoning and the examination of preceived \"facts\". Which in this case, we have only heard obscure hypothosys'

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 4:01 pm

Jeff250 wrote:The question is, does it makes sense to say that we can make ourselves saved?

"Make ourselves saved" makes it sound like we're the ones doing the saving. It's like saying "make myself a millionaire" when someone else hands me a million bucks -- it sounds like I'm the one doing it. You *could* say it, but it doesn't really communicate what it should.

We ask God to save us. That's the right way to phrase it.

...if the answer really is "no," it seems to put a damper on what we can even talk about. We wouldn't be able to say something like, "Accept God's invitation to become saved," since no amount of acceptance of it could ever guarantee your salvation.

I think you're trying too hard to create a linguistically precise definition in one area while not caring enough about precision elsewhere. You're trying very hard to make sure you note that little sliver of action from individuals (giving it, IMO, far too much airtime) while at the same time hardly acknowledging God's involvement.

In terms of guarantees of salvation, the only guarantee we have is based on who God is. You can't base guarantees of salvation on the fact that you did action X, Y, or Z though -- base them on what God has done to you.

I hate the "accept" terminology. It's almost as misleading as "make yourself saved". It makes it sound like God's handing you a box of salvation and all you have to do is stick your hand out and accept it and then you're saved and the story is over. Salvation is not an instantaneous, "I accepted it's done" kind of thing. It's a process of transformation from a selfish being to a selfless one, which is entirely accomplished by God's Spirit. You do have to come to God with at least a little bit of willingness to allow Him to transform you (and then, over time, He will build upon that willingness, often pushing you to do things you'd rather not -- if that's not happening to you, you're not interacting with God.) This is far different from the pop-culture idea of "accepting" God, which is typically more like "believe the Bible and say a little prayer and you're done."

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:09 am

Shoku wrote:I am amazed at how complicated this simple subject has become in this forum.

Heh. Yep.

Jeff250 wrote:It's an important question because if the answer really is "no," it seems to put a damper on what we can even talk about. We wouldn't be able to say something like, "Accept God's invitation to become saved," since no amount of acceptance of it could ever guarantee your salvation.

But that IS actually the core issue. You can't save yourself. As Lothar said, even the "accept" terminology is dangerous. This is what Christ was trying and trying to get across to everyone. NOTHING you do is good enough.

The key to salvation is giving up on yourself and accepting the righteousness of Christ. The BATTLE of the Christian is not against Satan, it's against SELF. We have to surrender our wills and let God come into our lives and change us.

Salvation by works is a dead end, all of our own righteousness is as filthy rags. God doesn't want changes on the outside, He want's changes on the INSIDE, and we can't do that.

"Cheap Grace" is a waste of time. Just saying that "I was saved when I was twelve now I can ignore God", is completely missing out on what the idea of surrender is. If we have turned our lives over to God, then he WILL start changing us into the kind of person who does good works because we WANT to, because sin is abhorrent to us. If we want to prevent those changes, we must kick God out of our lives.

THAT is the battle we are dealing with, that is the fight. sins, as in bad things I do, are not actually the problem. Every day I face issues where I am tempted to do something wrong, this IS an indication of a problem, but WHAT problem? Lets use a concrete example. Say I was being tempted to shoplift. (a safe hypothetical example since my temptations usually lie in OTHER areas.)

So I'm walking through a store, and I see a chocolate bar, and the thought immediately goes through my head that it would certainly be easy to slip that into my pocket. Is the problem "stealing the chocolate bar", or is the problem something else?

I can grit my teeth and walk away and not steal based on my own will power (maybe), and that will at least keep me out of jail. But it doesn't really help towards my salvation, because God wants the kind of people who don't WANT to steal, not folks who have to grit their teeth and resist the urge. Concentrating on the "sin" misses the point. Think of sins like the engine hot light on your car. You don't fix it by putting a piece of black tape over the light. It's telling you there is something wrong under the hood.

And in this case, the REAL problem is that I KNOW why I'm in a quandary. God is offering me the strength to walk away without stealing. HIS power, HIS righteousness. It's right there, easily available. But do I WANT it? Because right at that point, I don't. And if I decide to take that chocolate bar. The most serious problem isn't that I stole, that is just a symptom. The serious problem is that I had to push Christ out of my heart so that I COULD steal. I had to push Him out. You see the seriousness of this? It doesn't matter if I was stealing a chocolate bar or a million dollars. Those are symptoms. The illness is that I pushed Christ out of my heart so that I could get MY way instead of His.

Victory is achieved by surrendering self and accepting Christ. That's why I find this:

Jeff250 wrote:The question is, does it makes sense to say that we can make ourselves saved?

requires the answer, NO. It's true that we have a choice, and it's true that that choice is critical. But to answer yes puts us going in exactly the wrong direction. If the question were "does it make sense to say that in order to swim you need to get the pool water inside you". Well, technically, yes. A small amount of water is going to be absorbed through your skin. BUT, the whole POINT of swimming is to keep water OUT. If you swallow (or breath) gallons of water, you aren't doing it right.

The whole point of Salvation is to give up on self and accept the Righteousness of Christ.

Should God always be followed, etc.

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: