it's a gift.....

Originally posted by knightmeister
Is that really a fair comparison? Listen to yourself here. God is hereby offering us the free gift of eternal life. What do we have to do? Just accept the gift. No fees , no catches, no "works" , just a gift. We don't have to pay him anything. Infact there is nothing you can offer him that is not his already.

So have I already received the gift? If not why not? You say there is no catch? So what does accepting the gift entail? How is that not a catch? Can I accept the gift without believing that God exists? Can I accept it without worshiping God? Can I accept it without having faith? Even the way the gift is described is deceptive. "Eternal life". What is that? It certainly doesn't mean I will live for ever by any scientific definition of life. It doesn't even mean that my soul will be immortal (as that would be true even if I went to hell, so cant be what is on offer here). So what is this gift anyway and why is it offered under false pretenses?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Do you believe that God loves you and that Jesus Christ, God's only begotten Son, whom God sent specifically for you, died on the cross in your place in order to atone for your sins and eternally reconcile you to the Father, and that on the third day He rose from the dead? Do you believe this? Because this is the only gospel of Christ.

Of course God isplay towards all sinners in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. You are splitting hairs.

Any condition nullifies use of the term “unconditional”—unless one states at the outset that they are using the word in a restricted sense to which the condition does not apply. If that is done, there seems no sense arguing the point—unless the context changes such that one could infer that the word was now being used in the more general sense. (And as long as the use of such a broad word in a restricted sense makes—sense.)

In the restricted sense in which the word is being applied in this thread (at least seems to be), it might forestall a lot of argument in the future to just substitute “regardless of merit” for “unconditional.”

Originally posted by vistesd
Any condition nullifies use of the term “unconditional”—unless one states at the outset that they are using the word in a restricted sense to which the condition does not apply. If that is done, there seems no sense arguing the point—unless the context changes such that one could infer that the word was now being used in the more general sense. (And as lon ...[text shortened]... ll a lot of argument in the future to just substitute “regardless of merit” for “unconditional.”

And that is our goal in these threads, isn't it? -- To forestall a lot of argument. 😀

LOL!

Seriously, though, point well taken.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
And that is our goal in these threads, isn't it? -- To forestall a lot of argument. 😀

LOL!

Seriously, though, point well taken.

LOL!! 😵

Originally posted by vistesd
In the restricted sense in which the word is being applied in this thread (at least seems to be), it might forestall a lot of argument in the future to just substitute “regardless of merit” for “unconditional.”

Even in the restricted sense of "regardless of merit", it is inaccurate as there are requirements of the recipient which could be construed as a form of "merit". Otherwise - we would all be going to heaven. Also, it becomes even stricter if you take into account the possibility of such a thing as an unforgivable sin, as that implies that at least some "merit" is a definite requirement ie the person has not yet committed an unforgivable sin.

Knightmeister would have us believe that one needs only accept the gift and would probably argue that the gift has been offered in such a way that everyone is aware that it is on offer(I dispute that), but he almost certainly also believes that not all Christians are going to heaven, but that is a contradiction. Either the rejected Christians are not truly aware of the gift that is on offer or they do not merit it.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]You know they're your words. They are words born of the ego and not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit loves Truth. Your words are not.

Is this how you circumvent all of the questions people ask you?

Did it ever occur to you that many view Christianity as illogical and Christians as prevaricators and hypocrites for a reason? You're not help only expects from us what He gives to us. So, yes, it's very much about what we get.

[/b]
pre·var·i·cate
intransitive verb

Definition:
get out of telling truth: to avoid giving a direct and honest answer or opinion, or a clear and truthful account of a situation, especially by quibbling or being deliberately ambiguous or misleading

Example:
"In comparison to what Christ accomplished on the cross, trust in the gospel is hardly a condition which could nullify the distinction "unconditional" as it pertains to the love of God on display towards all sinners in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross."

Actually, you prevaricate quite a bit. You twist what others post. You infer things that aren't there. You aren't a person of Truth.


Matthew 22:37-38
And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment.

Just as there is 'love' that is a selfish love, there is a 'faith' that is a selfish faith. I have to believe that these are not truly love or faith at all. This type of 'love' and 'faith' end with what one receives. It seems that for the vast majority of those who call themselves Christian, their 'faith' ends with the belief that they are granted 'eternal life'. Their 'faith' does not extend to the belief of following the teachings of Jesus: To living a life of humility, love, compassion, justice, etc. Their hearts have not been transformed. The desires of the self remain their Lord.

Your 'faith' is still of the selfish variety.

Get back on the path little lamb. Truth is bigger than even you.

You have eyes but you cannot see.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

pre·var·i·cate
intransitive verb

Definition:
get out of telling truth: to avoid giving a direct and honest answer or opinion, or a clear and truthful account of a situation, especially by quibbling or being deliberately ambiguous or misleading

Example:
"In comparison to what Christ accomplished on the cross, trust in the gospel is ha lamb. Truth is bigger than even you.

You have eyes but you cannot see.[/b]

"In comparison to what Christ accomplished on the cross, trust in the gospel is hardly a condition which could nullify the distinction "unconditional" as it pertains to the love of God on display towards all sinners in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross."

Reread what I wrote (immediately above). This is not prevarication. Bad writing, perhaps, but not an intentional deception, as you claim. I'm agreeing with you that receiving God's grace is conditioned upon trusting the gospel, but I'm attempting to drive home the point that God's grace is nevertheless "unconditional" in that it is available to all people, regardless of merit. I'm not being deliberately ambiguous in an attempt to mislead you, and neither am I disagreeing with you - trust is indeed a condition - what I'm attempting to do is show that trusting Christ is no great burden compared to what Christ carried on the cross for all people. In light of what Christ accomplished, fulfilling the conditions of receiving God's grace is easy. As Christ says, "My yoke is easy, and My burden is light" (Matt. 11:30). To make a big deal out of the conditions of receiving God's free gift is nitpicking.

Actually, you prevaricate quite a bit. You twist what others post. You infer things that aren't there. You aren't a person of Truth.

Give me a break. Do you know how difficult it is to get a straight answer out of you? On two occasions you've circumvented tough questions based on the dubious condition that my questions had to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yet you've never given any convincing proof that my questions were not inspired by the Holy Spirit. In the first instance, when I placed the burden of proof on you to show how enlightened you were compared to the average Christian like myself, you prevaricated shamelessly and accused me of not being Holy Spirit led. However, my whole intention was to find out the truth about you; whether you were a charlatan or not. Is that not seeking the truth? In the second instance, in this thread, again you prevaricated shamelessly and refused to answer a straight forward question based on the dubious condition that it had to be a question from the Holy Spirit; which you, of course, believed it wasn't. On top of all this, you level baseless accusations and insults at me, without the slightest attempt to back them up with legitimate examples of my wrongdoing.

Just as there is 'love' that is a selfish love, there is a 'faith' that is a selfish faith. I have to believe that these are not truly love or faith at all. This type of 'love' and 'faith' end with what one receives. It seems that for the vast majority of those who call themselves Christian, their 'faith' ends with the belief that they are granted 'eternal life'. Their 'faith' does not extend to the belief of following the teachings of Jesus: To living a life of humility, love, compassion, justice, etc. Their hearts have not been transformed. The desires of the self remain their Lord.

For the most part, I agree with you. Paul devoted two whole letters to a spiritually immature church at Corinth. Spiritually immature Christians have been around for two thousand years, and they will continue to be. Why? Because there will always be new Christians. New Christians generally are still dominated by sin, whereas after a lifetime of living with the Lord, these greenhorns really do grow up in the faith. If they truly are born of God, they will endure to the end. My question for you would be, Why are you so hung up on the shortcomings of others? If you think Christians are ever going to be perfect, even the spiritually mature ones, then you are gravely mistaken. Do you think God doesn't know that we are all sinners, Christian and non-Christian alike? He certainly does, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8). If you think the Lord shares your disdain for the spiritually immature, you are wrong; He nevertheless loves them (us), despite their (our) shortcomings; God is patient, long-suffering, full of loving-kindness and grace.

Your 'faith' is still of the selfish variety.

Selfish variety? Yes, guilty as charged. But regarding the sincerity of my faith, God is my judge, not you. Yes, I admit that I am imperfect, that I can be selfish, and that I have certain character flaws and personality defects. I suffer because of my various shortcomings, of that there is no doubt. However, I trust God to finish the work which He has begun in me. He is faithful and patient, and his kindness brings me daily to repentance. What more can I say?

Get back on the path little lamb. Truth is bigger than even you.

Little lamb? Is that supposed to be another insult? And did I ever intimate that Truth isn't bigger than me?

You have eyes but you cannot see.

You keep repeating this statement, yet you refuse to demonstrate your higher state of enlightenment. What can't I see, sir? If you're not merely a spiritual charlatan, then why won't you give some example of my blindness or present a demonstration of your superior knowledge so as to enlighten me? I'm just an average, run-of-the-mill Christian, who believes the Gospel of Christ -- tell me if there is something I'm missing. Evangelize me!

Originally posted by knightmeister
Genesis is a myth. I do not base my theology on poetry. I , incidentally do not believe in original sin theology.

Even if the Garden of Eden story is treated as an allegorical one, it still indicates that God gave Man death because Man is capable of and does disobey Him. God's punishments for disobeying his will are a common theme of the OT. Whether you believe in original sin theology or not is immaterial; the "gift" of salvation is only necessary because God got mad about being disobeyed by any reading of the OT. If you are not basing your theology on the Bible, what are you basing it on?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Genesis is a myth. I do not base my theology on poetry. I , incidentally do not believe in original sin theology.

Even if the Garden of Eden story is treated as an allegorical one, it still indicates that God gave Man death because Man is capable of and does disobey Him. God's punishments for disobeying his will are a common theme of the OT. Whether you believe in original sin theology or not is immaterial; the "gift" of salvation is only necessary because God got mad about being disobeyed by any reading of the OT. If you are not basing your theology on the Bible, what are you basing it on?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So have I already received the gift? If not why not? You say there is no catch? So what does accepting the gift entail? How is that not a catch? Can I accept the gift without believing that God exists? Can I accept it without worshiping God? Can I accept it without having faith? Even the way the gift is described is deceptive. "Eternal life". What is that is on offer here). So what is this gift anyway and why is it offered under false pretenses?

So have I already received the gift? If not why not? You say there is no catch? So what does accepting the gift entail?
How is that not a catch? Can I accept the gift without believing that God exists? Can I accept it without worshiping God? Can I accept it without having faith?---whitey----

LOL Belief , faith , accepting , receiving with humility ....these are not arbitrary "catches" that God "requires" in order to give you the gift. They are just descriptions of what receiving the gift is like.

If I buy you a drink and then describe to you the process of how to place the glass to your mouth and swallow are my instructions a "catch" ????

You talk as if God could change the rules and decide that the "requirement" for receiving the gift was standing on one leg with an orange on your leg! Asking you to drink your free pint is not a conditional requirement it's just me wanting you to enjoy your drink and telling you how you can do that. If I told you that balancing an orange on your head would quench your thirst I would be a liar and you would stay thirsty and you would not thank me for the misinformation.

The principle here is not arbitary hoops to climb through but just the truth. If you want to get wet you have to put your brolly down , if you want to go to Japan you have to get on a plane and b+++y well go there, it will not come to you , if you want God's free gift then.....you have to accept it......erhem....freely and humbly , there is just no other way.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Even if the Garden of Eden story is treated as an allegorical one, it still indicates that God gave Man death because Man is capable of and does disobey Him. God's punishments for disobeying his will are a common theme of the OT. Whether you believe in original sin theology or not is immaterial; the "gift" of salvation is only necessary because God got m ...[text shortened]... ading of the OT. If you are not basing your theology on the Bible, what are you basing it on?

The gift of salvation or heaven is neccessary because of our separation from God. In my view this was pretty inevitable really otherwise we'd all be in heaven now anyway. To me Genesis is just saying that something has gone amiss with humanity. God's anger is with our sin but not with us. He can't abide sin because he is holy , it's like oil and water. If anything God has taken responsibilty for our sin on the cross and does not hold us responsible , but that doesn't stop him hating sin. This is probably worth another thread but I am basing it on my own thoughts on this , some reading (CSlewis , St augustine ) and concepts of original righteousness (as opposed to sin)

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Luke 12:4-5

4"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

This reveals the flaw of your 'thirst' analogy. Going to hell isn't a matter ...[text shortened]... hen he has to resort to such cheap mind-control tricks to scare people into believing.

One wonders why Jesus is so lauded on this forum, by both believer and skeptic alike, when he has to resort to such cheap mind-control tricks to scare people into believing. ---swiss----

If I tell my son grizzly stories about what can happen if you are hit by a car , am I playing a cheap trick on him to make him afraid of cars or am I warning him because I love him and don't want to see him squashed? Had it occurred to you that Jesus might have been warning us out of his love for us?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Luke 12:4-5

4"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

This reveals the flaw of your 'thirst' analogy. Going to hell isn't a matter ...[text shortened]... hen he has to resort to such cheap mind-control tricks to scare people into believing.

This reveals the flaw of your 'thirst' analogy. Going to hell isn't a matter of just sitting back and waiting passively for it to happen. Rather, someone [God] throws you into hell. It is not a place we can reach on our own. And it is more than just being away from God - it is something we are told to fear. ---swiss----

You have some kind of point here , but then again what is God going to do if you align yourself with the darkness and make yourself his enemy? By refusing the gift you would also be refusing love, humility and joy - so what's left and what goes into the gap where his love and grace should have been? God is going to cast the darkness away from himself , like oil and water they repulse each other. If you refuse the gift of light then where does that leave you? Ultimately it will be God that casts you away , but you will have had many chances by then to take the free ski lift in the other direction.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You know they're your words. They are words born of the ego and not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit loves Truth. Your words are not.

Did it ever occur to you that many view Christianity as illogical and Christians as prevaricators and hypocrites for a reason? You're not helping to dispel these views.

Try loving God instead of loving the idea that ...[text shortened]... a that Jesus loves you.

It's not about what YOU get.

You have eyes but you cannot see.

Try loving God instead of loving the idea that God loves you.

Try loving the teachings of Jesus instead of loving the idea that Jesus loves you. ---think of one----

These are excellent points you are making and you have really hit on something , but why do these ideas have to be opposed to each other ? Why does it have to be an either/ or? Can't we do BOTH?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let me see if I can explain.

When I read the words of Jesus, they ring true. When I look at much of what Christianity has become I no longer see the words of Jesus. They have been distorted out of recognition.

I don't think that it's about "earning" righteousness.
I don't think it's about "acting" righteous.

I have to believe that it's about "b ...[text shortened]... there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will the Father honor.[/b]

I have to believe that it's about "being" righteous. From what I can tell, a transformation has to occur. A transformation from being slaves to the desires of the self to living a life of love, compassion, justice, etc. I believe that this is what Jesus is telling us. Listen to His voice and follow Him instead of remaining a slave to one's own voice, i.e. desires of the self. ===========THINK OF ONE======


OOOOOH.... I feel so frustrated when you do this! You are spot on ! This is absolutely correct but you just need one more vital piece of the jigsaw to understand why we Christians talk about grace and God's gift being an unearned gift.

"A transformation has to occur" -- YES! YES! ---but think now...who does the transforming and how? How does the Bible (and Jesus) say we are transformed? Does it say that we transform ourselves and then receive salvation or does it say that we receive salvation that then leads on to transformation via the GIFT of God's spirit ?