Originally posted by Pudgenik
To believe in this concept, is ridiculous. It would be like saying, "today" I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. And tomorrow I can do whatever I want, because I am "saved". Doing whatever I want, to commit all manner of sin, but look I am a child of God.
Has know one ever read, where Jesus is talking about those at judgement. You faithful co ...[text shortened]... e, we healed people in your name." Then the Lord said to them, "Away from me, I never knew you".
When your definitions come in line with the intention of the Scriptures involved, the apparent absurdities will dissipate, leaving only the galvanizing truth.
I don't believe in Santa Claus.
I used to, but I don't anymore.
I get presents at Christmas time.
I used to, and I still do.
Despite being led to believe that my receipt of gifts at Christmas time was tied to two actions
Reveal Hidden Contentboth my do-believe do-believe do-believe belief in Santa and my subsequent good-boy actions as a result of the same
it was eventually revealed that neither of the insinuations were in any way, shape or form related to receiving gifts.
In short, the gifts weren't produced in the manner assumed to be true.
Not to assume there is a direct correlation with the previously held misconception and the one you are currently suffering from, but it is safe to at least assume that such a thing
could be occurring here.
With the Santa Claus misconception,
beliefReveal Hidden Contentconviction based solely on an assumption of personal gain
+
actionReveal Hidden Contentexpectation of vague acceptable behavior
=
gainReveal Hidden ContentChristmas presents
.
With the salvation issue,
beliefReveal Hidden Contentrejection of one's own work in favor of acceptance of the work of another done on one's behalf
=
gainReveal Hidden Contentsalvation (transfer from eternal death to eternal life)
.
Not only are the formulas fundamentally different, the parts of the formula are entirely different, too. The first one uses a completely different definition of belief than does the second one, in addition to adding a part which the second one does not contain. That being said, the formulas do have some similarity. Namely, both contain a gain, an action and a belief. The former requires two beliefs: one that the benefactor exists; and two, confidence in one's ability to produce the required level of satisfactory behavior in order to obtain the gain(s). Similarly, the latter requires two beliefs: one that the benefactor is able to produce the desired outcome without any other assistance; and two, said confidence is the only requirement.
The formulas also contain an action, but they differ in application. The former calls upon the believer to produce the necessary action to produce the gain. The latter is rendered moot when the believer attempts to add
any action to the production of the gain: all "good work" is provided by the benefactor.
They both also contain cautionary tales. The former carries the threat of no gain if unacceptable work is produced--- regardless of belief. The latter brings a warning, as well: without the exchange of confidence, i.e., the believer eschews his personal work for the work of the benefactor, no gain will be realized. Because the former's gain is based upon both the belief and the work of the believer, there is also threat of loss even after gain: if the believer's good work could trigger gain, it follows how the believer's poor work could also trigger loss of the same.
However, the latter does not rely on the believer beyond the exchange: the believer cannot produce the necessary work for the gain, therefore, neither can the believer either un-produce or in any other form, act in such a way as to nullify the gain.