Quote:

---

Not much different than anything I have said. The only other thing I have stated is that IMO believing that the way Christ taught us to live is correct and can be considered a part of the belief and faith in Christ. I already said I know I view these as more connected than some other Christians do.

You seem to just be trying to make an argument here.

---

Did you forget that you were asserting that faith and works can't be separated out for this discussion? Or at least you think that is a valid view?

So why wouldn't I make an argument against it, if I disagree?

I'm not liking how this is going so far. You're already losing focus.

Quote:

---

Would the thief on the cross been saved, if he had NOT rebuked the other thief, or verbally expressed his faith, but rather believed and said those things in his heart?

But he did say it, because of his faith, which he expressed.

---

You're avoiding the point. You see, that's why I ask these kinds of questions, it gets right to the heart of the matter, and doesn't allow you to talk past it. What do you think would've happened to the thief, had he NOT? Based on your views of salvation - would he have been saved? My answer is yes. What is yours?

Quote:

---

The question of when someone is saved and the question of salvation by faith vs. works are NOT different conversations. If you are saved the instant you have true faith in your heart, then it means salvation is by faith alone, because you haven't yet done anything in response to your faith. The question about the house of Cornelius is this - were they saved right after hearing and believing the gospel, evidenced by the Holy Spirit entering them? Can the Holy Spirit enter someone like that if they are not saved? Because if they were saved, it was before they could do any works.

And when do you have "true faith"? If someone says they have faith in Jesus in their heart, believe that Jesus died for their sins so that they might have salvation, and lives a Christian life, do they have "true faith"? Are they saved? How about if something bad happens to them and then they renounce God in their heart and actions, deny His existence, and begin a sinful lifestyle, are they saved now? Oh, but wait, they change their mind again and now they acknowledge Jesus as their Lord and savior again. Are they saved now? And on and on. So when can you say for certain that someone is saved? In my opinion only God really knows.


That is why IMO that is a different conversation than faith vs works.

---

Here are my answers to your questions: imho - yes, yes, no, yes

And note that your response here didn't even address the point - was the house of Cornelius saved, as evidenced by the Holy Spirit entering them? Because if the Holy Spirit enters a person when they are saved, then it means they were saved. And it happened after belief, not works, correct?

That's why it ISN'T a different conversation. You're trying to make it one. Answer my question about the house of Cornelius, then we'll see that it isn't.

Quote:

---

Yes, I know that you've stated many times your belief that faith is what saves, not works. But you keep saying that faith and works can't be separated out for the purpose of the faith vs. works discussion, so I'm showing that it can.

I said that in my view, I view faith and works as more connected than some other people. That means I already know other people have a different view. You aren't showing anything I haven't already said.

---

Yes, I am. I am showing that regardless of whether you or anyone else see them as connected, you CAN still separate them out to answer the faith vs. works question. See, your whole point was that you can't separate them out to answer the question. Right? Do you agree with me that they can be separated for this question?

Quote:

---

What's interesting is that you yourself are separating them out, and even answering the faith vs. works debate by declaring it is faith.

What's interesting to me is that you have avoided discussing many of the Bible verses that have been referenced in this thread regarding a potential connection between works and salvation. There have been many, but you haven't really commented on most of them.

---

Umm, no I haven't avoided them. You seem to have missed where I was waiting for answers to my questions first, and then promising if he answered them, I would start my discussion of those verses. You see, it was important that he answer them, because he gave contradictory statements to where I didn't even know what he was arguing in the first place. I didn't know what it was we were even supposed to be discussing. Make sense?

Do I need to point you to the exact post where this happened?

And I'm willing to discuss any of them with you. Which verse would you like to start with first?

Quote:

---

You have another confusing part in your response which I will address in a separate post, so it can be the sole focus.

More interrogation.

Do you understand why I was asking these questions in the first place, and why they were necessary?

None of those questions were necessary for you to give your own complete view on faith and works and their connection to salvation. My first and second posts in this thread were stating my personal views. No questions of other posters were necessary. You are free to offer up your own complete view on the relationship between works and faith and salvation at any time. You have chosen not to.

Do you concede that calling me an "interrogator" was overstepping?

Asking someone to "concede" something sounds to me like you're trying to win an argument rather than have an open conversation regarding Faith.

These questions certainly can start conversations. We're having one right now because of them.

Not a very good one.

In my experience talking with people exploring their faith, open conversation and offering up my own views and listening to theirs has almost always been more meaningful than asking someone a lot of pointed, yes/no questions. IMO that often leads to a more antagonistic conversation which is rarely useful for producing "fruit of the spirit."

---

- usually, when someone here refers to my questions as "interrogation", it's because they're looking for a way out of answering them. That means you're not comfortable with what they might reveal. Good, that's what my questions are meant to do, kind of. Truth can be uncomfortable.
- asking someone to "concede" something is asking them to acknowledge they made a mistake. I gave you that opportunity, and you passed. So be it.
- "not a very good one" - chuckle. What is your definition of good? And obviously, even if you don't think it's "a good one", you seem to think it's a meaningful one, given that you've spent a lot of time and energy it so far. If it's meaningful enough, it is a good one.
-In my experience, "yes" or "no" questions make someone solidify what it is they believe to be true. In that sense, they are very fruitful.

Hey Interrogator, rather than demanding other people answer your questions, why don't you freely offer up your own complete view of faith, works, and salvation?

Don't be shy.

Realitybites said:

---

Here is how I see it.

"Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. And John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?"

But Jesus answered and said to him, "Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he allowed Him.

When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water...". (Matthew 3)

When you come to believe in a Messiah who had no need at all to be baptized and yet went ahead with it, you should be willing to do the same.

If you are physically able to be baptized (ie, not currently nailed to a cross next to Jesus, or come to faith before age 18 and your family prevents it) and voluntarily choose not to be because you don't think it is necessary that probably isn't a safe place to be hanging out doctrinally.

Incidentally, the church of the first millenium had a period of time when the new believer was a "catechumen". This was an adult who had expressed faith in Christ and was being taught the truths of the faith. Baptism and communion came at the end of that period. But it was universally held that if an adult died as a catechumen, his unbaptized status would not preclude his salvation. Meanwhile children born into the Christian community were baptized as infants, communed immediately, and were catechized as children.

No need to make this harder than it has to be.

---

I don't think any Christian would say we shouldn't be willing to follow what Christ did. The central question, at least for the moment, is whether you have to be successful in doing so in order to be saved.

When you say it isn't a "safe place" if you don't believe you have to be water baptized, what do you mean exactly?

90sBear said:

---

Hey Interrogator, rather than demanding other people answer your questions, why don't you freely offer up your own complete view of faith, works, and salvation?

Don't be shy.

---

The issue though is when people criticize, but then won't answer direct questions.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Hey Interrogator, rather than demanding other people answer your questions, why don't you freely offer up your own complete view of faith, works, and salvation?

Don't be shy.

---

The issue though is when people criticize, but then won't answer direct questions.

---

Frodo, this is why 90sBear observed BTD is trying to be an interrogator rather than engage in a discussion.

I am new to this thread, so if this line of thought has already been discussed, please feel free to disregard.

In the laid out process of how to get to heaven in the OP, it seems that the key action that one needs to take is belief. However, I would argue that one cannot quite literally control their beliefs. You cannot control when you become convinced to believe something, you just ... do (hopefully that makes sense).

Different people become convinced for different reasons: philosophy, theology, teleology, personal experiences, scientific experiments can all influence someone to be more or less accepting of a belief proposal. How someone was raised, the culture they live in, etc., can and are an influence.

This leads me to my question: is belief a good mechanism to determining if someone receives salvation, when the requirement of said salvation is (in my opinion) not controllable?

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Hey Interrogator, rather than demanding other people answer your questions, why don't you freely offer up your own complete view of faith, works, and salvation?

Don't be shy.

---

The issue though is when people criticize, but then won't answer direct questions.

---

In your opinion have I been overly critical, evasive, or have not responded to questions?

A healthy conversation, especially for something like faith, is best when it is a healthy back and forth sharing of ideas and, as you said, not in a critical manner.

IMO the point of a conversation of faith should be geared more towards fruits of the spirit and less so attempting to "win" an argument.

To paraphrase an Indiana Jones movie, "Is it for His glory, or for yours?"

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Hey Interrogator, rather than demanding other people answer your questions, why don't you freely offer up your own complete view of faith, works, and salvation?

Don't be shy.

---

The issue though is when people criticize, but then won't answer direct questions.

---

Exactly.

And I don't know what all this "interrogator" talk is about. If someone is being evasive about something, or ther views aren't clear, or if they are believed to be incorrect, why is it wrong to ask questions about it? Isn't that trying to find the truth?

Again, I believe that those who call me "interrogator" are merely trying to marginalize me so they don't have to answer the question, because they are afraid of being wrong.

90sBear said:

---

Hey Interrogator, rather than demanding other people answer your questions, why don't you freely offer up your own complete view of faith, works, and salvation?

Don't be shy.

---

Who's shy? I have been telling my views throughout this thread. And it should be clear that my belief is that salvation is by faith, not works if anyone's been following along.

The question is, why don't you answer my questions? I've answered yours. Do you believe if the thief on the cross had NOT verbally expressed his faith, but kept it in his heart, he would have been saved? Do you believe the house of Cornelius was saved when the Holy Spirit entered them? That gets right to the heart of the matter. So why not answer it?

Don't be shy.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Hey Interrogator, rather than demanding other people answer your questions, why don't you freely offer up your own complete view of faith, works, and salvation?

Don't be shy.

---

Who's shy? I have been telling my views throughout this thread. And it should be clear that my belief is that salvation is by faith, not works if anyone's been following along.

The question is, why don't you answer my questions? I've answered yours. Do you believe if the thief on the cross had NOT verbally expressed his faith, but kept it in his heart, he would have been saved? Do you believe the house of Cornelius was saved when the Holy Spirit entered them? That gets right to the heart of the matter. So why not answer it?

Don't be shy.

---

So someone is looking to have a conversation or has questions about what the Bible says about faith, works, and salvation so that they can better understand things and figure out their views and your total and complete view and answer is, "salvation is by faith, not works"?

Not much meat there for conversation.

I have already offered my views and opinions including a link to an essay with various Bible quotes on the subject. I have already said that IMO salvation is only granted by God's grace and I have already said I don't know when someone is saved and IMO only God does.

You just seem to want to argue and don't offer much in return in terms of substance on your own views on the topic which, as I said earlier, doesn't lead to a very fruitful conversation.

If that's all you really have to offer I will move on.

BearWithMe said:

---

I am new to this thread, so if this line of thought has already been discussed, please feel free to disregard.

In the laid out process of how to get to heaven in the OP, it seems that the key action that one needs to take is belief. However, I would argue that one cannot quite literally control their beliefs. You cannot control when you become convinced to believe something, you just ... do (hopefully that makes sense).

Different people become convinced for different reasons: philosophy, theology, teleology, personal experiences, scientific experiments can all influence someone to be more or less accepting of a belief proposal. How someone was raised, the culture they live in, etc., can and are an influence.

This leads me to my question: is belief a good mechanism to determining if someone receives salvation, when the requirement of said salvation is (in my opinion) not controllable?

---

That's a very interesting topic for discussion. The bible does seem to reveal that we are NOT in control, rather, God is. God is the one who "draws" us (John 6:44). God "hides" from the wise and learned and chooses to reveal himself to the simple and humble (Matthew 11:25). God "chose" us before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4).

The question your asking is along the lines of "is it fair for God to make our salvation, and thus whether we go to hell, dependent on something HE does, not us?" It's a tough question to answer, mostly because we can't know the mind of God and aren't in a position to be able to judge him as being unfair. But it's an interesting one to discuss, so please stick around. Never mind the ugliness that happens with the heated debates that go on in here.

A question I have for you is: is there something you believe we CAN control, that would be in your mind a "good", "better", or more "fair" way of determining someone's salvation?

90sBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Hey Interrogator, rather than demanding other people answer your questions, why don't you freely offer up your own complete view of faith, works, and salvation?

Don't be shy.

---

Who's shy? I have been telling my views throughout this thread. And it should be clear that my belief is that salvation is by faith, not works if anyone's been following along.

The question is, why don't you answer my questions? I've answered yours. Do you believe if the thief on the cross had NOT verbally expressed his faith, but kept it in his heart, he would have been saved? Do you believe the house of Cornelius was saved when the Holy Spirit entered them? That gets right to the heart of the matter. So why not answer it?

Don't be shy.

---

So someone is looking to have a conversation or has questions about what the Bible says about faith, works, and salvation so that they can better understand things and figure out their views and your total and complete view and answer is, "salvation is by faith, not works"?

Not much meat there for conversation.

I have already offered my views and opinions including a link to an essay with various Bible quotes on the subject. I have already said that IMO salvation is only granted by God's grace and I have already said I don't know when someone is saved and IMO only God does.

You just seem to want to argue and don't offer much in return in terms of substance on your own views on the topic which, as I said earlier, doesn't lead to a very fruitful conversation.

If that's all you really have to offer I will move on.

---

It seems as if you are avoiding my question, and are now trying to run away to avoid answering them.

I hope you, and the others here, can see now why I ask them. They get right to the heart of the matter. Open discussions can allow people to talk around them, and there might not be clarity. Questions like that force clarity. If you can't, or won't answer it, it reveals a lot about your beliefs, and so in that sense, it is much more fruitful of a discussion than you and others here give it credit for. If you want more specifics about my views on salvation beyond "it's faith, not works", then you can start by answering this question, because that's how I'm trying to present my views.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Hey Interrogator, rather than demanding other people answer your questions, why don't you freely offer up your own complete view of faith, works, and salvation?

Don't be shy.

---

The issue though is when people criticize, but then won't answer direct questions.

---

I will ask you the same questions I'm asking them. Could you give your answer to these?:s

1) If the thief on the cross had not verbally expressed his faith or rebuked the other thief, but instead believed those things in his heart - would he have been saved?

2) Was the house of Cornelius saved when they heard the gospel, believed, and the Holy Spirit entered them?

OldBear, same question above I asked 90s Bear and frodo, I ask you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

I am new to this thread, so if this line of thought has already been discussed, please feel free to disregard.

In the laid out process of how to get to heaven in the OP, it seems that the key action that one needs to take is belief. However, I would argue that one cannot quite literally control their beliefs. You cannot control when you become convinced to believe something, you just ... do (hopefully that makes sense).

Different people become convinced for different reasons: philosophy, theology, teleology, personal experiences, scientific experiments can all influence someone to be more or less accepting of a belief proposal. How someone was raised, the culture they live in, etc., can and are an influence.

This leads me to my question: is belief a good mechanism to determining if someone receives salvation, when the requirement of said salvation is (in my opinion) not controllable?

---

That's a very interesting topic for discussion. The bible does seem to reveal that we are NOT in control, rather, God is. God is the one who "draws" us (John 6:44). God "hides" from the wise and learned and chooses to reveal himself to the simple and humble (Matthew 11:25). God "chose" us before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4).

The question your asking is along the lines of "is it fair for God to make our salvation, and thus whether we go to hell, dependent on something HE does, not us?" It's a tough question to answer, mostly because we can't know the mind of God and aren't in a position to be able to judge him as being unfair. But it's an interesting one to discuss, so please stick around. Never mind the ugliness that happens with the heated debates that go on in here.

A question I have for you is: is there something you believe we CAN control, that would be in your mind a "good", "better", or more "fair" way of determining someone's salvation?

---

Thank you for the thoughtful response!

Very insightful though - as you are correct, there is biblical backing to the position that God reveals himself to some and hides from others. Whether we call that someone being convinced/convicted, or God manifesting is a matter of semantics IMO.

Regarding your question, "is there something you believe we CAN control, that would be in your mind a "good", "better", or more "fair" way of determining someone's salvation?":

To be honest I have absolutely no idea... not trying to dodge the question but I don't think I have an answer. If we are discussing this from a traditional Christian framework of Salvation where those who are not saved are eternally damned, I personally don't think there is a just mechanism to separate saved/not-saved. Infinity is a very long time ... :')

More irony from you. You seem confused as to what constitutes "quality". You remain as clueless as ever. No surprise.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Guys, Something to consider, is that we are here to share view points and learn. There will be times where we might go into a situation with a certain view points and then slowly we realize that our view point is changing. We can't know everything, none of us do. I just want to see as many people saved as possible. It's my true heart here and why I am here.

---

But it's impossible to share one's viewpoint if you're asked what that viewpoint is, and you dodge the question. Also, it doesn't speak to "learning" if you just attack the person asking the question that you're dodging, instead of answering the question. That speaks to pride and obstinance. Neither is it helpful for anyone else to learn, if you aren't being clear about what it is you want other people to learn.

---

I agree . We have to honestly answer questions and ask them also in an effort to find the real truth rather than to prove we are right. We have to be respectful of other people if we want them to respect us.

---

Too late.

---

Who are you to criticize OldBear? You were the major purveyor of the nastiness that stained this thread!

---

Try again. No criticism of OldBear. Rather, a simple observation that Frodo shows little respect. You two have that in common.

BearWithMe said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

I am new to this thread, so if this line of thought has already been discussed, please feel free to disregard.

In the laid out process of how to get to heaven in the OP, it seems that the key action that one needs to take is belief. However, I would argue that one cannot quite literally control their beliefs. You cannot control when you become convinced to believe something, you just ... do (hopefully that makes sense).

Different people become convinced for different reasons: philosophy, theology, teleology, personal experiences, scientific experiments can all influence someone to be more or less accepting of a belief proposal. How someone was raised, the culture they live in, etc., can and are an influence.

This leads me to my question: is belief a good mechanism to determining if someone receives salvation, when the requirement of said salvation is (in my opinion) not controllable?

---

That's a very interesting topic for discussion. The bible does seem to reveal that we are NOT in control, rather, God is. God is the one who "draws" us (John 6:44). God "hides" from the wise and learned and chooses to reveal himself to the simple and humble (Matthew 11:25). God "chose" us before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4).

The question your asking is along the lines of "is it fair for God to make our salvation, and thus whether we go to hell, dependent on something HE does, not us?" It's a tough question to answer, mostly because we can't know the mind of God and aren't in a position to be able to judge him as being unfair. But it's an interesting one to discuss, so please stick around. Never mind the ugliness that happens with the heated debates that go on in here.

A question I have for you is: is there something you believe we CAN control, that would be in your mind a "good", "better", or more "fair" way of determining someone's salvation?

---

Thank you for the thoughtful response!

Very insightful though - as you are correct, there is biblical backing to the position that God reveals himself to some and hides from others. Whether we call that someone being convinced/convicted, or God manifesting is a matter of semantics IMO.

Regarding your question, "is there something you believe we CAN control, that would be in your mind a "good", "better", or more "fair" way of determining someone's salvation?":

To be honest I have absolutely no idea... not trying to dodge the question but I don't think I have an answer. If we are discussing this from a traditional Christian framework of Salvation where those who are not saved are eternally damned, I personally don't think there is a just mechanism to separate saved/not-saved. Infinity is a very long time ... :')

---

You're not dodging the question, saying you don't know is a perfectly valid answer.

It's going too far to suggest God's "mechanism" of salvation is unjust, though. The bible does show that God is sovereign over who He saves, but the bible also teaches that we have the personal responsibility to respond appropriately to what's been revealed to us. Every person without mental impairment has been given the revelation of nature, therefore "no one has an excuse" to not believe in a Creator God (Romans 1:20). Then, we are told that if you believe in the Creator God, and you truly seek Him, then upon hearing and learning about Jesus you will recognize Jesus for who he is (John 8:19) and know that what Jesus spoke came from God himself (John 7:17). So this seems to teach that those who learn of Jesus and reject him don't have an excuse, and therefore they can justly receive the consequences. What about those who never heard or never will hear about Jesus? I am not sure, but I think there is biblical reason to believe those people will be judged differently, according to how much has been revealed to them.

The idea that God is sovereign yet we have responsibility obviously seems contradictory, and the debate over this has been going on for centuries. But I think it is possible that a kind of duality exists that is beyond our understanding, where BOTH are true. A scientific correlation would be the mystery of the wave-particle duality of light - we can't understand how light can be both a wave and a particle, we just know that it is. We don't have God's understanding, so we aren't in the position to judge anything He does as unjust, including His chosen plan for salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Hey Interrogator, rather than demanding other people answer your questions, why don't you freely offer up your own complete view of faith, works, and salvation?

Don't be shy.

---

The issue though is when people criticize, but then won't answer direct questions.

---

I will ask you the same questions I'm asking them. Could you give your answer to these?:s

1) If the thief on the cross had not verbally expressed his faith or rebuked the other thief, but instead believed those things in his heart - would he have been saved?

2) Was the house of Cornelius saved when they heard the gospel, believed, and the Holy Spirit entered them?

---

1) The Thief on the cross was saved before he confessed he was a sinner and asked Jesus to save Him, this an outward expression of Faith in Jesus Christ. After Christ rose from the dead, he would have been required to believe that Jesus died and rose again as a Sacrifice for his sins. Would he have been saved if he believed these things in his heart? I think he would have been..The Bible says that it is by believing (Faith) that we are saved, but I think it is best to express that Faith openly to God from your mouth as he did.

Romans 10:9-10 NKJV
[9] "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. [10] For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
[13] For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

2) Yes the House of Cornelius was truly saved when they heard, believed and the Holy Spirit dwelled in them. You can't have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside you and not be saved.

Romans 8:14 KJV
[14]" For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. "

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Hey Interrogator, rather than demanding other people answer your questions, why don't you freely offer up your own complete view of faith, works, and salvation?

Don't be shy.

---

The issue though is when people criticize, but then won't answer direct questions.

---

I will ask you the same questions I'm asking them. Could you give your answer to these?:s

1) If the thief on the cross had not verbally expressed his faith or rebuked the other thief, but instead believed those things in his heart - would he have been saved?

2) Was the house of Cornelius saved when they heard the gospel, believed, and the Holy Spirit entered them?

---

1) The Thief on the cross was saved before he confessed he was a sinner and asked Jesus to save Him, this an outward expression of Faith in Jesus Christ. After Christ rose from the dead, he would have been required to believe that Jesus died and rose again as a Sacrifice for his sins. Would he have been saved if he believed these things in his heart? I think he would have been..The Bible says that it is by believing (Faith) that we are saved, but I think it is best to express that Faith openly to God from your mouth as he did.

Romans 10:9-10 NKJV
[9] "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. [10] For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
[13] For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

2) Yes the House of Cornelius was truly saved when they heard, believed and the Holy Spirit dwelled in them. You can't have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside you and not be saved.

Romans 8:14 KJV
[14]" For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. "

---

Ok, good answers, and thanks for demonstrating how to actually answer a question.

Your answer #1 is interesting yet confusing. So when was the thief "saved" - when he believed Jesus in his heart while both he and Jesus were still alive on their crosses, or not until AFTER Jesus later died and then rose from the dead?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're not dodging the question, saying you don't know is a perfectly valid answer.

It's going too far to suggest God's "mechanism" of salvation is unjust, though. The bible does show that God is sovereign over who He saves, but the bible also teaches that we have the personal responsibility to respond appropriately to what's been revealed to us. Every person without mental impairment has been given the revelation of nature, therefore "no one has an excuse" to not believe in a Creator God (Romans 1:20). Then, we are told that if you believe in the Creator God, and you truly seek Him, then upon hearing and learning about Jesus you will recognize Jesus for who he is (John 8:19) and know that what Jesus spoke came from God himself (John 7:17). So this seems to teach that those who learn of Jesus and reject him don't have an excuse, and therefore they can justly receive the consequences. What about those who never heard or never will hear about Jesus? I am not sure, but I think there is biblical reason to believe those people will be judged differently, according to how much has been revealed to them.

---

Essentially what I am taking away here is that your position is people (who are not mentally impaired) have no excuse to not believe in God as he has revealed himself to all via the revelation of nature.

As someone who is not cognitively impaired (at least, I think so lol), I belong in the "all" group and can vouch that God has absolutely not revealed himself to me via the revelation of nature. When I look at the trees (nature as a whole), I find beauty, inspiration, and sometimes horror, but I do not find God.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The idea that God is sovereign yet we have responsibility obviously seems contradictory, and the debate over this has been going on for centuries. But I think it is possible that a kind of duality exists that is beyond our understanding, where BOTH are true. A scientific correlation would be the mystery of the wave-particle duality of light - we can't understand how light can be both a wave and a particle, we just know that it is. We don't have God's understanding, so we aren't in the position to judge anything He does as unjust, including His chosen plan for salvation.

---

As an outsider to your religion, the position that we are unable to criticize the biblical God due to his knowledge/power is rather difficult for me to understand. Beyond just the scope of this conversation (who receives salvation/damnation), there are the multiple genocides committed by God's hand, the condoning of slavery, and everything in between.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Hey Interrogator, rather than demanding other people answer your questions, why don't you freely offer up your own complete view of faith, works, and salvation?

Don't be shy.

---

The issue though is when people criticize, but then won't answer direct questions.

---

I will ask you the same questions I'm asking them. Could you give your answer to these?:s

1) If the thief on the cross had not verbally expressed his faith or rebuked the other thief, but instead believed those things in his heart - would he have been saved?

2) Was the house of Cornelius saved when they heard the gospel, believed, and the Holy Spirit entered them?

---

1) The Thief on the cross was saved before he confessed he was a sinner and asked Jesus to save Him, this an outward expression of Faith in Jesus Christ. After Christ rose from the dead, he would have been required to believe that Jesus died and rose again as a Sacrifice for his sins. Would he have been saved if he believed these things in his heart? I think he would have been..The Bible says that it is by believing (Faith) that we are saved, but I think it is best to express that Faith openly to God from your mouth as he did.

Romans 10:9-10 NKJV
[9] "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. [10] For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
[13] For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

2) Yes the House of Cornelius was truly saved when they heard, believed and the Holy Spirit dwelled in them. You can't have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside you and not be saved.

Romans 8:14 KJV
[14]" For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. "

---

Ok, good answers, and thanks for demonstrating how to actually answer a question.

Your answer #1 is interesting yet confusing. So when was the thief "saved" - when he believed Jesus in his heart while both he and Jesus were still alive on their crosses, or not until AFTER Jesus later died and then rose from the dead?

---

Right then when he believed in His heart. Later, after the Resurrection, those under Grace were required to believe in the death and resurrection for of salvation. Before the cross it was who Jesus was, the Messiah of Israel.

Quote:

---

Essentially what I am taking away here is that your position is people (who are not mentally impaired) have no excuse to not believe in God as he has revealed himself to all via the revelation of nature.

As someone who is not cognitively impaired (at least, I think so lol), I belong in the "all" group and can vouch that God has absolutely not revealed himself to me via the revelation of nature. When I look at the trees (nature as a whole), I find beauty, inspiration, and sometimes horror, but I do not find God.

As an outsider to your religion, the position that we are unable to criticize the biblical God due to his knowledge/power is rather difficult for me to understand. Beyond just the scope of this conversation (who receives salvation/damnation), there are the multiple genocides committed by God's hand, the condoning of slavery, and everything in between.

---

The bible teaches man is without excuse because of what has been revealed through nature, and I agree completely with this.

I truly believe that all people see teleological purpose and design in nature and in our existence, including in our consciousness which allows us to sense and appreciate it all. If they say they don't, they just aren't being honest with themselves. No offense, but I believe that to be true.

What's hard to understand about not being in the position to judge God morally? Suppose a supreme Being exists - would we know what He knows? If we criticize God, we're only judging him down at our level. It'd be like a toddler criticizing his adult parents for not allowing him to eat candy all the time. What if there is eternal good that comes from temporary suffering, that God knows about but we don't? Without that knowledge, can we justly criticize Him?

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Hey Interrogator, rather than demanding other people answer your questions, why don't you freely offer up your own complete view of faith, works, and salvation?

Don't be shy.

---

The issue though is when people criticize, but then won't answer direct questions.

---

I will ask you the same questions I'm asking them. Could you give your answer to these?:s

1) If the thief on the cross had not verbally expressed his faith or rebuked the other thief, but instead believed those things in his heart - would he have been saved?

2) Was the house of Cornelius saved when they heard the gospel, believed, and the Holy Spirit entered them?

---

1) The Thief on the cross was saved before he confessed he was a sinner and asked Jesus to save Him, this an outward expression of Faith in Jesus Christ. After Christ rose from the dead, he would have been required to believe that Jesus died and rose again as a Sacrifice for his sins. Would he have been saved if he believed these things in his heart? I think he would have been..The Bible says that it is by believing (Faith) that we are saved, but I think it is best to express that Faith openly to God from your mouth as he did.

Romans 10:9-10 NKJV
[9] "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. [10] For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
[13] For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

2) Yes the House of Cornelius was truly saved when they heard, believed and the Holy Spirit dwelled in them. You can't have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside you and not be saved.

Romans 8:14 KJV
[14]" For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. "

---

Ok, good answers, and thanks for demonstrating how to actually answer a question.

Your answer #1 is interesting yet confusing. So when was the thief "saved" - when he believed Jesus in his heart while both he and Jesus were still alive on their crosses, or not until AFTER Jesus later died and then rose from the dead?

---

Right then when he believed in His heart. Later, after the Resurrection, those under Grace were required to believe in the death and resurrection for of salvation. Before the cross it was who Jesus was, the Messiah of Israel.

---

I think this is correct. The thief believed in Jesus' Kingdom message to the Jews as their Messiah - he said "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom". And Jesus saved him for that belief. The thief, as far as we know, had no knowledge that Jesus was going to die to pay for sin and then rise again. No one did, not even Jesus' own disciples at the time, even given that Jesus told them what was going to happen. What we believe today (the Church Age) for salvation includes Jesus death and resurrection, since it happened. There seems to be a lot of truth behind dispensationalism.

Quote:

---

The bible teaches man is without excuse because of what has been revealed through nature, and I agree completely with this.

I truly believe that all people see teleological purpose and design in nature and in our existence, including in our consciousness which allows us to sense and appreciate it all. If they say they don't, they just aren't being honest with themselves. No offense, but I believe that to be true.

---

How can we have a fruitful conversation if you simply reject my position by stating I'm not being honest with myself? No offense taken, but if you genuinely believe this, I'm not sure there even is a discussion to be had on this.

I believe you when you say you have strong belief, faith, and convictions in your creator and savior, but I also extend the same courtesy to those of other religions (or lack thereof).

Quote:

---

What's hard to understand about not being in the position to judge God morally? Suppose a supreme Being exists - would we know what He knows? If we criticize God, we're only judging him down at our level. It'd be like a toddler criticizing his adult parents for not allowing him to eat candy all the time. What if there is eternal good that comes from temporary suffering, that God knows about but we don't? Without that knowledge, can we justly criticize Him?

---

Sure, suppose a supreme being exists who created this universe. We have absolutely no mechanisms to determine if this being is truly all powerful, all knowing, or all loving. Some may have hope and faith that they are, but there is objectively no way to have knowledge of this.

In this scenario, I see no issue with using the information you have and your faculties to do your best to gauge the character of this being. Just because one is a child doesn't mean they can't point out what seems immoral.

BearWithMe said:

---

Quote:

---

The bible teaches man is without excuse because of what has been revealed through nature, and I agree completely with this.

I truly believe that all people see teleological purpose and design in nature and in our existence, including in our consciousness which allows us to sense and appreciate it all. If they say they don't, they just aren't being honest with themselves. No offense, but I believe that to be true.

---

How can we have a fruitful conversation if you simply reject my position by stating I'm not being honest with myself? No offense taken, but if you genuinely believe this, I'm not sure there even is a discussion to be had on this.

I believe you when you say you have strong belief, faith, and convictions in your creator and savior, but I also extend the same courtesy to those of other religions (or lack thereof).

Quote:

---

What's hard to understand about not being in the position to judge God morally? Suppose a supreme Being exists - would we know what He knows? If we criticize God, we're only judging him down at our level. It'd be like a toddler criticizing his adult parents for not allowing him to eat candy all the time. What if there is eternal good that comes from temporary suffering, that God knows about but we don't? Without that knowledge, can we justly criticize Him?

---

Sure, suppose a supreme being exists who created this universe. We have absolutely no mechanisms to determine if this being is truly all powerful, all knowing, or all loving. Some may have hope and faith that they are, but there is objectively no way to have knowledge of this.

In this scenario, I see no issue with using the information you have and your faculties to do your best to gauge the character of this being. Just because one is a child doesn't mean they can't point out what seems immoral.

---

I am one of those who have "hope and faith" and would say that there is no objective way to prove the basis for my hope and faith. This is not to say that there is no basis. Faith by its nature requires uncertainty. Questioning is normal and part of a lifelong process.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Hey Interrogator, rather than demanding other people answer your questions, why don't you freely offer up your own complete view of faith, works, and salvation?

Don't be shy.

---

The issue though is when people criticize, but then won't answer direct questions.

---

I will ask you the same questions I'm asking them. Could you give your answer to these?:s

1) If the thief on the cross had not verbally expressed his faith or rebuked the other thief, but instead believed those things in his heart - would he have been saved?

2) Was the house of Cornelius saved when they heard the gospel, believed, and the Holy Spirit entered them?

---

1) The Thief on the cross was saved before he confessed he was a sinner and asked Jesus to save Him, this an outward expression of Faith in Jesus Christ. After Christ rose from the dead, he would have been required to believe that Jesus died and rose again as a Sacrifice for his sins. Would he have been saved if he believed these things in his heart? I think he would have been..The Bible says that it is by believing (Faith) that we are saved, but I think it is best to express that Faith openly to God from your mouth as he did.

Romans 10:9-10 NKJV
[9] "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. [10] For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
[13] For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

2) Yes the House of Cornelius was truly saved when they heard, believed and the Holy Spirit dwelled in them. You can't have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside you and not be saved.

Romans 8:14 KJV
[14]" For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. "

---

Ok, good answers, and thanks for demonstrating how to actually answer a question.

Your answer #1 is interesting yet confusing. So when was the thief "saved" - when he believed Jesus in his heart while both he and Jesus were still alive on their crosses, or not until AFTER Jesus later died and then rose from the dead?

---

Right then when he believed in His heart. Later, after the Resurrection, those under Grace were required to believe in the death and resurrection for of salvation. Before the cross it was who Jesus was, the Messiah of Israel.

---

I think this is correct. The thief believed in Jesus' Kingdom message to the Jews as their Messiah - he said "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom". And Jesus saved him for that belief. The thief, as far as we know, had no knowledge that Jesus was going to die to pay for sin and then rise again. No one did, not even Jesus' own disciples at the time, even given that Jesus told them what was going to happen. What we believe today (the Church Age) for salvation includes Jesus death and resurrection, since it happened. There seems to be a lot of truth behind dispensationalism.

---

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+man+on+the+middle+cross+said+i+could+come&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari

curtpenn said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Quote:

---

The bible teaches man is without excuse because of what has been revealed through nature, and I agree completely with this.

I truly believe that all people see teleological purpose and design in nature and in our existence, including in our consciousness which allows us to sense and appreciate it all. If they say they don't, they just aren't being honest with themselves. No offense, but I believe that to be true.

---

How can we have a fruitful conversation if you simply reject my position by stating I'm not being honest with myself? No offense taken, but if you genuinely believe this, I'm not sure there even is a discussion to be had on this.

I believe you when you say you have strong belief, faith, and convictions in your creator and savior, but I also extend the same courtesy to those of other religions (or lack thereof).

Quote:

---

What's hard to understand about not being in the position to judge God morally? Suppose a supreme Being exists - would we know what He knows? If we criticize God, we're only judging him down at our level. It'd be like a toddler criticizing his adult parents for not allowing him to eat candy all the time. What if there is eternal good that comes from temporary suffering, that God knows about but we don't? Without that knowledge, can we justly criticize Him?

---

Sure, suppose a supreme being exists who created this universe. We have absolutely no mechanisms to determine if this being is truly all powerful, all knowing, or all loving. Some may have hope and faith that they are, but there is objectively no way to have knowledge of this.

In this scenario, I see no issue with using the information you have and your faculties to do your best to gauge the character of this being. Just because one is a child doesn't mean they can't point out what seems immoral.

---

I am one of those who have "hope and faith" and would say that there is no objective way to prove the basis for my hope and faith. This is not to say that there is no basis. Faith by its nature requires uncertainty. Questioning is normal and part of a lifelong process.

---

i see it this way.

We all go through life not knowing what opportunities we will have, or the results of our choices for sure. So we learn to make choices based on faith in what matters to us.

Some marriages fail because faith in the spouse is lost.

Some businesses fail because faith in the plan is lost.

And when we try something really difficult, like trying to become an Olympic athlete or go professional in a sport, or when we consider a radically new concept and have to sell it to doubters, or face a disease which kills the majority of people who contract it for examples, it is easy to give up and just tell ourselves it's too hard, impossible to do.

Yet there are people who do succeed as pro athletes, who do make their country's Olympic team, who do discover and prove new theories in Science, who do beat the odds and refuse to succumb to disease or disability. There is something to those who accomplish those victories.

And that does not mention the quiet heroes. Parents who find a way to give their children a better life than they had, citizens who serve in first responder roles or the military, and millions of people who work hard, often-thankless jobs to provide important service to their community (consider the men who work utility lines, for example, or nurses who work Senior care). There are many people who choose to work harder than they have to, if all they care about is themselves.

But there are also those who are selfish, cruel, sometimes stunning in their indifference to suffering and harm around them. A depressing number of such people find their way into positions of influence and power.

There is something which appeals to each of the two types, duty and belief in helping your neighbor on the one hand, and putting yourself first no matter what on the other hand.

I have read that in ancient times there were always people of each type just as there is now, but the balance of each type changes from time to time and place to place.

This is why 'hope and faith', in my experience, are only real if they are produced in action. And when genuine good is done by a person, it is very much a reflection of the character of the person, creating a compelling reason to value their beliefs and ideals.

It seems plain to me that the more we respect and value those who demonstrate goodness, the better a community and nation we produce as well. Those who reflect Christ in their lives will bear fruit that all should appreciate.

curtpenn said:

---

BearWithMe said:

---

Quote:

---

The bible teaches man is without excuse because of what has been revealed through nature, and I agree completely with this.

I truly believe that all people see teleological purpose and design in nature and in our existence, including in our consciousness which allows us to sense and appreciate it all. If they say they don't, they just aren't being honest with themselves. No offense, but I believe that to be true.

---

How can we have a fruitful conversation if you simply reject my position by stating I'm not being honest with myself? No offense taken, but if you genuinely believe this, I'm not sure there even is a discussion to be had on this.

I believe you when you say you have strong belief, faith, and convictions in your creator and savior, but I also extend the same courtesy to those of other religions (or lack thereof).

Quote:

---

What's hard to understand about not being in the position to judge God morally? Suppose a supreme Being exists - would we know what He knows? If we criticize God, we're only judging him down at our level. It'd be like a toddler criticizing his adult parents for not allowing him to eat candy all the time. What if there is eternal good that comes from temporary suffering, that God knows about but we don't? Without that knowledge, can we justly criticize Him?

---

Sure, suppose a supreme being exists who created this universe. We have absolutely no mechanisms to determine if this being is truly all powerful, all knowing, or all loving. Some may have hope and faith that they are, but there is objectively no way to have knowledge of this.

In this scenario, I see no issue with using the information you have and your faculties to do your best to gauge the character of this being. Just because one is a child doesn't mean they can't point out what seems immoral.

---

I am one of those who have "hope and faith" and would say that there is no objective way to prove the basis for my hope and faith. This is not to say that there is no basis. Faith by its nature requires uncertainty. Questioning is normal and part of a lifelong process.

---

Thank you for providing your thoughts! While I am agnostic regarding God, I try to do my best to keep an open mind as the universe is quite strange and interesting. I would be extremely surprised, and rather disappointed if my beliefs about the nature of the universe remained static throughout my lifetime.

I wish you nothing but the best in your journey - cheers!

BearWithMe said:

---

Quote:

---

The bible teaches man is without excuse because of what has been revealed through nature, and I agree completely with this.

I truly believe that all people see teleological purpose and design in nature and in our existence, including in our consciousness which allows us to sense and appreciate it all. If they say they don't, they just aren't being honest with themselves. No offense, but I believe that to be true.

---

How can we have a fruitful conversation if you simply reject my position by stating I'm not being honest with myself? No offense taken, but if you genuinely believe this, I'm not sure there even is a discussion to be had on this.

I believe you when you say you have strong belief, faith, and convictions in your creator and savior, but I also extend the same courtesy to those of other religions (or lack thereof).

Quote:

---

What's hard to understand about not being in the position to judge God morally? Suppose a supreme Being exists - would we know what He knows? If we criticize God, we're only judging him down at our level. It'd be like a toddler criticizing his adult parents for not allowing him to eat candy all the time. What if there is eternal good that comes from temporary suffering, that God knows about but we don't? Without that knowledge, can we justly criticize Him?

---

Sure, suppose a supreme being exists who created this universe. We have absolutely no mechanisms to determine if this being is truly all powerful, all knowing, or all loving. Some may have hope and faith that they are, but there is objectively no way to have knowledge of this.

In this scenario, I see no issue with using the information you have and your faculties to do your best to gauge the character of this being. Just because one is a child doesn't mean they can't point out what seems immoral.

---

We can't really have a fruitful conversation if we're not being honest with each other, and I'm just being honest with you about my position - I truly believe those who don't see reason, purpose, and design in our existence are, for whatever reason, in denial. I don't understand why telling you this would block a fruitful conversation. Would you rather I had lied to you about my position?

The only alternative to there being reason, purpose, and design is that there is NO reason, purpose, or design. This means that our whole existence, even our consciousnes, arose from an incomprehensibly fortunate series of purely accidental, random, and unguided processes. Do you honestly believe this? Do you believe that somehow physics just popped into existence and through this incomprehensibly fortunate process ultimately became aware of itself?

Sure, you can use the information and faculties you have to judge a Supreme Being, but unless you're on the same level of knowledge as Him, you're only judging Him down at your level, like a toddler judging his adult parents. So how can you really know if His actions are "unjust"? That's my point. We can't and don't know it. Saying that you do is saying you know as much as the Supreme Being, which is quite presumptuous, isn't it?