Sorry if this comes off as rude, but without Christ, you’re not a Christian. Christianity is the state of being saved, and you can’t good-person your way into salvation. There are three problems with that approach:
If you believe you can save yourself, that’s an issue of pride. How can your living works ever compare to God’s own son dying for you?
If you willfully ignore Christ’s salvation (the easier option) in favor of doing good works, that shows an unwillingness to repent of your sins.
If you try to meet God’s standards (or even just what you think they are) through your works, you’ll never catch up, and you’ll exhaust yourself.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying there’s no point in good works or being a good person. They’re the fruits, but they’re not the tree. You can put effort into showing fruits, but without the tree, it’s not going to do you any good in the long run. Or you can grow the tree, and if it’s real, the fruits will come naturally (and if they don’t, the tree is dead[1].)
It’s only by humility that you can come to salvation. You must recognize your sin and be willing to turn from it (and keep trying whenever you fail.) Otherwise, you’re ultimately not that different from the conservative politicians who pretend to be Christian while sticking to their hateful ways (only in your case, the ways in question might not be hateful.)
I say this not to condemn you, but in hope that you can be saved. Please don’t ignore it.
James 2:17, though on further consideration, the whole chapter is fairly relevant. ↩︎
Funny you mention this because I was about to bring it up but as a bad thing. They don’t care about Jesus or his teachings or any of that because they see the whole “all of your sins will be forgiven” as “I can do whatever I want and then just have to tell a priest about it before I die and then I get into heaven”. Why they think they can pull a fast one on a being they believe is omniscient is beyond me, best guess is maybe they have a really simplistic view of rules and think exploiting loopholes can be done in good faith?
The Bible actually has things to say about that mindset. Namely, if you think “I can go back to sin and just get forgiven afterwards no biggie,” and then do so, you’re not going to get forgiven (Hebrews 10.) But that doesn’t get preached much, probably because it’s easy to get it twisted and think that an inadvertent slip into sin will have the same effect.
The older I get, the more dangerous I see Calvinism as being. Mind you, I believe it is true, but I see why it is difficult to explain. The child-like laws, given to literal children, seem to me to be a way of gently guiding people into the deeper waters. Unfortunately some people refuse to ever grow up, not just in Christianity but in every single aspect of life. It is so much easier to just play make-believe and spare people’s feelings (namely, probably the people doing that are attempting to spare their own). We are wounded, due to the effects of sin, and then for lack of knowledge the people perish.
The very surface level of Calvinism, being that God is sovereign in all, is something I agree with, but it includes predestination, which is where I take issue. Why would God not offer the same mercy to everyone? And when He does offer mercy to someone, why would He not let us choose? He is sovereign, yes, but He is also loving, and love is not forcing some people to become model citizens while letting others perish without ever having any hope of salvation.
I do believe predestination is technically true in that God already knows the future and knows who will or won’t ultimately be saved, but that doesn’t preclude free will being an operative part of what gets us there.
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
Like an author who makes both villains and heroes, and normies too I suppose… maybe, for the sake of the particular flavor of spice that they choose.
And Hebrews 10 also tells a bit of the story: God offers the entire world His son, and refusing that just might leave someone hopeless. Like an infant who died at birth, it’s sad but you don’t keep it in the house, give it the room and perhaps even college fund that you prepared in advance for it. It’s not its’ fault, but it’s dead so… you put it outside like trash (special trash, with a ceremony, but not like a “family member”, who gets to stay inside the house and be fed and can play with toys and such).
Setting blame aside, something either produces fruit or it doesn’t, period. When you turn on your computer, you expect it to work, not ignore you, and if it doesn’t, then after all the attempts to fix it yield no results, you throw it out and get a new one that will. All this is what we already do, here and now. Whatever He does… could very well be similar? Or not, but I have no problems with the idea that he would let some computer programsfictional characters human beings be discarded forever. The creator gets to decide, it has nothing to do with “fair”, it’s just what is.
But honestly I have no idea, beyond that it’s possible:-).
I think we’re in agreement here. God gives us chances to bear fruit, but throws out the branches that don’t. Predestination, as Calvinism describes it, says that He decides in advance whether they’re going to bear fruit, and those He wants to bear fruit do, and those He doesn’t never get the chance. I do not see that lining up with the idea that God is all-loving.
That being said, the Bible does say that nobody can come to Christ without God’s call, so I can see how that could be seen as predestination, but there have been those who felt the call and turned away, some of whom came around later. I think in some manner, it might be a warning that you can’t just decide “I’ll get saved when it’s more convenient for me,” because God doesn’t call at your convenience.
From our perspective, we’ll never know if we are predestined or not, so it’s functionally the same thing as free will. On the other hand, to the extent that we may have that, we would need to bow to His will, not force forward our own, as in if He wants a mountain to move, then we can pray and it will, but if He did not, then no amount of asking would work.
Indeed. Though that’s not to say asking is useless. He knows what we need, but often entrusts us to ask for it, so that we can see the answered prayers instead of taking Him for granted (plus some other reasons probably.)
Is 20 a few? The idea of salvation being through Christ alone is literally in the Bible. What are you talking about? I’ve repented of my sins, and belief in the Bible is not a sin.
Are you talking Catholicism? Even then, you still have Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace, you have been saved through faith. And this is not of yourselves, for it is a gift of God. And this is not of works, so that no one may glory.” (CPDV) and James 2 still making it clear that faith without works is dead.
It’s false that your heresy has existed for 2000 years; it’s only been the last few hundred. Salvation is through the Church, not through Christ, and outside the church you’re damned. Sorry.
Mate, I don’t even have a frame of reference to understand where you’re coming from. Do you believe the Bible? What are you, Eastern Orthodox or something? Or are you trolling? I don’t want to assume ill intent, but I’d like to have something to go off of. The idea that mankind can save each other is preposterous to me. What do you think Jesus died for? And also I’m part of a church and I’ve seen God work in my life, so you’re going to have to be more specific if you’re going to say that’s not up to standards.
Of course you don’t have the right frame of reference to understand because your mind is steeped in heresy. You think you can steal the Bible from the religion that it belongs to and just decide what it means for yourself, but it doesn’t work that way. God ordained his Church as his representative in the world, and only through that Church can you be saved. The Church is the only one who can interpret the Bible, and outside the Church you stand condemned.
I don’t have a “version” of Christianity; I follow the truth. Why are you so concerned with my identity? Are you unable to engage with true ideas without putting the speaker into a comfortable box?
You are telling me I can’t find salvation outside the church. I am already part of a church, but apparently it’s not the right church. You won’t even tell me what church you want me to join. At this point, I’m convinced you’re trolling.
If you’ll take a word offered in the spirit of kindness - this, this right here is where you lost this conversation. The goal should not be so much to “win”, as to truly win. By your own admission, you cannot save anyone, hence you are not responsible for even trying, only for representing what your faith has done in your own life.
And calling the other person a troll - even (especially) if they are one - cements their attitude against you. Then further calling their understanding as “preposterous”… well, you get the idea.
Do whatever you want, but I thought I’d offer that thought at least.
I wasn’t trying to “win” in the way you think I was yet. I was just trying to gather information.
My default assumption when someone claims to be saved is that they are until proven otherwise, but believing that the Church and not Christ is the source of salvation is a convincing proof otherwise from my perspective. But then my mind goes into “rebuke” mode and not “plant some seeds” mode, because people who consider themselves part of the Church should be open to rebuke (though of course I still try to be kind about it, that doesn’t come across easily over the net.)
For the sake of the rebuke, I wanted to understand what exactly they believe in so I could address it more directly, but that clearly wasn’t going anywhere. By their logic, I didn’t even have the right to ask because I’m not already part of whatever “Church” they’re a part of. Between their aggression and the fact that I’ve never heard of a belief system that lines up with what they were saying, I saw trolling as a likely possibility, moreso than I let on at this point. I suppose I could have tried for a little longer before bringing it up, but as you can see, I only asked, and then stated immediately afterwards that I didn’t want to assume ill intent.
So it wasn’t intended so much an accusation as a test of the waters, but I suppose it didn’t come off that way, and a troll wouldn’t answer that honestly, so the only purpose it served was to protect my own pride against the vision I had of someone laughing at their screen going “look how long I’m keeping this fool in an argument, and they don’t even suspect I’m trolling.” I’ll try to do better about that in the future.
As for the use of “preposterous,” I did add “to me” to soften it a bit, and this is clearly someone who’s able to handle that level of bluntness.
Thanks for your thoughts. I guess upon becoming sure that they were a troll, instead of calling them out to end it there, I should have shifted out of rebuking mode (since someone who’s pretending to be a Christian for trolling purposes is not going to be open to Christian rebuke,) and considered whether I was in a position to share my faith. In this case, I think I was, but it might be too late now. I’ll take another look tomorrow to see.
You do not owe me - an explanation or anything else. You stand before God and yourself, not me.
As for trolling, the best resource I’ve ever seen by far is The Alt-Right Playbook by Innuendo Studios. He’s an avid atheist, which is not relevant in the slightest even for discussing trolling on religious topics. Though I will add that a lot of atheists seem to see more clearly than the vast majority of “christians” I have ever met. As Jesus said: “But you are only warm—not hot, not cold. So I am ready to spit (vomit) you out of my mouth.” (Revelation 3:15) And as CS Lewis said, you have to have a certain amount of character - either good or evil - before you can be truly called either of those things. i.e., someone who shows up to services on Sundays ready for a good hour-long nap is not following Christ, though oddly an atheist who opens their eyes to the foundational principles of the world (see e.g. Romans 1:20) is closer to that than such a “christian”. The former abuses the word “God” while denying its power - thereby telling lies (that they “love” Him, that they “follow” Him, etc.) - while the other tells the truth as they yet see it in part, that there is no god (that they can see). Anyway don’t let that hold you back from learning from him, if he can see more clearly in this arena - I definitely learned a lot from watching that series:-).
Sorry if this comes off as rude, but without Christ, you’re not a Christian. Christianity is the state of being saved, and you can’t good-person your way into salvation. There are three problems with that approach:
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying there’s no point in good works or being a good person. They’re the fruits, but they’re not the tree. You can put effort into showing fruits, but without the tree, it’s not going to do you any good in the long run. Or you can grow the tree, and if it’s real, the fruits will come naturally (and if they don’t, the tree is dead[1].)
It’s only by humility that you can come to salvation. You must recognize your sin and be willing to turn from it (and keep trying whenever you fail.) Otherwise, you’re ultimately not that different from the conservative politicians who pretend to be Christian while sticking to their hateful ways (only in your case, the ways in question might not be hateful.)
I say this not to condemn you, but in hope that you can be saved. Please don’t ignore it.
James 2:17, though on further consideration, the whole chapter is fairly relevant. ↩︎
No gods are real
Funny you mention this because I was about to bring it up but as a bad thing. They don’t care about Jesus or his teachings or any of that because they see the whole “all of your sins will be forgiven” as “I can do whatever I want and then just have to tell a priest about it before I die and then I get into heaven”. Why they think they can pull a fast one on a being they believe is omniscient is beyond me, best guess is maybe they have a really simplistic view of rules and think exploiting loopholes can be done in good faith?
The Bible actually has things to say about that mindset. Namely, if you think “I can go back to sin and just get forgiven afterwards no biggie,” and then do so, you’re not going to get forgiven (Hebrews 10.) But that doesn’t get preached much, probably because it’s easy to get it twisted and think that an inadvertent slip into sin will have the same effect.
The older I get, the more dangerous I see Calvinism as being. Mind you, I believe it is true, but I see why it is difficult to explain. The child-like laws, given to literal children, seem to me to be a way of gently guiding people into the deeper waters. Unfortunately some people refuse to ever grow up, not just in Christianity but in every single aspect of life. It is so much easier to just play make-believe and spare people’s feelings (namely, probably the people doing that are attempting to spare their own). We are wounded, due to the effects of sin, and then for lack of knowledge the people perish.
The very surface level of Calvinism, being that God is sovereign in all, is something I agree with, but it includes predestination, which is where I take issue. Why would God not offer the same mercy to everyone? And when He does offer mercy to someone, why would He not let us choose? He is sovereign, yes, but He is also loving, and love is not forcing some people to become model citizens while letting others perish without ever having any hope of salvation.
I do believe predestination is technically true in that God already knows the future and knows who will or won’t ultimately be saved, but that doesn’t preclude free will being an operative part of what gets us there.
Romans 9:22 gives one possible answer to that:
Like an author who makes both villains and heroes, and normies too I suppose… maybe, for the sake of the particular flavor of spice that they choose.
And Hebrews 10 also tells a bit of the story: God offers the entire world His son, and refusing that just might leave someone hopeless. Like an infant who died at birth, it’s sad but you don’t keep it in the house, give it the room and perhaps even college fund that you prepared in advance for it. It’s not its’ fault, but it’s dead so… you put it outside like trash (special trash, with a ceremony, but not like a “family member”, who gets to stay inside the house and be fed and can play with toys and such).
Setting blame aside, something either produces fruit or it doesn’t, period. When you turn on your computer, you expect it to work, not ignore you, and if it doesn’t, then after all the attempts to fix it yield no results, you throw it out and get a new one that will. All this is what we already do, here and now. Whatever He does… could very well be similar? Or not, but I have no problems with the idea that he would let some
computer programsfictional charactershuman beings be discarded forever. The creator gets to decide, it has nothing to do with “fair”, it’s just what is.But honestly I have no idea, beyond that it’s possible:-).
I think we’re in agreement here. God gives us chances to bear fruit, but throws out the branches that don’t. Predestination, as Calvinism describes it, says that He decides in advance whether they’re going to bear fruit, and those He wants to bear fruit do, and those He doesn’t never get the chance. I do not see that lining up with the idea that God is all-loving.
That being said, the Bible does say that nobody can come to Christ without God’s call, so I can see how that could be seen as predestination, but there have been those who felt the call and turned away, some of whom came around later. I think in some manner, it might be a warning that you can’t just decide “I’ll get saved when it’s more convenient for me,” because God doesn’t call at your convenience.
From our perspective, we’ll never know if we are predestined or not, so it’s functionally the same thing as free will. On the other hand, to the extent that we may have that, we would need to bow to His will, not force forward our own, as in if He wants a mountain to move, then we can pray and it will, but if He did not, then no amount of asking would work.
Indeed. Though that’s not to say asking is useless. He knows what we need, but often entrusts us to ask for it, so that we can see the answered prayers instead of taking Him for granted (plus some other reasons probably.)
Studies in chimpanzees reveal that they do the same thing. It’s not even just “human nature”, it’s nature itself, pure and simple.
We should ride above that. We won’t, but we should.:-)
This is a made-up version of Christianity that didn’t exist until the last few hundred years. It’s heresy and unless you repent, you’re going to hell.
Is 20 a few? The idea of salvation being through Christ alone is literally in the Bible. What are you talking about? I’ve repented of my sins, and belief in the Bible is not a sin.
Are you talking Catholicism? Even then, you still have Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace, you have been saved through faith. And this is not of yourselves, for it is a gift of God. And this is not of works, so that no one may glory.” (CPDV) and James 2 still making it clear that faith without works is dead.
It’s false that your heresy has existed for 2000 years; it’s only been the last few hundred. Salvation is through the Church, not through Christ, and outside the church you’re damned. Sorry.
Mate, I don’t even have a frame of reference to understand where you’re coming from. Do you believe the Bible? What are you, Eastern Orthodox or something? Or are you trolling? I don’t want to assume ill intent, but I’d like to have something to go off of. The idea that mankind can save each other is preposterous to me. What do you think Jesus died for? And also I’m part of a church and I’ve seen God work in my life, so you’re going to have to be more specific if you’re going to say that’s not up to standards.
Of course you don’t have the right frame of reference to understand because your mind is steeped in heresy. You think you can steal the Bible from the religion that it belongs to and just decide what it means for yourself, but it doesn’t work that way. God ordained his Church as his representative in the world, and only through that Church can you be saved. The Church is the only one who can interpret the Bible, and outside the Church you stand condemned.
Which church? What is your version of Christianity called?
I don’t have a “version” of Christianity; I follow the truth. Why are you so concerned with my identity? Are you unable to engage with true ideas without putting the speaker into a comfortable box?
You are telling me I can’t find salvation outside the church. I am already part of a church, but apparently it’s not the right church. You won’t even tell me what church you want me to join. At this point, I’m convinced you’re trolling.
If you’ll take a word offered in the spirit of kindness - this, this right here is where you lost this conversation. The goal should not be so much to “win”, as to truly win. By your own admission, you cannot save anyone, hence you are not responsible for even trying, only for representing what your faith has done in your own life.
And calling the other person a troll - even (especially) if they are one - cements their attitude against you. Then further calling their understanding as “preposterous”… well, you get the idea.
Do whatever you want, but I thought I’d offer that thought at least.
I wasn’t trying to “win” in the way you think I was yet. I was just trying to gather information.
My default assumption when someone claims to be saved is that they are until proven otherwise, but believing that the Church and not Christ is the source of salvation is a convincing proof otherwise from my perspective. But then my mind goes into “rebuke” mode and not “plant some seeds” mode, because people who consider themselves part of the Church should be open to rebuke (though of course I still try to be kind about it, that doesn’t come across easily over the net.)
For the sake of the rebuke, I wanted to understand what exactly they believe in so I could address it more directly, but that clearly wasn’t going anywhere. By their logic, I didn’t even have the right to ask because I’m not already part of whatever “Church” they’re a part of. Between their aggression and the fact that I’ve never heard of a belief system that lines up with what they were saying, I saw trolling as a likely possibility, moreso than I let on at this point. I suppose I could have tried for a little longer before bringing it up, but as you can see, I only asked, and then stated immediately afterwards that I didn’t want to assume ill intent.
So it wasn’t intended so much an accusation as a test of the waters, but I suppose it didn’t come off that way, and a troll wouldn’t answer that honestly, so the only purpose it served was to protect my own pride against the vision I had of someone laughing at their screen going “look how long I’m keeping this fool in an argument, and they don’t even suspect I’m trolling.” I’ll try to do better about that in the future.
As for the use of “preposterous,” I did add “to me” to soften it a bit, and this is clearly someone who’s able to handle that level of bluntness.
Thanks for your thoughts. I guess upon becoming sure that they were a troll, instead of calling them out to end it there, I should have shifted out of rebuking mode (since someone who’s pretending to be a Christian for trolling purposes is not going to be open to Christian rebuke,) and considered whether I was in a position to share my faith. In this case, I think I was, but it might be too late now. I’ll take another look tomorrow to see.
You do not owe me - an explanation or anything else. You stand before God and yourself, not me.
As for trolling, the best resource I’ve ever seen by far is The Alt-Right Playbook by Innuendo Studios. He’s an avid atheist, which is not relevant in the slightest even for discussing trolling on religious topics. Though I will add that a lot of atheists seem to see more clearly than the vast majority of “christians” I have ever met. As Jesus said: “But you are only warm—not hot, not cold. So I am ready to spit (vomit) you out of my mouth.” (Revelation 3:15) And as CS Lewis said, you have to have a certain amount of character - either good or evil - before you can be truly called either of those things. i.e., someone who shows up to services on Sundays ready for a good hour-long nap is not following Christ, though oddly an atheist who opens their eyes to the foundational principles of the world (see e.g. Romans 1:20) is closer to that than such a “christian”. The former abuses the word “God” while denying its power - thereby telling lies (that they “love” Him, that they “follow” Him, etc.) - while the other tells the truth as they yet see it in part, that there is no god (that they can see). Anyway don’t let that hold you back from learning from him, if he can see more clearly in this arena - I definitely learned a lot from watching that series:-).
Not ignoring it, I’m recently baptized even. It’s just not my comfort zone.