Sometimes I wonder about the Trinitarian view.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I just said above that I know there is a judgment. And I asked you because your post was confusing, it seemed like that since you said "takes out of our hand", that you were affirming that we save ourselves. And it appeared that you commented about works at that judgment that we would be either saved or not saved based on our works. Like we had to earn salvation in some fashion. That's why I asked for clarification and precision.

I appreciate the clarification, it appeared you were pushing a works-based methodology of salvation that we ourselves are responsible for.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I just said above that I know there is a judgment. And I asked you because your post was confusing, it seemed like that since you said "takes out of our hand", that you were affirming that we save ourselves. And it appeared that you commented about works at that judgment that we would be either saved or not saved based on our works. Like we had to earn salvation in some fashion. That's why I asked for clarification and precision.

I appreciate the clarification, it appeared you were pushing a works-based methodology of salvation that we ourselves are responsible for.

It seems to me that you are not able to answer the statements that I made refuting your claims, so are then going off on a tangent making things up that I said in order to discredit me.
Here is what I posted just a few posts earlier on this thread:

All this other stuff is so much philosophy designed to get around that we live, then we die, then we go to a judgment that is based on our works. They set up some other methodology for salvation which takes the responsibility out of the hands of the person, and puts it into the hands of some outside force.

You have a non biblical definition of "salvation" and I believe these various human created philosophies that you and adjensen brought up, are also making their own definitions, so what I was referring to was those, and not my own theory. This is where your confusion comes from, thinking that I am going to accept the same terminology as used in those philosophies.
People are responsible for their actions, and those actions that a person does in this life is what is going to be examined in the judgment.
You believe in a judgment but just one for other people, not you, since you think that you are exempt from it.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
You believe in a judgment but just one for other people, not you, since you think that you are exempt from it.

Kindly point out where either of us has said that we're "exempt from judgement".

You're really going off the rails -- you've dismissed most of the Bible as being "fiction", yet claim that only in the Bible may answers be found. Perhaps so, but you're doing what revisionists have been doing since the 1800s, throwing away anything you disagree with in order to form the faith that you want to form, regardless of truth or validity.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I never said I was exempt from judgment. So that's not the truth, and I asked my questions based on your reply to Adjensen's post, not a reply to me.

reply to post by adjensen

Kindly point out where either of us has said that we're "exempt from judgement".

I was not referring to you but was talking directly to NOTurTypical, who has stated this several times over the past year or more.

You're really going off the rails -- you've dismissed most of the Bible as being "fiction", yet claim that only in the Bible may answers be found. Perhaps so, but you're doing what revisionists have been doing since the 1800s, throwing away anything you disagree with in order to form the faith that you want to form, regardless of truth or validity.

I could see how you would be partisan on the canon, believing that your particular cult invented it, so your cult's credibility is on the line if anyone questions the New Testament canon.
I don't go around dismissing books from the NT canon based on whether I "like" them or not. This is based on modern scholarship that looks at things a bit free from dogmatism. So I am looking at the preponderance of evidence by the experts rather than forming personal opinions in a self-made bubble.
But, yes, I do believe that we should base our ideas of theology on the Bible and not on theories just made up by people, no matter how smart they are or how good the rhetoric sounds.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I never said I was exempt from judgment.

You said that you are exempt from a judgment where it is possible to fail, where apparently there is a system of handing out immunities to the "bad" judgment, and instead go to another one, more like the closing scene in Star Wars, where the heroes are given awards.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I never said I was exempt from judgment.

You said that you are exempt from a judgment where it is possible to fail, where apparently there is a system of handing out immunities to the "bad" judgment, and instead go to another one, more like the closing scene in Star Wars, where the heroes are given awards.

edit on 7-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Okay, show where I said this. I'm calling your bluff.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
This is based on modern scholarship that looks at things a bit free from dogmatism.

As an historian, I can assure you that the "modern scholarship" that you're citing is most likely nothing but dogmatism, though it is a dogmatism that you agree with, hence your blind acceptance of it. I've studied the "Historical Jesus" movements of both the 1800s (German) and 1900s (American) and they have the same root problem -- they set out to find an historical Jesus that conforms to their expectations and, lo and behold, that's exactly what they find.

I've posted this before, but it bears repeating:

Historians of early Christianity begin to appear like jigsaw puzzle solvers who are presented with twenty-seven pieces of a thousand piece puzzle and find that only six or seven of the pieces even fit together. The reasonable thing to do would be to put those pieces together, make some guess about what that part of the puzzle might be about, and then modestly decline over-speculation about the pieces that don't fit. These solvers, in contrast, throw away the central piece, the Acts of the Apostles, that enables any connections to be made at all. Then they insist on bringing in pieces from other puzzles. Finally, they take this jumble of pieces, sketch an outline of what the history ought to look like (on the basis of some universal puzzle pattern), and then proceed to reshape these pieces until they fit in that pattern. (Johnson, Luke Timothy, The Real Jesus, pg 95)

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Okay, show where I said this. I'm calling your bluff.

Just say what you actually believe, if it is different from how I described it.
This is stuff that you have repeated over and over, this idea of a "bema" judgment where Jesus gives out awards and crowns.

reply to post by adjensen

I've studied the "Historical Jesus" movements . . .

OK.
Study the "movements" to study the New Testament.
What were they "looking for" there?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Okay, show where I said this. I'm calling your bluff.

Just say what you actually believe, if it is different from how I described it.
This is stuff that you have repeated over and over, this idea of a "bema" judgment where Jesus gives out awards and crowns.

If I repeated it "over and over" there should be a plethora of posts of me saying what you claim and you can post them here. You're straw manning me and I'm calling you out.

Post away.

Here is a nice quote related to what I was saying earlier,

To those Baptists who accept the Bible as the final authority instead of the philosophical speculations and theological implications of Calvinism or Arminianism the Calvinist reserves the most scorn. To call oneself a "Biblicist," instead of either a Calvinist or an Arminian, although it is particularly offensive to the adherents of both systems because it correctly implies that they are both unbiblical, is especially troubling to a Calvinist because of his adamant insistence that one must be either a Calvinist or an Arminian.
The Other Side of Calvinism by Laurence Vance
www.biblebelievers.com...

This is coming from someone who was researched this thoroughly and wrote an 800 page book on it.

He goes on to say that there is an equation of Reformed theology, with predestination, which is the point I was making earlier, that regardless of which version you accept, Calvinism or Arminianism, they are both basically promoting a sort of predestination.
And thus my earlier conclusion that they both serve to avoid judgment, by creating a sort of pre-judgment that makes a judgment redundant and irrelevant, to those already of the "elect".

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

I've studied the "Historical Jesus" movements . . .

OK.
Study the "movements" to study the New Testament.
What were they "looking for" there?

Generally, they're looking for vindication of their already held beliefs, or, if they are scholars, they are looking for points on which to hang a thesis or publishable paper.

If a person could be truly unbiased and unmotivated to find anything other than the truth, when they read the Bible straight through, they would most likely come to a conclusion that is close to orthodox Christianity, circa 1000AD or earlier. Unless they were trained in theology or philosophy, it is unlikely that they would come to any specific doctrinal conclusions (such as the Trinity or Sola Scriptura,) though if such was explained to them as an existing doctrine, they'd probably be able to recall places in the text that support it.

Contrast that with someone like Karen King, who looks to the Bible to support a stronger feminist position than really exists. The Bible depicts a society that is patriarchal, rightly, because that's what Jewish society of the time was. But, rather than just accepting that, King downplays it, plays up the role of women and supplements that with texts that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible, and the result is a more feminist friendly Christianity, but one which is obviously invalid, because it is not sourced properly.

There is nothing to say that a feminist friendly Christianity would be a bad thing, but to claim historical support for it is wrong, because that isn't the case.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

You're straw manning me and I'm calling you out.

In regards to what debate? I'm not using a "strawman" as a tactic to win an argument.
I'm just pointing out why you get all huffy whenever anyone uses the word "judgement".
You are attacking me for what might seem an inexplicable reason, for mentioning that these salvation theories is a way to avoid the biblical reality of a judgment of works.
Just saying, that you are on the opposite side from me on this issue. If you are not, then just say so instead of creating some weird challenge.
OK, so you didn't compare it to Star Wars, I'll grant you that, but to me it is a modern comparison rather than the one you have used of some sort of Greek or Roman games that is a little difficult to relate to in my opinion. I think everyone has seen the movie, where they blow up the death star that is about to destroy the rebel's home planet, and the heros are given rewards for flying the x-wing starfighters, by the princess.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I don't recall any Biblical support for salvation based on works, or that it's in our hands to earn. that's why I asked. And furthermore, unlike what you do, I wanted to understand PRECISELY what you were saying before criticizing it if I felt differently about it.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I don't recall any Biblical support for salvation based on works . . .

I didn't say that, and besides, you are using your type of terminology, not mine.
I said judgment.
What do you think judgment would be based on?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I don't recall any Biblical support for salvation based on works . . .

I didn't say that, and besides, you are using your type of terminology, not mine.
I said judgment.
What do you think judgment would be based on?

Well what in your opinion is the end result of the judgment you said is based on works? Is it salvation or damnation? What are you getting at? There must be some result of the judgment based on works, if not salvation for the judged what is it instead?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . of the judgment you said is based on works?

"you said"
hmm
looks like that's your answer to my question, you don't think that there is one.

Since you are taking such an antagonistic approach, I don't want to get into it, and also seeing how you don't even accept the most basic premise, I will leave going into an explanation of the judgment for another thread where it would be on topic.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Since you refuse to offer clarification, I'll just have to assume then. Apparently you're selling an idea that we are saved or lost, by our own hand, at the judgment. And the basis for our pass or fail grade at the judgment is works-based. So in essense, we are responsible for ensuring our own salvation by works.

And that would in fact, be heresy.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Since you refuse to offer clarification, I'll just have to assume then.

What is there to clarify?
Either the Bible talks about a judgment of works, or it doesn't, and I say it does.
If you have evidence that judgment is based on something else, then let's have it.

Apparently you're selling an idea that we are saved or lost, by our own hand, at the judgment. And the basis for our pass or fail grade at the judgment is works-based. So in essence, we are responsible for ensuring our own salvation by works.

You like to point out how other people commit fallacies like making a straw man, but do not hesitate in that practice yourself.
I already said at least twice that God is our savior but you want to keep going over to making out that I am promoting self-salvation, apparently only based on your aversion to the idea that you will have to face your personal history in the afterlife.

And that would in fact, be heresy.

Maybe, if that was what I was "selling", but you are only speculating and diverting away from what I was actually saying, and my speculation is that you believe things because your cult taught you so, but have no way to support it by any biblical teaching.