toldailytopic: Do good works play a part in your salvation?

[Town Heretic]

Merton and I are saying that the strict obligation should be done away with,

I see an act of unmerited love, a grateful acceptance and a walk within that gratitude. Obligation isn't a part of it.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

I see an act of unmerited love, a grateful acceptance and a walk within that gratitude. Obligation isn't a part of it.

:e4e:

That doesn't really address the heart of my post :idunno:

Biblically, I think Jesus used the words he did for a reason. You are forced to interpret those words very heavily, too heavily imo. What have you to say about effort? :think:

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

That doesn't really address the heart of my post :idunno:

I'm trying to stay out of other peoples yards, though I'm always happy to answer a question about my own.

Biblically, I think Jesus used the words he did for a reason.

We both do. I find his words to the thief particularly resonant.

You are forced to interpret those words very heavily, too heavily imo.

Feels light as a feather to me. Now for people carrying uncertainty and/or obligation...now there's a weight for you.

What have you to say about effort? :think:

In what application?

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

I'm trying to stay out of other peoples yards, though I'm always happy to answer a question about my own.


We both do. I find his words to the thief particularly resonant.


Feels light as a feather to me. Now for people carrying uncertainty and/or obligation...now there's a weight for you.

Well I think that on the surface his words are obligatory, but fair enough.

What have you to say about effort?

In what application?

Well I think we differ more in effort than obligation. I'd say a Christian should be encouraged to be actively forming their relationship with God in prayer and service and the like. So in the application of our walk with God (which I understand to be salvation).

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

Well I think that on the surface his words are obligatory, but fair enough.

I can certainly understand seeing it that way. I just don't. And given the absence of practical impact, why two people are helping you out of a ditch probably only matters to the people helping.

Well I think we differ more in effort than obligation.

Absolutely. I was just commenting on the current discussion of the subject/word itself and application.

I'd say a Christian should be encouraged to be actively forming their relationship with God in prayer and service and the like.

:thumb: Couldn't agree more, though I find it hard to imagine someone having received pardon, loving God and grateful for salvation would need much. Like encouraging someone in love to pay attention to the object of it. :idunno:

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Great, I'd say we are on the same page, or at least the same chapter, at last.

...now excuse me while I go dig up another reason to shake my fist at you. lain:

:cheers:

 

[Town Heretic]

Great, I'd say we are on the same page, or at least the same chapter, at last.

...now excuse me while I go dig up another reason to shake my fist at you. lain:

:cheers:

:chuckle: It does appear to be the season for it. :shocked:

 

[kmoney]

I disagree. You have to assume the existence of a differing standard. So in the absence of an assumption all we can say is that it was sufficient.

Except the thief was the only person Jesus was talking to. He said the thief would see him in paradise. Nothing more. I need not make any assumptions. In removing the "for him" you are actually the one that must make an assumption, that what happened for the thief applies to all. Note, I'm not saying there necessarily is a differing standard, only that I believe the only thing we can know with certainty from your example is that the thief had salvation, which is why I add "for him".

Now, as to there being a differing standard, I believe I would say it depends on how you look at it. How broadly or how narrowly are you defining it? Broadly, I would say that faith is what is necessary and faith is the only standard. And I quite like what zippy said in his earlier post ("response to and acceptance of grace at each step of the way"). But faith, and that response to grace, will be worked out in different ways for different people. God will judge each person accordingly. I think CS Lewis had a great passage concerning this (I forget which book it was in). I don't know if that means there are differing standards, but that is why I said that I believe there is in a way. And I think there are 3, though maybe more, broad categories: "virtuous pagan", deathbed conversion (like the thief), and someone who is a Christian for a long time. If you believe in possible salvation for a "virtuous pagan" then I think that immediately causes trouble for your single standard based on the thief. What does a virtuous pagan do that is comparable to the thief, who made a direct proclamation of faith?

In order: no and who said otherwise. Now what changed?

Then I'm not sure what point you were attempting to make.

And that's the standing on cheap grace according to my research. You said it was similar or near or something to that effect. If you didn't mean to be misunderstood you should have been more direct.

I meant treating Christianity like a "get out of jail for free" card, but dwelling too much on "cheap grace" is probably not very profitable to our conversation.

Why is everything about Israel with you? lain:

:chuckle:

No. I think he is free. And that freedom is the shadow of the law and accomplishes in joy what could never be met in obligation.

You say it is free and yet in your previous post you said that forgiveness doesn't come without repentance. So is repentance an obligation? Do you believe that repentance is a single event? Or a continual state?

I don't understand the view that there is no obligation on our side. There are numerous examples of scripture that speak to what Christians should do. And though some of them may be descriptive (will do), I don't think all are. There are proscriptive passages (should do) in there too.

Do you believe there were obligations for the Israelites in the Old Covenant?

Then God bless you in your labor and me in my ease. :e4e:

I didn't say it was necessarily a labor. Or felt like one. So your ease/labor contrast isn't relevant. But I believe Christianity is a covenant. A relationship. And a relationship comes with certain responsibilities. You may do them without fail forever and without an ounce of sweat but that doesn't mean the obligation isn't there.

I truly believe that part of our divide, and one that will never be bridged, is our different experiences in how we came to Christianity. You had more of a "Damascus road" experience whereas I was raised in a Christian home. I think your experience leads you to a more narrow view of how Christianity is lived out. Can you even fathom the "dark night of the soul" that is talked about in some Christian circles? I can imagine someone struggling with their faith to where part of it is obligation, and perhaps they even walk away entirely. My guess is you can't.


:e4e:

 

[kmoney]

No, it's essentially the difference between selfishness and selflessness. You are not just picking from a bucket of selfish and selfless (loving) choices, rather you are stuck in the mire of selfishness until someone lifts you out. There is no light without God; God is the light. You don't just go somewhere else to get it.

Yeah, don't go somewhere else to get it. You create it yourself! :reals:

So you are saying that without God doing whatever he does, someone CANNOT do anything selfless?
And even if that's true, it doesn't explain what God does. Too much magic going on there.

Adam is created.
Adam can be selfless, can make choices that are selfless.
Adam eats from Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Adam can no longer be selfless and neither can his offspring.

:idunno:

Yeah, I get what you are saying. I think understanding truth is important, even if the truth exists whether you know it or not (which tends to be the case with truth ). ...even if it does not help you in the scientific way that concrete knowledge helps you :idunno:

But what truth are you saying exists? That man can do nothing selfless without God making him able? If so, why do you think that truth is important?

That infinite God tends to do that

:chuckle: True. I guess I'm more narrow in what mysteries I'm willing to take on. :think:

:rapture:

:bowser:

 

[Town Heretic]

Except the thief was the only person Jesus was talking to. He said the thief would see him in paradise. Nothing more.

Right. And so we know that the thief, with his profession and faith, entered into heaven. That's what I said. So the thief's profession and faith were sufficient. And that's what we know.

I need not make any assumptions. In removing the "for him" you are actually the one that must make an assumption, that what happened for the thief applies to all.

No. In trying to make what we can only know was sufficient for salvation for the thief a one-off you're assuming something. Or maybe we both are. And maybe it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things or only illustrates my belief in a fathomable and equitably consistent mechanism and your belief in something else you find more tenable and as equitable.

Now, as to there being a differing standard, I believe I would say it depends on how you look at it. How broadly or how narrowly are you defining it?

I don't know what you mean by that.

Broadly, I would say that faith is what is necessary and faith is the only standard.

Worked out for the thief, though faith, like love, gives voice in declaration and reliance, which he demonstrably did.

And I quite like what zippy said in his earlier post ("response to and acceptance of grace at each step of the way"). But faith, and that response to grace, will be worked out in different ways for different people.

As with zip I understand you, I simply don't see it the same way.

If you believe in possible salvation for a "virtuous pagan" then I think that immediately causes trouble for your single standard based on the thief. What does a virtuous pagan do that is comparable to the thief, who made a direct proclamation of faith?

Do you know what the next life is like? Imagine you never heard the word of God or had the opportunity to embrace it. The assumption you're making, I assume, is that the next life is the same for all of us. If so, you have a peculiarly narrowed allowance for exception. If not, then the virtuous pagan may find himself in a position to encounter and accept or reject the call of Christ.

Who knows?

Then I'm not sure what point you were attempting to make.

Too much water under the bridge for me to say off the top of my head and I can't even see the post from this vantage. I'd say read it as directly as it was written and in order. If it still doesn't shake out I'll go back later.

You say it is free and yet in your previous post you said that forgiveness doesn't come without repentance.

Try asking for my forgiveness while feeling justified in your error. The two are incompatible. You won't attempt the former while the latter is the case.

So is repentance an obligation?

Supra.

Do you believe that repentance is a single event? Or a continual state?

For salvation? An event. In essence, a question met with a resounding yes. But as with wisdom, we learn to appreciate our errors more acutely over time.

I don't understand the view that there is no obligation on our side.

Me either. I've said that zip has spoken of his service to the good as obligation. I see it as an outpouring of abundance and think doing the right thing from the former has a tendency to leech the joy from it.

There are numerous examples of scripture that speak to what Christians should do.

I know. The difference comes in seeing them as prescriptive or descriptive.

And though some of them may be descriptive (will do), I don't think all are. There are proscriptive passages (should do) in there too.

I think that's the law unfulfilled. I also think proscriptive is what you shouldn't do...or have I gotten pro and pre backwards? :think: :idunno:

Do you believe there were obligations for the Israelites in the Old Covenant?

I'm not a theologian, but I believe so.

I didn't say it was necessarily a labor. Or felt like one. So your ease/labor contrast isn't relevant.

It is to me. I see your obligation as a yoke, an echo of that unfulfilled law. I see my approach as freedom funneled through a grateful, undeserving heart. I prefer the latter approach, but I also believe it isn't terribly important. The importance is in the good done. The rest is just our blessing in it.

But I believe Christianity is a covenant. A relationship. And a relationship comes with certain responsibilities. You may do them without fail forever and without an ounce of sweat but that doesn't mean the obligation isn't there.

I don't think that's what love is or why it does what it does. And love is exactly what I think we're called to. So I suspect those roles, like laws, are to instruct us on how we should have acted without them, but don't entirely trust ourselves to.

I truly believe that part of our divide, and one that will never be bridged, is our different experiences in how we came to Christianity.

I think that's true.

You had more of a "Damascus road" experience whereas I was raised in a Christian home.

To be clear, my home was Christian. My mother was and is devout. My father was a practical congregationalist, who has since found the fullness of faith. But as to my conversion, yes...it was a stunning surprise to me of a fairly dramatic nature.

I think your experience leads you to a more narrow view of how Christianity is lived out.

Where to me that's one of the funniest things you could say, since I see you as encumbered with a rule book sensibility that stifles joy and mutes the relational...not that there's anything wrong with that. lain:

Can you even fathom the "dark night of the soul" that is talked about in some Christian circles?

Sure, I can read and have a reasonably expansive imagination. Can you imagine being confronted by the present impression of the Good, of feeling what you only moments before considered a solid, decent self impression and principled core reduced to an embarrassment, coupled with an unbearable longing to be rid of it and an indescribable desire to approach that Good?

I can imagine someone struggling with their faith to where part of it is obligation, and perhaps they even walk away entirely. My guess is you can't.

Walk away? It's like suggesting I step out of the sun light and into a bottomless abyss for my health.


:e4e:

 

[kmoney]

Right. And so we know that the thief, with his profession and faith, entered into heaven. That's what I said. So the thief's profession and faith were sufficient. And that's what we know.

No. In trying to make what we can only know was sufficient for salvation for the thief a one-off you're assuming something. Or maybe we both are. And maybe it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things or only illustrates my belief in a fathomable and equitably consistent mechanism and your belief in something else you find more tenable and as equitable.

I still think the "for him" is needed and I don't think it negates a "fathomable and equitably consistent mechanism" as you call it. But it may not really matter, as you suggest, so we can drop it. :e4e:

I don't know what you mean by that.

I thought what I said after that explained what I meant. If you need further clarification, let me know.

Worked out for the thief, though faith, like love, gives voice in declaration and reliance, which he demonstrably did.

Yes, I agree. Thought I would add action to your list, along with declaration and reliance.

As with zip I understand you, I simply don't see it the same way.

Don't see what the same way? That faith is worked out in different ways?
What do you think faith is? I believe zippy asked you this earlier and you responded by quoting Hebrews 11:1. There is also this.

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please God. For it is right that the one drawing near to God should believe that He is, and that He becomes a rewarder to the ones seeking Him out.

But faith is more than just a belief. Do you agree?

Do you know what the next life is like?

No.

Imagine you never heard the word of God or had the opportunity to embrace it. The assumption you're making, I assume, is that the next life is the same for all of us. If so, you have a peculiarly narrowed allowance for exception.

I don't think I'm making that assumption. Though I'm not completely sure what you mean by the next life being the same for everyone.

If not, then the virtuous pagan may find himself in a position to encounter and accept or reject the call of Christ.

Who knows?

Do you mean accept or reject the call of Christ and then go on to heaven or hell? If so, I think you would be hardpressed to find support of that in scripture.

Too much water under the bridge for me to say off the top of my head and I can't even see the post from this vantage. I'd say read it as directly as it was written and in order. If it still doesn't shake out I'll go back later.

:idunno: It's probably not centrally important.

Try asking for my forgiveness while feeling justified in your error. The two are incompatible. You won't attempt the former while the latter is the case.

Supra.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I didn't intend to say, nor imply, that you will ask for forgiveness without being repentant. It was about receiving forgiveness without repentance, so I think my question is still valid. :idunno:

For salvation? An event. In essence, a question met with a resounding yes. But as with wisdom, we learn to appreciate our errors more acutely over time.

So, both an event an a continual state? I agree.

Me either.

Why? Aren't you suggesting exactly that thing? :AMR:

I've said that zip has spoken of his service to the good as obligation. I see it as an outpouring of abundance and think doing the right thing from the former has a tendency to leech the joy from it.

As I've been trying to say, the existence of an obligation doesn't mean it feels like one, or you always act it out under a sense of burden.

I know. The difference comes in seeing them as prescriptive or descriptive.

I think there are both descriptive and prescriptive. Is it true to say you see them all as descriptive?

I think that's the law unfulfilled. I also think proscriptive is what you shouldn't do...or have I gotten pro and pre backwards? :think: :idunno:

I meant prescriptive. Don't know why I put pro.

I'm not a theologian, but I believe so.

Do you believe we are in a covenant now?

It is to me. I see your obligation as a yoke, an echo of that unfulfilled law.

Paul says that we fulfill the law.

I see my approach as freedom funneled through a grateful, undeserving heart. I prefer the latter approach, but I also believe it isn't terribly important. The importance is in the good done. The rest is just our blessing in it.

Freedom to do what? Freedom from what?

I don't think that's what love is or why it does what it does. And love is exactly what I think we're called to. So I suspect those roles, like laws, are to instruct us on how we should have acted without them, but don't entirely trust ourselves to.

You saying we have a calling stood out to me here. What do you mean by that? From where does the calling come from? I assume you do not believe that having a calling carries any sense of obligation?

What do you think the primary analogy for Christianity is? A marriage?

I think I mentioned this before but I recently read some NT Wright and he has had some influence in my view. He speaks about being called to bring God's kingdom to earth. A lot of that will be centered around love.

I think that's true.

:cheers:

To be clear, my home was Christian. My mother was and is devout. My father was a practical congregationalist, who has since found the fullness of faith. But as to my conversion, yes...it was a stunning surprise to me of a fairly dramatic nature.

My bad. I've seen you talk about that before and I had a slip of the memory. But the difference in our experiences still stands.

Where to me that's one of the funniest things you could say, since I see you as encumbered with a rule book sensibility that stifles joy and mutes the relational

There may be some truth in that. :idunno: Though I don't think I'm muting the relational. I think I've affirmed that. As for the rules, I've always said that I think there are many prescriptive scriptures.

...not that there's anything wrong with that. lain:

Sure, I can read and have a reasonably expansive imagination.

:up:

Can you imagine being confronted by the present impression of the Good, of feeling what you only moments before considered a solid, decent self impression and principled core reduced to an embarrassment, coupled with an unbearable longing to be rid of it and an indescribable desire to approach that Good?

It's hard. :idunno:

Walk away? It's like suggesting I step out of the sun light and into a bottomless abyss for my health.

So I take it you can't.
It doesn't always feel like you're in the light. And I would guess it most often starts with doubt.

:e4e:

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm sorry, kmo. I feel like someone paid for my ticket and I'm leaving you in the middle of the movie. Another day then, God willing. And God keep you.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Yeah, don't go somewhere else to get it. You create it yourself! :reals:

…the foolishness of Edison…! :IA:

So you are saying that without God doing whatever he does, someone CANNOT do anything selfless?
And even if that's true, it doesn't explain what God does. Too much magic going on there.

First I'd say we have to distinguish between humans and animals. Mere animals do nothing selfless, for they are not capable of it. Humans have reason, but does that make them more capable than animals of doing something selflessly? I think of it this way: there are people who act first (natural people) and people who receive first (Godly people). True selflessness requires trust or the belief in an abundance or the belief that you will be taken care of or the absence of self-centered worry. It also requires worship of something greater than yourself altogether. Many have made a somewhat convincing case that all human actions are inherently selfish actions. What they presuppose is that the human is concerned first and foremost with himself. That is true for most people; they act first to earn something. That sort of act is always made in expectation and desire. What about someone who receives first? They have abundance, their cup overflows, and therefore they cannot help but give. Even the giving is not strictly speaking their own idea, and they give not to make themselves happy or righteous, but simply out of love in conformity with God's own act of giving. When humans fill themselves with their own concerns and desires, there is no room for God to grow His fruit. But when humans like Christ or the saints empty themselves beyond all worldly prudence, God fills them and produces incomprehensible fruit.

Note that I don't generally like to get so precise with these topics. Probing too deep or thinking that you have a full understanding often chokes the ability to freely and unassumingly receive God's gift. We will never understand the mysteries of God's love for us or the constant gift He bestows, and must be somewhat careful that limited knowledge in this area does not lead to the false notion that we can somehow control the uncontrollable, thus moving from receipt to action as the starting point.

Adam is created.
Adam can be selfless, can make choices that are selfless.
Adam eats from Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Adam can no longer be selfless and neither can his offspring.

The story of Adam and Eve, taken perfectly literally, is quite magical, I agree.

But what truth are you saying exists? That man can do nothing selfless without God making him able? If so, why do you think that truth is important?

Well man can do nothing at all without God, and he can certainly not love (truly love, agape/charity) without the source of Love Itself. It is important because it leads to the realization that before we do anything we have already received. We cannot love in and of ourselves apart from God. We cannot give without receiving, and that which we give is a free gift we have received due to no merit of our own.

:e4e:

 

[HisServant]

No.. but it determines our rewards when we get to heaven.

 

[kmoney]

…the foolishness of Edison…! :IA:

:chuckle:

First I'd say we have to distinguish between humans and animals. Mere animals do nothing selfless, for they are not capable of it. Humans have reason, but does that make them more capable than animals of doing something selflessly?

I would say yes. What is required to act selflessly?

I think of it this way: there are people who act first (natural people) and people who receive first (Godly people).

How is acting the opposite of receiving? Do you mean people who take first?

True selflessness requires trust or the belief in an abundance or the belief that you will be taken care of

Actually, I think that if you do something with the knowledge, or belief, that you will be taken care of and that your action will not harm you in any way, it's not truly selfless.

or the absence of self-centered worry.

I agree with this.

It also requires worship of something greater than yourself altogether.

Why?

Many have made a somewhat convincing case that all human actions are inherently selfish actions.

I think it is a fairly convincing case.

What they presuppose is that the human is concerned first and foremost with himself. That is true for most people; they act first to earn something. That sort of act is always made in expectation and desire. What about someone who receives first? They have abundance, their cup overflows, and therefore they cannot help but give.

I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying people who receive first are good? Because they have abundance and then give out of that abundance? Or what? :idunno:

Even the giving is not strictly speaking their own idea, and they give not to make themselves happy or righteous, but simply out of love in conformity with God's own act of giving. When humans fill themselves with their own concerns and desires, there is no room for God to grow His fruit. But when humans like Christ or the saints empty themselves beyond all worldly prudence, God fills them and produces incomprehensible fruit.

:think: Mulling this one over.

Note that I don't generally like to get so precise with these topics. Probing too deep or thinking that you have a full understanding often chokes the ability to freely and unassumingly receive God's gift. We will never understand the mysteries of God's love for us or the constant gift He bestows, and must be somewhat careful that limited knowledge in this area does not lead to the false notion that we can somehow control the uncontrollable, thus moving from receipt to action as the starting point.

I agree that we can't be too precise and that we can't think we have a full understanding. That's why I hesitate to make statements like the ones you have been making that I've been questioning.

The story of Adam and Eve, taken perfectly literally, is quite magical, I agree.

Well, then how literally do you take it?

Well man can do nothing at all without God,

God as the creator and the ground of life/being, sure.

and he can certainly not love (truly love, agape/charity) without the source of Love Itself.

Why?
Do you think all have that source? Or only Christians?

It is important because it leads to the realization that before we do anything we have already received. We cannot love in and of ourselves apart from God. We cannot give without receiving, and that which we give is a free gift we have received due to no merit of our own.

Again, if you want to say we can't do anything without receiving life from God then OK. But I'm not sure I agree with the love part.

:e4e:

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

I would say yes. What is required to act selflessly?

Yours is a trick question. "In order to act selflessly, you should..." Or I guess I could sort of answer it by saying that love is required, an overflowing of God's own love.

I think of it this way: there are people who act first (natural people) and people who receive first (Godly people).

How is acting the opposite of receiving? Do you mean people who take first?

No, I stand by what I said above. By 'acting first' I mean that they try to effect something, they try to fill some lack in themselves, they try to control, they try to do it themselves. What must come prior to that is the receiving, the acknowledgement that there is no lack, that God provides all that we need. Phil 4:4-7

True selflessness requires trust or the belief in an abundance or the belief that you will be taken care of

Actually, I think that if you do something with the knowledge, or belief, that you will be taken care of and that your action will not harm you in any way, it's not truly selfless.

But what can separate me from the love of God? What need I fear? It is precisely because of that knowledge of God's love that the martyr is a martyr. That is precisely why he does not care/worry about himself, because he has faith that he is provided for.

I agree with this.

Well it's about time :mmph:

It also requires worship of something greater than yourself altogether.

Why?

Because otherwise you serve yourself and you are concerned primarily with yourself; you have not denied yourself.

Many have made a somewhat convincing case that all human actions are inherently selfish actions.

I think it is a fairly convincing case.

In theory it does alright.

What they presuppose is that the human is concerned first and foremost with himself. That is true for most people; they act first to earn something. That sort of act is always made in expectation and desire. What about someone who receives first? They have abundance, their cup overflows, and therefore they cannot help but give.

I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying people who receive first are good? Because they have abundance and then give out of that abundance? Or what? :idunno:

I am just describing grace. It is God Who is good, it is His Spirit that works through you. But that very surrender is the way in which agape is brought down to earth.

Even the giving is not strictly speaking their own idea, and they give not to make themselves happy or righteous, but simply out of love in conformity with God's own act of giving. When humans fill themselves with their own concerns and desires, there is no room for God to grow His fruit. But when humans like Christ or the saints empty themselves beyond all worldly prudence, God fills them and produces incomprehensible fruit.

:think: Mulling this one over.

Similar to the above.

I agree that we can't be too precise and that we can't think we have a full understanding. That's why I hesitate to make statements like the ones you have been making that I've been questioning.

:chuckle:

Well, then how literally do you take it?

With respect to what?

God as the creator and the ground of life/being, sure.

:thumb:

and he can certainly not love (truly love, agape/charity) without the source of Love Itself.

Why?

Why can't one love without the source of Love? Seems obvious to me. Why not?

Do you think all have that source? Or only Christians?

I'm sure all are capable of receiving grace to some extent, but the closer one is to God the stronger their relationship with Him. And last time I checked Jesus is God. :think:

Again, if you want to say we can't do anything without receiving life from God then OK. But I'm not sure I agree with the love part.

It seems to be the exact same concept imo, though the details differ insofar as that life is transmitted in a sort of passive way (we are given control over it) whereas love is not given in that way.

:e4e:

:e4e:

 

[kmoney]

Yours is a trick question. "In order to act selflessly, you should..." Or I guess I could sort of answer it by saying that love is required, an overflowing of God's own love.

OK. I think I can accept that answer.

And I wasn't trying to be tricky. :noid:

No, I stand by what I said above. By 'acting first' I mean that they try to effect something, they try to fill some lack in themselves, they try to control, they try to do it themselves. What must come prior to that is the receiving, the acknowledgement that there is no lack, that God provides all that we need. Phil 4:4-7

I'm still a little unsure what you mean here. What lack are they trying to fill? What are they trying to control?

But what can separate me from the love of God? What need I fear? It is precisely because of that knowledge of God's love that the martyr is a martyr. That is precisely why he does not care/worry about himself, because he has faith that he is provided for.

Person A: jumps into a river to save a drowning man knowing that he'll be OK in the end.

Person B: jumps into a river to save a drowning man knowing that he might die in his attempt

Who is more selfless?

Well it's about time :mmph:

It's about time you said something good.

Because otherwise you serve yourself and you are concerned primarily with yourself; you have not denied yourself.

Maybe it's the word "worship" that I was having trouble with. Now you are talking about serving and concern. So in that respect I agree. You have to have a love of something other than yourself.

In theory it does alright.

:chuckle:

I am just describing grace. It is God Who is good, it is His Spirit that works through you. But that very surrender is the way in which agape is brought down to earth.


Similar to the above.

ok. I think I understand you better now.

With respect to what?

Anything in the story.

Why can't one love without the source of Love? Seems obvious to me. Why not?

Well, when you said we must have the source I assumed you meant the person had to have some sort of specific knowledge. Is that what you meant?

I'm sure all are capable of receiving grace to some extent, but the closer one is to God the stronger their relationship with Him.

And do you think it is a particular conception of God? So Christians are closer to the source of love than other religions?

And last time I checked Jesus is God. :think:

Check again. :liberals:

It seems to be the exact same concept imo, though the details differ insofar as that life is transmitted in a sort of passive way (we are given control over it) whereas love is not given in that way.

I see what you are saying, I think I'm mostly trying to get at non-Christians being able to love and act selflessly.

:e4e:

:e4e:

K:

 

[zippy2006]

OK. I think I can accept that answer.

And I wasn't trying to be tricky. :noid:

Okay :chuckle:

No, I stand by what I said above. By 'acting first' I mean that they try to effect something, they try to fill some lack in themselves, they try to control, they try to do it themselves. What must come prior to that is the receiving, the acknowledgement that there is no lack, that God provides all that we need. Phil 4:4-7

I'm still a little unsure what you mean here. What lack are they trying to fill? What are they trying to control?

Unhappiness, insecurity, etc. Everything.

But what can separate me from the love of God? What need I fear? It is precisely because of that knowledge of God's love that the martyr is a martyr. That is precisely why he does not care/worry about himself, because he has faith that he is provided for.

Person A: jumps into a river to save a drowning man knowing that he'll be OK in the end.

Person B: jumps into a river to save a drowning man knowing that he might die in his attempt

Who is more selfless?

So do you not think a Christian can be as selfless as an atheist?

Christian selflessness is a love that makes you forget yourself. So in that sense I agree with you, but I would add that such a thing is only ever accomplished through God or that higher love, else it is not selflessness.

It's about time you said something good.

Maybe it's the word "worship" that I was having trouble with. Now you are talking about serving and concern. So in that respect I agree. You have to have a love of something other than yourself.

:up:

Well, when you said we must have the source I assumed you meant the person had to have some sort of specific knowledge. Is that what you meant?

No I don't think so, but such knowledge could certainly be helpful.

And do you think it is a particular conception of God? So Christians are closer to the source of love than other religions?

If Christianity is true, then yes they are.

Check again. :liberals:

:nananana:

I see what you are saying, I think I'm mostly trying to get at non-Christians being able to love and act selflessly.

That's find with me :idunno:

:e4e:

K:

:cheers::mario:

 

[kmoney]

Unhappiness, insecurity, etc. Everything.

Got it.

So do you not think a Christian can be as selfless as an atheist?

Good question. I think to be consistent I would have to say I don't, but I don't really like that answer.

I just think that to be truly selfless you have to have a self to sacrifice. If you know your self is safe, are you really sacrificing anything?

I saw Beauty and the Beast 3D yesterday (you're jealous, I know. lain and I think a similar idea can be applied to love. If Belle knew that if she fell in love with the Beast he would turn into that handsome prince, would that love have been as pure as it was when she didn't know that change would occur?

Christian selflessness is a love that makes you forget yourself. So in that sense I agree with you, but I would add that such a thing is only ever accomplished through God or that higher love, else it is not selflessness.

Do you mean Christian love is a love that makes you forget yourself?

What do you mean by "higher love"?

:cheers::mario:

K: :cheers: