04 Sep 08
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesd[/i]On page 5 I replied to your original post on this thread. Just wanted to make sure you didn't miss it in the middle of all the flotsam. My thread seems to be seriously off course 🙂
After all this time, I still see this whole argument (both sides) as being mired in a false dichotomy.
Now, the real formulation seems to be grace/faith on one side and grace/works on the other. In short, I don’t really see anyone here dispensing with grace if you read all their posts. So the argument reduces to whether faith-alone ([i]sola fide[ other side of this. That is a different kind of argument. EDIT: continued...
04 Sep 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThanks, ToO: I did miss it. 😳
[/i]On page 5 I replied to your original post on this thread. Just wanted to make sure you didn't miss it in the middle of all the flotsam. My thread seems to be seriously off course 🙂
I liked the uninvited visitor analogy. I think—and this is of course based on just that short reading—that we probably need to keep our thinking straight about emotions-as-such and desires-as-such, on the one hand, and how we choose to express them, on the other.
I also like to distinguish between what some psychologists have called “primary emotions” and “secondary emotions”—the latter being distinguished by a kind of social misplacement: e.g., the fear part of the survival response being misplaced outside the context of an imminent danger. In any event, emotions themselves arise absolutely naturally; but they might also arise based on cultural conditioning or programming (which can act like a kind of post-hypnotic suggestion). In survival situations—mine or another’s—for instance, when there is no time for extended reasoning, acting in immediate response to emotion may be the only means to the best outcome.
I do not think that emotions ought to be uprooted, denigrated or denied. They are the spice and the wine and the dance of living. The whole “passion versus reason” question underlies the relationship of Zorba and his Buddhist friend in Zorba the Greek, and is also articulated in his The Saviors of God: Spiritual Exercises. And passions have as much to do with thriving as they do with surviving. As you noted, I am a “Zorba-ist” as well as a “Zennist”.
We are both passionate beings and reasoning beings. When Hume says that reason should serve the passions, I think he has in mind something like my point about expressing those passions. Setting reason against passion I think is also a false dichotomy. “Enlightenment” cannot exclude either, but must celebrate both.
That’s a bunch of generalization, I know. But in my own thinking and pondering I have pursued too far the “Zennist” side—as did Zorba’s Buddhist friend—and need to integrate the “Zorba” side more consciously. I might dance with both invited and uninvited visitors—but the expression of the dance will be my own. In my own life, I am probably more guilty of over-thinking my passions than not, at least during the first 40 years or so; in recent times I am trying to redress that—but I still have a tendency to express more the “Zennist” side on here. So—
Now I will drink a draught of blood-red wine
and dance and sing with the flamenco christ,
and laugh until I fall, until I fall...
And let my laughter be today my gift,
tomorrow it may be my salt-filled tears...
04 Sep 08
Originally posted by vistesdKazantzakis is a helluva writer. I admire him too, but you know my friend what a word is, what a world is, what a sequence of words is;
Thanks, ToO: I did miss it. 😳
I liked the uninvited visitor analogy. I think—and this is of course based on just that short reading—that we probably need to keep our thinking straight about emotions-as-such and desires-as-such, on the one hand, and how we choose to express them, on the other.
I also like to distinguish between what ...[text shortened]... l I fall...
And let my laughter be today my gift,
tomorrow it may be my salt-filled tears...
I wish you always to feel the sun on your face;
04 Sep 08
Originally posted by black beetleKazantzakis is a helluva writer. I admire him too, but you know my friend what a word is, what a world is, what a sequence of words is;
Kazantzakis is a helluva writer. I admire him too, but you know my friend what a word is, what a world is, what a sequence of words is;
I wish you always to feel the sun on your face;
Exactly! Which is why even my attempt at some poetic relief falls flat after all those words... Thank you for that gentle zen-whack of a reminder...
I wish you always to feel the sun on your face;
And that, of course, is an example of the way good words can be used. Thank you, and may you always be warmed by that sun as well.
04 Sep 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydbut if one of them thinks one thing (and that alone) will save them, and the other thinks something else (and that alone) will save them, then surely one of them(at least) is wrong, and therefore is not saved?
Nope---just means one of them is wrong.
04 Sep 08
Originally posted by snowinscotlandNo, I see it more like this:
but if one of them thinks one thing (and that alone) will save them, and the other thinks something else (and that alone) will save them, then surely one of them(at least) is wrong, and therefore is not saved?
One of them thinks X saves them. The other says, no, it's X and Y that saves. Since both have X covered, they're both in like Flynn.
04 Sep 08
Originally posted by Rajk999There ya go---a-misquotin' me agin.
I have heard all kinds of crazy talk before, but saying that dead = salvation, tops them all.
Epi is Pinky one of yours ? 😀
I never said death = salvation. I DID say that death does NOT = a lack of salvation. And what's an Epi? Episcopalean?
04 Sep 08
Originally posted by vistesdA charge that has been laid against the advocates of works is that of, at least implied, perfectionism. That charge, however, could just as well be laid against the advocates of faith ----------visted---------------
After all this time, I still see this whole argument (both sides) as being mired in a false dichotomy.
Now, the real formulation seems to be grace/faith on one side and grace/works on the other. In short, I don’t really see anyone here dispensing with grace if you read all their posts. So the argument reduces to whether faith-alone (sola fide) i ...[text shortened]... other side of this. That is a different kind of argument. EDIT: continued...
Wrong!!!!!!
The reason why I made such a charge towards ToO (if indeed this is what you are refering to) is because ToO makes no room at all for the man who is living his faith and doing works and has a changed heart but also has ocasional stumbles.
He explicitly implies that no sin at all is the only standard acceptable to God and that a man who has even one occasional sin in his life is not righteous or living his faith. In ToO's view all sin must end , period, even though Jesus built in a process of asking for forgiveness from God into the daily prayer of his followers.
For ToO a man must be perfectly sin free from the point of repentance in order to have salvation. Perfectly. Not even one brief unintentional sin in 20 years is good enough. Any sin at all is proof of his heart being wrong. It's all or nothing for him , I know , I have asked him many times. It's a direct and logical implication of his position.
(BTW- He will no doubt at this point accuse me of "distorting" his position whilst at the same time not refuting anything of what I am saying. )
This kind of perfectionism is not reflected on the grace/ salvation side. Neither Ephin , myself or Jaywill would suggest that a man who has occasional lapses in his faith is obviously damned. We would all suggest that a Christians path is one of having one's faith perfected , but that God still can accept and can save on the basis of a faltering faith if it is genuine. You ask them if you like. I'm quite confident they will agree.
04 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterWrong that the charge had not been laid? Or wrong that “it could be just as well laid to the advocates of faith”?
A charge that has been laid against the advocates of works is that of, at least implied, perfectionism. That charge, however, could just as well be laid against the advocates of faith ----------visted---------------
Wrong!!!!!!
The reason why I made such a charge towards ToO (if indeed this is what you are refering to) is because ToO makes no r ...[text shortened]... ng faith if it is genuine. You ask them if you like. I'm quite confident they will agree.
It seemed to me that the charge was laid. It did not seem to me that “perfectionism” had any necessary part of anyone’s arguments here—yours (or Epi’s or jaywill’s) or theirs. I am merely pointing out that it as much an error to assume that the works-argument entails such perfectionism, but that the faith-argument doesn’t: neither does. But, in either case, grace is either based on something or it is not; and there either are some criteria that must be met for salvation or there are not
Again, I think “faith-alone” or “works-alone”, either one, sets up a false dichotomy. I hope that neither “side” loses sight of that as my basic point.
How does one “explicitly imply” anything? Either it’s explicit or it’s implied—or it’s not even implied but erroneously inferred.
04 Sep 08
I just can’t see the argument in all the verbiage here anymore. So I’ll ask the participants to take one of the following positions as basic re salvation. Just give a number—
(1) Grace alone.
(2) Grace + faith alone.
(3) Grace + works alone.
(4) Grace + faith + works.
(5) Faith alone.
(6) Works alone.
(7) Faith + works.
—Assume the commutative rule is in order.
04 Sep 08
Originally posted by vistesd1, but it should read "grace THROUGH faith in Christ", not grace + faith. 🙂
I just can’t see the argument in all the verbiage here anymore. So I’ll ask the participants to take one of the following positions as basic re salvation. Just give a number—
(1) Grace alone.
(2) Grace + faith alone.
(3) Grace + works alone.
(4) Grace + faith + works.
(5) Faith alone.
(6) Works alone.
(7) Faith + works.
—Assume the commutative rule is in order.
04 Sep 08
Originally posted by vistesdBut, in either case, grace is either based on something or it is not; and there either are some criteria that must be met for salvation or there are not ------visted----------------
Wrong that the charge had not been laid? Or wrong that “it could be just as well laid to the advocates of faith”?
It seemed to me that the charge was laid. It did not seem to me that “perfectionism” had any necessary part of anyone’s arguments here—yours (or Epi’s or jaywill’s) or theirs. I am merely pointing out that it as much an error to assum ...[text shortened]... ything? Either it’s explicit or it’s implied—or it’s not even implied but erroneously inferred.
If you are dying in the desert from thirst and I offer you a cup of water , what criteria must be met by you to be saved ?
Salvation by grace starts with surrender and a recognition of your own poverty without God , that's the criteria. If a man meets this "criteria" he will naturally change anyway and works will flow.
04 Sep 08
Originally posted by vistesd(8) Genuine faith alone that is naturally followed by works afterwards as evidence of genuine faith?
I just can’t see the argument in all the verbiage here anymore. So I’ll ask the participants to take one of the following positions as basic re salvation. Just give a number—
(1) Grace alone.
(2) Grace + faith alone.
(3) Grace + works alone.
(4) Grace + faith + works.
(5) Faith alone.
(6) Works alone.
(7) Faith + works.
—Assume the commutative rule is in order.
04 Sep 08
Originally posted by vistesdAgain, I think “faith-alone” or “works-alone”, either one, sets up a false dichotomy. I hope that neither “side” loses sight of that as my basic point.---------------vsited-----------
Wrong that the charge had not been laid? Or wrong that “it could be just as well laid to the advocates of faith”?
It seemed to me that the charge was laid. It did not seem to me that “perfectionism” had any necessary part of anyone’s arguments here—yours (or Epi’s or jaywill’s) or theirs. I am merely pointing out that it as much an error to assum ...[text shortened]... ything? Either it’s explicit or it’s implied—or it’s not even implied but erroneously inferred.
This is a very lucid point and I agree. The argument is so polarised . I would say though that Ephin, myself and others have always stressed that from faith should follow works and that the two go together. St Paul never had any time for those who just thought they could have faith and then sit back and smoke cigars but this is never acknowledged by the other "side".
It's the other side that have tended to polarise things by implying that any talk of faith or grace saving automatically shows a disregard for works or righteousness for which there is no evidence in St Paul's teachings.
04 Sep 08
7 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister"BTW- He will no doubt at this point accuse me of "distorting" his position whilst at the same time not refuting anything of what I am saying."
A charge that has been laid against the advocates of works is that of, at least implied, perfectionism. That charge, however, could just as well be laid against the advocates of faith ----------visted---------------
Wrong!!!!!!
The reason why I made such a charge towards ToO (if indeed this is what you are refering to) is because ToO makes no r ng faith if it is genuine. You ask them if you like. I'm quite confident they will agree.
This the kind of garbage that you're always pulling, like on your "salvation by grace (the irony)" thread.
You stated:
"It seems from talking to ToO that he believes that our past sin has to be cleansed of forgiven in some way by Jesus, which implies and act of grace on God's part."
I responded:
What I said was that John seemed to indicate this in one of his verses. I also said something like "While this is an interesting concept, I don't necessarily subscribe to it". You've taken what I've said to suit your own purposes. It think I've made this correction several times now, since you keep misrpresenting my position on this.
You followed with:
"You see you criticise me when I make an educated guess as to what your position actually is but then make no attempt to clarify things or address the actual issue at hand.
Immediately after I clearly state a clarification, you tell yet another bald faced lie saying that I make no attempt to clarify. It's as if you have no conscience. Is it the Holy Spirit's fault for not convicting you?
You're not only a liar, you really have to have a complete lack of decency to keep pulling stuff like this. You've been pulling this kind of garbarge for months now.
What are people supposed to take away from this kind of behavior? Is it any wonder that so many people have such disdain for "Christians"? Especially when you keep pulling the "one of God's innocent children" act.