Salvation

[PaulSacramento]

I think the issue is one of implied worth because we are loved.
It seems that Rick is stating that because there is nothing we can DO to deserve salvation, we have no worth.
BUT, IMO, worth = value and scripture states we have value to God ( perhaps because we are made in His Image), that God loved us SO MUCH that His ONLY begotten Son died for us implies that we have value in God's eyes.
I can see Rick's point that if we see ourselves as being worthy of salvation then we may decide that we don't NEED God's grace and I AGREE about that in regards to how WE see OURSELVES.
God sees us differently and He sees us as worthy of His love, NOT because of anything WE DO, but because HE created Us, because He values US, because He loves us enough to sacrifice Himself for Us.
The Son of God gave up being ONE with God for US, He became human, lived and suffered and died because He values US.

[RickD]

Where did I say we have no worth? I said we are not worthy of salvation.

[PaulSacramento]

Where did I say we have no worth? I said we are not worthy of salvation.

See? this is where were are getting confused.

I agree that we are not worthy of salvation, BUT my initial statement was that Christ believes we are.
You took issue with that, correct?

[Jac3510]

Humans are NOT worthy of salvation. It neither follows that they have no worth nor that they are not worth saving.

The problem here is the confusion between "worth" and "worthy." Those mean very different things, epsecially in our context. There is no way at all we can say that human beings are worthy of salvation. If that is the case, then God owes us salvation, which He does not. So therefore some might say that we are worth saving even if we are not worthy of it. The problem there is that it is taking an anthropomorphic view of God. The word "worth" in that sentence implies that God is justified in His action of saving us. Something is "worth" this or that because it is reasonable to act this or that way towards it. We may save something not worth saving, which would mean that we expended unjustified effort in the salvation, and that seems to go to the argument earlier that if humans aren't worth saving then there is nothing praiseworthy in Jesus' actions. But the problem here is that the whole question of whether something is worth [the effort of] saving presumes a finite amount of energy/effort available on the part of the Savior. Since God's power and love are infinite, it makes absolutely zero sense to talk about anything being worth anything else to God. Moreover, when put that way, it should be clear that we cannot attribute such language to Him. If I am "worth" something to God, then to lose me counts as a loss to Him. But God can lose nothing, for if He could, then having me would add to His perfection, which means He is actually dependent on me in some way. But we likewise cannot say I am worth nothing to God. That's just asburd, because He loves us. The answer is to say that such language--that I am worth anything to God--is entirely metaphorical and speaks only of His free choice to love us and says absolutely nothing whatsoever about God's relationship to us.

In other words, it is, again, meaningless to say that humans are "worth" saving. It is one of those phrases that sound like it has meaning but upon analysis, it turns out it doesn't, since it turns on a view of God that requires Him to be finite and/or dependent on humanity in some respect.

Bottom line: so far as I can tell, human beings are not worthy of salvation, and to say so is heresy. Human beings are neither worth or not worth saving, for either statement implies a relationship of dependence from God to man, which is heresy. We may say that God values humanity, or that God views humans as worth saving, but only if we mean those terms loosely as referring to God's love, and all such language is therefore metaphorical and speaking, stricly, of nothing in the relationship from God to man.

[PaulSacramento]

God values humans, there is no denying that.
God values humans enough that His own Son died for us so that we can be saved.
God values us enough that He wishes Us to be saved so He sent His Son so all those that believe in Him will be saved.
God see Us as worthy of salvation.

It is very hard to dispute this line of thinking.

Now, since I don't want to IMPLY that anything we do is worthy of salvation, I wanna make it clear that I do NOT believe that we are worthy or that we should see ourselves as being worthy.
That does NOT, however, change that fact that God DOES see humans as valuable enough to offer them the gift of Grace for all those that believe in Jesus.

To dispute that God values us enough to offer us salvation is to suggest that God offers salvation to those that He views have no worth or value at all and that is, IMO, inconsistent with scripture's interpretation.

[RickD]

Where did I say we have no worth? I said we are not worthy of salvation.

See? this is where were are getting confused.

I agree that we are not worthy of salvation, BUT my initial statement was that Christ believes we are.
You took issue with that, correct?

Yes Paul, I took issue with that. On one hand, you say you agree we are not worthy of salvation. And on the other hand, you say Christ believes we are worthy of salvation. So by your own admission, you are disagreeing with what you said Christ believes.

[RickD]

Jac,

Thank you for making sense of this. When Stardust said this:

So if were not worthy of salvation then Jesus sacrifice isn't praiseworthy. You can't have both. We're either worthy of it or we aren't.

,

It made no sense to me. It's just gibberish. Now I understand why.

[Jac3510]

God values humans, there is no denying that.
God values humans enough that His own Son died for us so that we can be saved.
God values us enough that He wishes Us to be saved so He sent His Son so all those that believe in Him will be saved.
God see Us as worthy of salvation.

It is very hard to dispute this line of thinking.

With all due respect, it's not terribly hard to dispute that at all, and that on several points.

1. God doesn't value us "enough" to die for us; that implies levels of value, as if God values this more than that. In fact, what God values is the good, period. And He values the good infinitely, period. There is "more" good in a human than there is in a rock because the human nature is higher than that of a rock, so there is "more" to value, but the value for each is infinite. But more to the point, to suggest that God loves us "enough" to die for us suggests that if He had valued us less than He would NOT have died for us. And therefore, the suggestion is that God was compelled to die for us on account of His love for us. But now you are on very dangerous territory, because God is compelled to do absolutely nothing. He is free, completely and absolutely. Rather, what you should say is that it was fitting for God to die for us because of what we are (His image), not that He values us enough to die for us.

2. For similar reasons I dispute that God values us enough that He wishes us to be saved. The word "enough" implies a scale of relativity that is neither true of God objectively (since God is infinite, and more or less infinite is still infinite) or subjectively (since that would imply that God feels one thing for one being and another for another being such that God's emotional state compells Him to act this way rather than that). Rather, we should say that it is God's will that all human beings be saved, and not because He must will that on account of the fact that He loves us "enough," but rather on account of the fact that it is fitting, and certainly not necessary, for God to so will it. Yet human beings, of course, by virtue of what they are, may reject what God has willed for their nature, and that, too, is within God's will, insofar as He has willed to give humanity the gift of freedom.

3. I flatly dispute that God sees us as worthy of salvation. Your comments above not only can be disputed, but even if the first three were accepted, they do not lead to the conclusion that God sees us as worthy of salvation. At most, you can say that God values us enough to save us (and I've already told you why I object to that). But there you are talking about God, not about us. When, though, you say that God sees us as worthy of salvation, you are talking about us, and you are something something about us that is not true, and something, in fact, that the Bible directly contradicts. God does not see us as worthy of salvation because we are NOT worthy of salvation, and to say we are is to obligate God to save us. God sees us as being fitting to save, and He freely wills to do so, because it is fitting for Him to do so. There's nothing in God to compel Him one way or another in that regard. It is completely by His free grace that He chooses to save us, insofar as it is fitting for Him to do so. It has, then, absolutely nothing to do with our worthiness or even our worth. To say it does is to either obligate God to man or to deny God's freedom and infinitude.

Now, since I don't want to IMPLY that anything we do is worthy of salvation, I wanna make it clear that I do NOT believe that we are worthy or that we should see ourselves as being worthy.

You can't say that God sees us as worthy of salvation and then deny that we should see ourselves as worthy of salvation. Either we are worthy or we are not. If God sees that we are, then we are. If God sees that we are not, then we are not.

That does NOT, however, change that fact that God DOES see humans as valuable enough to offer them the gift of Grace for all those that believe in Jesus.

There's that word "enough" again. You are, whether you realize it or not, presuming an anthropomorphic God and failing to appreciate what God actually is.

To dispute that God values us enough to offer us salvation is to suggest that God offers salvation to those that He views have no worth or value at all and that is, IMO, inconsistent with scripture's interpretation.

And to claim relativity in God is to deny God's divinity!

I certainly know that you don't want to deny God's divinity, and I know that you whole heartedly affirm it. But it seems to me that, unknowingly, you have affirmed a proposition that necessarily implies that God is not divine, such that you are holding two self-contradictory ideas to be true. I'd rather you give up the one (that God values us "enough" to save us) so that you may continue holding the other (that God is divine) by affirming instead the real truth that we are not worthy of salvation, but that God saves freely and without compulsion, and that it is fitting, though not necessary in any sense of the word, that He do so.

[jlay]

Any worth in humanity is there only because God created us as such. God created man to be redeemed. That is the ultimate consummation of His plans. For God so loved the world...... You can't separate creation, man, God's plans, the fall, and salvation. Even though we try to systematize and philosophize these things into our understanding.
It was God's good pleasure to create man and His good pleasure to save him. It is a delicate examination, as we have the tendency to bring God down to our level. As if God saw man, had pity on him and thought, "they really do deserve better, so......."

On a side note, I think a lot of the modern praise music is overly emotional drivel and appeals to the soul-ish nature. We want to think that our butterflies and emotional experience somehow make God feel the same. I only mention that because I think it is a by-product of what we are discussing here. At the same time, we need to be careful not to sterilize the Gospel and the love of God. Paul uses terms like 'ginosko,' which do convey a very intimate 'knowing' of God that we can partake in.

[Stardust]

Stardust wrote:
I think your playing semantics here, yes he hasn't explained salvation word for word perfect as you'd describe it but i think you get the drift. You seem to be concentrating more on trying to find reasons the blogger de converted rather than tackling the real question of if we're worthy or not.

He's explained a completely different salvation than what's the message of salvation in the bible!!! The blog author has invented an unbiblical, false type of salvation. Then he proceeded to refute that false type of salvation.

And I already addressed your question if whether we're worthy. If you want to explain that quote to me in your own words, as you understand it, I will discuss it with you.

So if were not worthy of salvation then Jesus sacrifice isn't praiseworthy. You can't have both. We're either worthy of it or we aren't

Jesus certainly believed we are worthy of salvation...

Did god?

[Stardust]

Wow it all makes so much sense now.

So god says were not worthy of salvation but sends Jesus to save humans that god deemed unworthy of. huh?
So god sacrifices his flesh self to his spirit self so the unworthy humans could be saved from the wrath god was planning to unleash on them, makes perfect sense
But god and Jesus are the same thing stardust.

I get it now, god is schizophrenic.
It makes total sense if you just realise god has split personality disorder, or the humans that created the myth didn't properly think it through.

Seriously stop trying to attempt to make any sense of this and just admit it doesn't, it never has and never will make sense.
It's so funny to read the lengths you are going to in order to not admit it doesn't make sense, no one can even agree on anything. Yes we are worthy, no we are not, god says we aren't, Jesus must think we are. But god thinks were valuable, but Jesus is god, Let's change it to metaphorical see if that works, let's say were getting meanings of words confused.

So after reading all that the question still remains. I read a whole lot of gibberish psychobabble that answered squat.

[Rob]

So god says were not worthy of salvation but sends Jesus to save humans that god deemed unworthy of. huh?

I don't see a problem there at all.
I once got my daughter a gift. She misbehaved and didn't deserve it, but I gave it to her anyway because I love her.

You appear to have a desire to misunderstand, my friend. If you don't want to understand, you never will. Sorry.

[Jac3510]

So god says were not worthy of salvation but sends Jesus to save humans that god deemed unworthy of. huh?

Yes, God sent Jesus to save people unworthy of salvation. There's nothing terribly difficult about the concept. There are plenty of human relationships in which one will grant someone a grace for which they are unworthy. For that matter, how many lovers have said to one another, "I am unworthy of your love"? How many people have been granted pardons for which they were not worthy? Indeed, pardons, by their nature, must be given to the unworthy, or else they are not pardons after all!

So god sacrifices his flesh self to his spirit self

God does not have two selves, at least, not two selves distinguished by flesh and spirit. If you want to appeal to the Trinity, then you can say (without the mockery) that the Son sacrificed Himself to the Father. But to try to make this about the flesh v. the spirit is to misunderstand the matter. In fact, you are dangerously close to an old heresy called Nestorianism, which was condemned by the church as far back as the fifth century AD.

so the unworthy humans could be saved from the wrath god was planning to unleash on them, makes perfect sense

Yes, it's not terribly hard to follow. God pardoned unworthy sinners. Perhaps you have a problem with the notion of grace, which, by definition, is unmerited favor. Perhaps you are only willing to accept a "Christianity" that teaches that we earn, and therefore deserve and are thus worthy of, our salvation. But in that case, you've just rejected the central tenant of our faith. Human beings are unworthy of salvation. They receive it freely, as a pardon from God, absolutely by His grace and nothing more. The moment you try to make yourself somehow worthy of it, you are no longer Christian. You are, rather, promoting a works-based gospel, which is, as Paul would put it, no gospel at all.

But god and Jesus are the same thing stardust.

Yes, Son and the Father are of the same substance.

I get it now, god is schizophrenic.

It seems that you are using "schozophrenia" in the commonly mistaken way as equating it with multiple personality disorder. But there, you are still mistaken, for MPD (or what is today known as dissociative identity disorder) occurs when one person has multiple personalities (or, again, in modern parlance, multiple enduring identities). That does not correctly describe the Trinity, however, which has three Persons in one Being. And, again, if you want to accuse Christ of schizophrenia/MPD/DID, you are just back to the nestorian heresy mentioned above.

As a point of fact, God is very rational here. He has chosen to pardon people of their sin. Since it is a pardon, it is by nature and by necessity unmerrited, and therefore by grace, and therefore we must conclude that the pardoned parties (us) are unworthy of said pardon. Refusing to acknowledge the relative simplicity of the logic would either show a defect in your intellect or a dishonesty in yourself. I'll let you do a little self-reflection and decide which that might be.

It makes total sense if you just realise god has split personality disorder, or the humans that created the myth didn't properly think it through.

Hey, look, I was right. You were misusing "schizophrenia"!

Now, since you have demonstrated that you don't know what schizophrenia is, you don't know what the Trinity is, you don't know what the hypostatic union is, you don't understand the basic nature of a pardon, and you don't understand the distinction between worth and worthiness, why, pray tell, should I pay any attention to your claim that we haven't properly thought our faith through? Do you really believe that YOU, in all your intellect and in all your glory, have, in so few words, brought to light so clearly such an obvious fault that some of the greatest minds in human history have completely missed?

The arrogance on your part is rather astounding . . . or it would be, if I hadn't seen it before. Actually, it's rather boring. But, the good news is, it's helpful for those who are of some real intelligence, for your silly, ignorant, uneducated, and laughable little rants allow us to see just how rational the gospel actually is from yet another perspective.

Seriously stop trying to attempt to make any sense of this and just admit it doesn't, it never has and never will make sense.
It's so funny to read the lengths you are going to in order to not admit it doesn't make sense, no one can even agree on anything. Yes we are worthy, no we are not, god says we aren't, Jesus must think we are. But god thinks were valuable, but Jesus is god, Let's change it to metaphorical see if that works, let's say were getting meanings of words confused.

So after reading all that the question still remains. I read a whole lot of gibberish psychobabble that answered squat.

That you can't make sense of something so very obvious says far more about you than us, my friend. You don't realize that you are just telling on yourself. You remind me of a patient I saw some time ago in my work in a local hospital. The physicans became aware of the fact that this person had a narcotic addiction about which they were in denial. In discussing the matter, the person said, very emphatically, "I am not a drug addict! You just have to understand that I am accustomed to Xmg of [drug]." At that statement, the physician, case manager, and I all simply exchanged a knowing glance. The patient had no idea what they had just admitted to. Those of us who had received the proper training, however, did, and that informed our plan of care going forward.

And so it is with you. Your rants say far more about yourself than you realize, and that you don't realize it contributes to the picture. You think you are saying something interesting or meaningful. And in a sense, you are. But it is only interesting and meaningful about your own defective understanding about the thing you are critiquing, and that, in turn says a great deal that is interesting and meaningful about your motives; the emotional reactivity your conversation necessarily assumes says a great deal about the messages you carry inside you, most likely unconsciously (as the JoHari Window would put it, those things that you are blind to that others can see). And that, in turn, says a great deal of interest about the origin of those messages. But all of that is really about you. It's hardly about our faith. Your comments about our faith, with respect to our faith, are about as meaningful as a third graders objections to the mathematics underlying quantum mechanics. Your comments about our faith, with respect to yourself, however, are rather revealing.

I don't take it you'll be around too terribly wrong, so I'll just say now with what little time I think I'll have: God bless you! May you become more curious, less arrogant, more open, less dogmatic, more willing to learn, and less presumptuous to teach.

[abelcainsbrother]

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life." This implies we are not worthy but God through his grace loved us enough to do something about it anyway to make a way for us to be redeemed.

[Stardust]

So god says were not worthy of salvation but sends Jesus to save humans that god deemed unworthy of. huh?

Yes, God sent Jesus to save people unworthy of salvation. There's nothing terribly difficult about the concept. There are plenty of human relationships in which one will grant someone a grace for which they are unworthy. For that matter, how many lovers have said to one another, "I am unworthy of your love"? How many people have been granted pardons for which they were not worthy? Indeed, pardons, by their nature, must be given to the unworthy, or else they are not pardons after all!

So god sacrifices his flesh self to his spirit self

God does not have two selves, at least, not two selves distinguished by flesh and spirit. If you want to appeal to the Trinity, then you can say (without the mockery) that the Son sacrificed Himself to the Father. But to try to make this about the flesh v. the spirit is to misunderstand the matter. In fact, you are dangerously close to an old heresy called Nestorianism, which was condemned by the church as far back as the fifth century AD.

so the unworthy humans could be saved from the wrath god was planning to unleash on them, makes perfect sense

Yes, it's not terribly hard to follow. God pardoned unworthy sinners. Perhaps you have a problem with the notion of grace, which, by definition, is unmerited favor. Perhaps you are only willing to accept a "Christianity" that teaches that we earn, and therefore deserve and are thus worthy of, our salvation. But in that case, you've just rejected the central tenant of our faith. Human beings are unworthy of salvation. They receive it freely, as a pardon from God, absolutely by His grace and nothing more. The moment you try to make yourself somehow worthy of it, you are no longer Christian. You are, rather, promoting a works-based gospel, which is, as Paul would put it, no gospel at all.

But god and Jesus are the same thing stardust.

Yes, Son and the Father are of the same substance.

I get it now, god is schizophrenic.

It seems that you are using "schozophrenia" in the commonly mistaken way as equating it with multiple personality disorder. But there, you are still mistaken, for MPD (or what is today known as dissociative identity disorder) occurs when one person has multiple personalities (or, again, in modern parlance, multiple enduring identities). That does not correctly describe the Trinity, however, which has three Persons in one Being. And, again, if you want to accuse Christ of schizophrenia/MPD/DID, you are just back to the nestorian heresy mentioned above.

As a point of fact, God is very rational here. He has chosen to pardon people of their sin. Since it is a pardon, it is by nature and by necessity unmerrited, and therefore by grace, and therefore we must conclude that the pardoned parties (us) are unworthy of said pardon. Refusing to acknowledge the relative simplicity of the logic would either show a defect in your intellect or a dishonesty in yourself. I'll let you do a little self-reflection and decide which that might be.

It makes total sense if you just realise god has split personality disorder, or the humans that created the myth didn't properly think it through.

Hey, look, I was right. You were misusing "schizophrenia"!

Now, since you have demonstrated that you don't know what schizophrenia is, you don't know what the Trinity is, you don't know what the hypostatic union is, you don't understand the basic nature of a pardon, and you don't understand the distinction between worth and worthiness, why, pray tell, should I pay any attention to your claim that we haven't properly thought our faith through? Do you really believe that YOU, in all your intellect and in all your glory, have, in so few words, brought to light so clearly such an obvious fault that some of the greatest minds in human history have completely missed?

The arrogance on your part is rather astounding . . . or it would be, if I hadn't seen it before. Actually, it's rather boring. But, the good news is, it's helpful for those who are of some real intelligence, for your silly, ignorant, uneducated, and laughable little rants allow us to see just how rational the gospel actually is from yet another perspective.

Seriously stop trying to attempt to make any sense of this and just admit it doesn't, it never has and never will make sense.
It's so funny to read the lengths you are going to in order to not admit it doesn't make sense, no one can even agree on anything. Yes we are worthy, no we are not, god says we aren't, Jesus must think we are. But god thinks were valuable, but Jesus is god, Let's change it to metaphorical see if that works, let's say were getting meanings of words confused.

So after reading all that the question still remains. I read a whole lot of gibberish psychobabble that answered squat.

That you can't make sense of something so very obvious says far more about you than us, my friend. You don't realize that you are just telling on yourself. You remind me of a patient I saw some time ago in my work in a local hospital. The physicans became aware of the fact that this person had a narcotic addiction about which they were in denial. In discussing the matter, the person said, very emphatically, "I am not a drug addict! You just have to understand that I am accustomed to Xmg of [drug]." At that statement, the physician, case manager, and I all simply exchanged a knowing glance. The patient had no idea what they had just admitted to. Those of us who had received the proper training, however, did, and that informed our plan of care going forward.

And so it is with you. Your rants say far more about yourself than you realize, and that you don't realize it contributes to the picture. You think you are saying something interesting or meaningful. And in a sense, you are. But it is only interesting and meaningful about your own defective understanding about the thing you are critiquing, and that, in turn says a great deal that is interesting and meaningful about your motives; the emotional reactivity your conversation necessarily assumes says a great deal about the messages you carry inside you, most likely unconsciously (as the JoHari Window would put it, those things that you are blind to that others can see). And that, in turn, says a great deal of interest about the origin of those messages. But all of that is really about you. It's hardly about our faith. Your comments about our faith, with respect to our faith, are about as meaningful as a third graders objections to the mathematics underlying quantum mechanics. Your comments about our faith, with respect to yourself, however, are rather revealing.

I don't take it you'll be around too terribly wrong, so I'll just say now with what little time I think I'll have: God bless you! May you become more curious, less arrogant, more open, less dogmatic, more willing to learn, and less presumptuous to teach.

So god says were not worthy of being saved from his wrath, but then decides to send himself to earth to be killed and that somehow makes him less angry at us but we are still just as unworthy, but he's not as mad enough at us anymore because he let us kill him, so as long as we go on believing that god let himself be killed so he didn't have to punish us then were of gods hook?

So if the son sacrificed himself to the father but the son is the father then the son sacrificed himself to himself.
If jesus is god and the son of go then god impregnated his own mother.

Ok so forgive me for not being a mental health expert, maybe god is psychotic and schizophrenic, im sure you understood what i meant.

May you become more curious, less arrogant, more open, less dogmatic, more willing to learn, and less presumptuous to teach.

You to.