So, how was Abraham saved?

antiskeptic

In another discussion the question of precisely how a person is saved was raised. Folk say you have to believe in Jesus Christ as your saviour. Or accept him into your heart. Or be a Catholic. Or be born again. Or have faith or are saved by faith.

But what it is exactly that produces salvation (if by faith, faith in what?)?

I've given the title above to illustrate that

a) Abraham's example is used by Paul in his argument regarding salvation by faith. Abraham was saved.

b) Abraham didn't believe in Jesus Christ as his saviour and didn't fulfill many of the other methods suggested as being the way of salvation.

silverharp

you might need to establish first if Abraham actually existed, he's more of an Uncle Sam or John Bull charater

I wouldn't worry about it, it's only a metaphor

antiskeptic

silverharp wrote: »

you might need to establish first if Abraham actually existed, he's more of an Uncle Sam or John Bull charater

Let's say that the premise is that he did. Christianity forum and all that.

Joe1919

I think Justin Martyr was one of the first to address this issue and generally believed that salvation was possible for people who lived and died before Christ.(e.g. Socrates) I can remember Pope JP2 taking a similar position and even extending this somehow.

Normally, “it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1998/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_09091998.html

I think some other Christian churches object strongly to this.

Mongfinder General

Abraham had a son at 100 years old. The guy is an absolute legend.

antiskeptic

Joe1919 wrote: »

I think Justin Martyr was one of the first to address this issue and generally believed that salvation was possible for people who lived and died before Christ.(e.g. Socrates)

Did he elaborate on mechanism? It's one thing to be of the opinion that folk can be saved without having heard of Christ. Another to explain how and why.

Normally, “it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour

Was he specific in what fundamental aspect of their religion/conscience being followed would result in salvation? Presumably something that was common to all religions and consciences.

Joe1919

antiskeptic wrote: »

Did he elaborate on mechanism? .....
.

Justin Martyr argues that Christ is the incarnation of the Logos, which leads him to the proof that any individual who has spoken with reason, even those who lived before Christ, connected with the logos in the form of Christ, and is thus, in fact, a Christian.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm Chapter 46

antiskeptic

Joe1919 wrote: »

Justin Martyr argues that Christ is the incarnation of the Logos, which leads him to the proof that any individual who has spoken with reason, even those who lived before Christ, connected with the logos in the form of Christ, and is thus, in fact, a Christian.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm Chapter 46

He talks of living reasonably rather than speaking. What is this living reasonably? Or speaking with reason?

Is his proof a biblically based one do you think?

Safehands

Mongfinder General wrote: »

Abraham had a son at 100 years old. The guy is an absolute legend.

Yeah, and he heard voices telling him to kill his son Isaac. He was about to butcher him when he heard more voices telling him he had proved his love or some other nonsense. If that story is true then Abraham was, to put it mildly, in need of help from the men in white coats.

Joe1919

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is his proof a biblically based one do you think?

My understanding is that it is speculated that Justin (100-165AD) was influenced by the Greek philosophical tradition and also his parents were good living but non-Christian (as they would have been born in the first century) and perhaps this is what motivated him to take this position. John 1.1 (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.) is often (in Philosophy of religion circles) quoted as a defense of his position.

PS My interest in Abraham was mainly brought about by my interest in existentialism and especially by my reading of Kierkegaard s 'Fear and Trembling' and his description of faith,and his attempt to make sense of Abraham's 'absurd' willingness to sacrifice his son.

antiskeptic

Joe1919 wrote: »

My understanding is that it is speculated that Justin (100-165AD) was influenced by the Greek philosophical tradition and also his parents were good living but non-Christian (as they would have been born in the first century) and perhaps this is what motivated him to take this position.

Necessity being the mother of ..?

John 1.1 (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.) is often (in Philosophy of religion circles) quoted as a defense of his position.

Jesus' ever existence isn't an issue. I'm just wondering how that fact is made combine with people thinking / acting reasonably such as to produce salvation. It seems to me that thinking and acting reasonably are everyday occurrences.

PS My interest in Abraham was mainly brought about by my interest in existentialism and especially by my reading of Kierkegaard s 'Fear and Trembling' and his description of faith,and his attempt to make sense of Abraham's 'absurd' willingness to sacrifice his son.

It strikes me that in the measure one trusts God (and I mean this in a real, rubber-meets-road active sense rather than something notional/theoretical/lip serviced way) one will obey. Whilst atheists (and some Christians) would baulk at the idea of obeying God to this degree, there is nothing absurd in the idea. Total trust produces/aids total obedience.

I mean, why would you not do as God asks if you've total trust in him and his being good and only acting for good. I'm not saying that trust can be rustled up by own bootstraps but if God has imbued that sense of trust in you then surely even sacrificing your own son is made do-able.

Safehands

antiskeptic wrote: »

I mean, why would you not do as God asks if you've total trust in him and his being good and only acting for good. I'm not saying that trust can be rustled up by own bootstraps but if God has imbued that sense of trust in you then surely even sacrificing your own son is made do-able.

Why would a loving God ask anyone to kill their own son just to prove they love him? What would that do to the boy, being tied to an alter seeing his own father about to cut him up with a knife?
Thousands of people around the world hear "voices" telling them to do things. They are ill, and they need help.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

In another discussion the question of precisely how a person is saved was raised. Folk say you have to believe in Jesus Christ as your saviour. Or accept him into your heart. Or be a Catholic. Or be born again. Or have faith or are saved by faith.

But what it is exactly that produces salvation (if by faith, faith in what?)?

I've given the title above to illustrate that

a) Abraham's example is used by Paul in his argument regarding salvation by faith. Abraham was saved.

b) Abraham didn't believe in Jesus Christ as his saviour and didn't fulfill many of the other methods suggested as being the way of salvation.

Abraham wasn't aware of the existence of Jesus Christ because Abraham lived long before Jesus ministry here on Earth.

Joe1919

antiskeptic wrote: »

Necessity being the mother of ..?

Jesus' ever existence isn't an issue. I'm just wondering how that fact is made combine with people thinking / acting reasonably such as to produce salvation. It seems to me that thinking and acting reasonably are everyday occurrences.

It strikes me that in the measure one trusts God (and I mean this in a real, rubber-meets-road active sense rather than something notional/theoretical/lip serviced way) one will obey. Whilst atheists (and some Christians) would baulk at the idea of obeying God to this degree, there is nothing absurd in the idea. Total trust produces/aids total obedience.

I mean, why would you not do as God asks if you've total trust in him and his being good and only acting for good. I'm not saying that trust can be rustled up by own bootstraps but if God has imbued that sense of trust in you then surely even sacrificing your own son is made do-able.

I will try to reply and answer your questions from a historical point of view but bear in mind that I have limited knowledge and I do not speak for anyone other than myself.

There are (imo) two traditions with two philosophies/psychologies relevant to this discussion, The Greek (Socratic) tradition and the Christian tradition.
In the Greek tradition, the main virtues are Prudence, Temperance, Courage and Justice, with Prudence often seen as the chief virtue and the others derived from this (unity of the virtues). Sin or offence is usually seen as a lack of prudence/reason. The goodness of a person is seen to be in his intellect and there is a tendency to see sin/offence as a person behaving unreasonably/lack of prudence (as Justin seems to have had).

In the Christian tradition, the main virtues are Faith, Hope & Charity/Love. ( I have seen people making a sort of case for unity of the virtues, with Faith (as Trust in God etc.) seen as the chief virtue, and the other virtues derived from this. e.g hope is faith in the future, love is a sort of trust and faith in God/others). The goodness of a person in this case is very much in the ‘will’ and sin/offences mainly come about by ones pride/rebelliousness by having no faith in God and making oneself the center of ones own existence. ( Indeed, the intellect/knowledge in this case is often seen as ‘puffing up’ the individual.)

Finally, I used the word ‘absurd’ deliberately, as Kierkegaard does. Here is my take on this. We are trying to, within the limit of language, to show a difference between ‘belief’ which is of the mind/intellect; and ‘faith’ which is of the total person and comes from much deeper. By picking an extremely ‘absurd’ and senseless situation, where any sense of rationality has been completely stripped away and removed, we can somehow grasp that ‘faith’ is much more than just rational belief. (at least, that’s what I got personally from the story of Abraham. But I have a long way to go.)

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

Abraham wasn't aware of the existence of Jesus Christ because Abraham lived long before Jesus ministry here on Earth.

Agreed. So by what means was he saved and if faith in Jesus Christ isn't it. And if someone can be saved without belief in Jesus Christ in Abraham's day, is there any reason to suppose someone today can't be saved without faith in Jesus Christ?

Safehands

antiskeptic wrote: »

Agreed. So by what means was he saved and if faith in Jesus Christ isn't it. And if someone can be saved without belief in Jesus Christ in Abraham's day, is there any reason to suppose someone today can't be saved without faith in Jesus Christ?

Oooh! don't try to catch them out. There'll be a good made up explanation, no doubt.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

Agreed. So by what means was he saved and if faith in Jesus Christ isn't it. And if someone can be saved without belief in Jesus Christ in Abraham's day, is there any reason to suppose someone today can't be saved without faith in Jesus Christ?

Let's be clear here.

2,000 years ago, Jesus Christ set down the criteria that one needs to satisfy to be considered for salvation.

It's important to note that salvation is not guaranteed despite what some here mistakenly and repeatedly claim.

Presumption of (the granting of) God's mercy is a sin.

Therefore each and every single one of us is required to satisfy a given criteria in the hope that having achieved as best we can that criteria, we will be granted salvation.

The New Testament is crystal clear as regards the criteria required to be considered for salvation. Faith and works are the criteria.

So yes there is plenty of reason to suppose that someone today cannot be saved by faith alone in Jesus Christ.
Because someone who doesn't articulate that faith through works puts the eternal fate of the souls in peril.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

Let's be clear here.

2,000 years ago, Jesus Christ set down the criteria that one needs to satisfy to be considered for salvation.

Presumably, if you believe Abraham was saved, God set down criteria for Abraham before Jesus walked the earth.

It's important to note that salvation is not guaranteed despite what some here mistakenly and repeatedly claim.

I've been convinced to the contrary. But no matter for this part of the discussion. What I'm trying to get at is whether there is a common theme for salvation. If faith then faith in whom (with regard for those who couldn't have faith in Christ) and if by faith & works, what sort of faith & works.

Presumption of (the granting of) God's mercy is a sin.

It wouldn't be presumption if he granted it and chose to convey that fact. The only difference would be the timing of his granting mercy (and communicating same: now (rather, back in 2001 in my own case) or after death.

Therefore each and every single one of us is required to satisfy a given criteria in the hope that having achieved as best we can that criteria, we will be granted salvation.

I can hope I'm not wrong. But can't hope for something I have no reason to hope for (especially if given reason to be sure of my salvation. I've positive and negative reasons for holding as I do). But let's leave aside that particular discussion for now. It's been done to death and neither of us is going to be convinced otherwise (unless God himself convinces us otherwise, I'd warrant)

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

Presumably, if you believe Abraham was saved, God set down criteria for Abraham before Jesus walked the earth.

I accept that Abraham was saved and the basis for his salvation is that he kept his word to God in accordance with what God instructed.
That was then.

This is now.
What you and I and everyone else since 2,000 years ago are required to do is to adhere as best we can to what Jesus taught.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What I'm trying to get at is whether there is a common theme for salvation. If faith then faith in whom (with regard for those who couldn't have faith in Christ) and if works, what sort of works.

There is only one theme concerning salvation.

Whether there is common agreement on what that theme is is a different question.

Like you I'm not interested in discussing about whether salvation is granted through faith alone or works alone.
There is no debate to be had in my opinion.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

I accept that Abraham was saved and the basis for his salvation is that he kept his word to God in accordance with what God instructed.

Could you point to the time and place where, after keeping his word to God he obtained salvation?

Do you not suppose being declared righteous (an event based on faith only) was a salvation event?

What you and I and everyone else since 2,000 years ago are required to do is to adhere as best we can to what Jesus taught.

Which is kind of problematic for all those who like Abraham aren't in a position to hear of Jesus Christ.

There is only one theme concerning salvation.

So, what is common to Abraham's case and those who are saved today (whether by hearing of and believing Jesus or, if you suppose people can be saved as Abraham - without having heard of Jesus)?

Whether there is common agreement on what that theme is is a different question. Like you I'm not interested in discussing about whether salvation is granted through faith alone or works alone.
There is no debate to be had in my opinion.

I'm interested in how we are to deal with folk who've never heard of Jesus. It strikes me more as wobbly theology that a characteristic of God that there be a multitude of different basic themes.

If it's a question of believing God and doing your best to do as he says then that's something that Abraham (you say) did, something that you can do today (believing Jesus/God) and doing your best to do as he says. And something which someone today who has never heard of Jesus/the Abrahamic God can do (what with God being able to speak to all)

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could you point to the time and place where, after keeping his word to God he obtained salvation?

The Old Testament appears to indicate that Abraham died faithful to God.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p4s1c1a1.htm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you not suppose being declared righteous (an event based on faith only) was a salvation event?

Pre Jesus Christ's ministry on Earth.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which is kind of problematic for all those who like Abraham aren't in a position to hear of Jesus Christ.

In this day and age the number of souls who have never heard of Jesus Christ are getting lower and lower.

You do know the theory that once the message of Jesus Christ reaches the ends of the Earth - and that time cannot be far away - then this is one sign that the End will be upon humanity.

antiskeptic wrote: »

So, what is common to Abraham's case and those who are saved today (whether by hearing of and believing Jesus or, if you suppose people can be saved as Abraham - without having heard of Jesus)?

The covenant of God has been fully and completely revealed through Jesus Christ.
There is no other covenant with God except for the one taught by Jesus.

The teaching regarding that Covenant subsists in the Catholic Church.

Having been made aware of that Covenant each and every single soul must decide to accept the Covenant or reject the Covenant.

The soul that has not been made aware of that Covenant through the New Testament it is up to God to decide if His mercy is dispensed to that the soul.

Abraham stayed faithful to the Covenant which applied during his lifetime.
That lifetime preceded the ministry of Jesus Christ.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm interested in how we are to deal with folk who've never heard of Jesus. It strikes me more as wobbly theology that a characteristic of God that there be a multitude of different basic themes.

If it's a question of believing God and doing your best to do as he says then that's something that Abraham (you say) did, something that you can do today (believing Jesus/God) and doing your best to do as he says. And something which someone today who has never heard of Jesus/the Abrahamic God can do (what with God being able to speak to all)

I think the onus to comply with the New Testament for those exposed to the New Testament is far higher than on those who have never heard the New Testament, in terms of hoping to be saved.

And for those who have been exposed to the New Testament to cite the Old Testament as their defence seems wobbly.

Put simply relying on the OT when one has knowledge of the NT is a deliberate act of defiance, in my view.
Why rely upon partial teaching (OT) when the full teaching (OT and NT) is there?

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

The Old Testament appears to indicate that Abraham died faithful to God.

That document is a bit too large to be waded through.

The OT indicates Abraham had faith and was faithful. The latter can be a consequence of the former without it having anything to do with salvation. Saved-by-faith requires faithfulness, albeit not for salvation. The argument Paul makes in urging obedience is that is acting counter to what you now are (a child of God once saved by faith) is unreasonable: you don’t fight for the Nazi’s if once converted to being an Allie.

We have Abraham’s faith > being declared righteous being used as a model for how NT salvation is wrought. Could you similarly point to where, in the OT, Abraham’s faithfulness is indicated as contributing to his salvation

In this day and age the number of souls who have never heard of Jesus Christ are getting lower and lower.

...rising exponentially as one heads back two thousand years. One’s theology need deal with all circumstances involving salvation – and this one is a pretty large circumstance.

Indeed, you don’t have to travel far to find the gospel hasn’t been at all presented. Ask many an Irish Catholic today what the gospel of Christ is (and I’ve asked many) and you get answers largely from ignorance: the most tragi-comical one I’ve heard being “Matthew, Mark, Luke and John”.

You do know the theory that once the message of Jesus Christ reaches the ends of the Earth - and that time cannot be far away - then this is one sign that the End will be upon humanity.

Given the above observation we’ll be waiting a long time. It’s recognized in industry that merely issuing a Standard Operating Procedure is but a drop in the ocean in having that procedure understood by anyone. The gospel of Jesus Christ is like an SOP that’s been written up and posted in the company notice board – in the expectation that in doing so it can be considered as having “reaching the ends of the Earth”


A just God won’t rely on a legalistic “well there was a Gideon bible placed in every hotel” when even the most junior barrister could get his client off the charge of having ignored the gospel of Christ.

The covenant of God has been fully and completely revealed through Jesus Christ. There is no other covenant with God except for the one taught by Jesus.

Revealed is one thing. Active is another. It can have always been active without having being revealed. The ditty:“What the Old Testament conceals, the New reveals" springs to mind. Under what covenant was Abraham saved? It wasn’t the Old.

The teaching regarding that Covenant subsists in the Catholic Church.

I beg to differ.

Having been made aware of that Covenant each and every single soul must decide to accept the Covenant or reject the Covenant.

The soul that has not been made aware of that Covenant through the New Testament it is up to God to decide if His mercy is dispensed to that the soul.

Abraham stayed faithful to the Covenant which applied during his lifetime.
That lifetime preceded the ministry of Jesus Christ.

Decide in his mercy? That’s a bit of a fudge isn’t it - as if the theology hits a wall and fills in the gap with a hand wave. Where is this indicated in the Bible?

I’ll await your comment on how faithfulness to the Covenant (the one which you decide governed Abraham’s salvation) is shown in the bible to produce his salvation

I think the onus to comply with the New Testament for those exposed to the New Testament is far higher than on those who have never heard the New Testament, in terms of hoping to be saved.

And for those who have been exposed to the New Testament to cite the Old Testament as their defence seems wobbly.

We seem to have 4 ways of salvation in your book

1) An Old Testament way for those who were aware of the OT covenant
2) An Old Testament way for those who weren’t aware of the OT covenant
3) A New Testament way (for those who hear it (and in your view, act on it) to the degree considered legally binding such as to consider them having accepted or rejected it)
4) A way for those in the NT who haven’t heard of the New Covenant

You can see this starting to get a bit unwieldy – having the sense of a wonky, man-made theology. Unless there is some common denominator which unifies it into essentially: one way of salvation. All men are born equal and to have a whole range of different means of salvation introduces the impossibility of comparing apple and apples (unless you magically invoke the wisdom and knowledge of God to smooth out the wrinkles)

On the other hand you’ve a means of salvation, by faith, which can be argued to be the same for all men at all times. They believe God (and God has multiple ways of communicating the same message: direct revelation, the bible, conscience, etc) and are declared righteous.

Ockhams Razor and all that.

Put simply relying on the OT when one has knowledge of the NT is a deliberate act of defiance, in my view. Why rely upon partial teaching (OT) when the full teaching (OT and NT) is there?

As I said before, I consider both speaking the same core message in the matter of salvation. They both detail the Old and New Covenants as the two and only sides of a coin relating to man’s eternal destiny that man will ever-encounter:

Old Covenant deals with mans tendency to see his good behaviour as determining his eternal destination (see: every world religion, past and current, bar salvation by faith, in which your eternal life is determined by how you behave in this one). That possibility is exploded by the Old Covenant demand for perfect obedience – which man cannot meet, no matter how hard he tries. I’d point out, with respect, that nowhere does the New Covenant state that "trying your best" to be obedient to God produces salvation. If you want to follow the Law then you do so 100%. You can hope your best efforts are enough but wouldn't it be wise to check that your best efforts actually could produce salvation before embarking on that road?

New Covenant: salvation by faith, since works can’t do it. And God knows it. The only thing left is for man to come to understand that.

uck51js9zml2yt

I'm on my phone so can't write everything I want.
Hebrews ( and numerous other NT writers) says the Abraham believed God and righteousness was attributed to him.
It also says he became the father of those who would believe.
It aslo refers to his sacrifice of Isaac in that he reasoned the God could raise him from the dead.
He tells Isaac that God would provide a lamb(_which He did)

The NT refers to the types and figures of the OT. Looking back we see the type of God requiring a sacrifice ofvan only son. It also refers to the Lamb being sacrificed.
Looking forward we see God sacrificing His only Son who it says was the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world.
Right through the OT, it was a lamb slain for the sins of the people.
God was to provide the Lamb. In Abraham's case He did just that, but for Abraham it was faith in God which was tested all through his life.
He left his country not knowing were he was going but he believed God.
As a result he became the Father of Faith and the father of those who would believe (Hebrews)

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

That document is a bit too large to be waded through.

The OT indicates Abraham had faith and was faithful. The latter can be a consequence of the former without it having anything to do with salvation. Saved-by-faith requires faithfulness, albeit not for salvation. The argument Paul makes in urging obedience is that is acting counter to what you now are (a child of God once saved by faith) is unreasonable: you don’t fight for the Nazi’s if once converted to being an Allie.

We have Abraham’s faith > being declared righteous being used as a model for how NT salvation is wrought. Could you similarly point to where, in the OT, Abraham’s faithfulness is indicated as contributing to his salvation

...rising exponentially as one heads back two thousand years. One’s theology need deal with all circumstances involving salvation – and this one is a pretty large circumstance.

Indeed, you don’t have to travel far to find the gospel hasn’t been at all presented. Ask many an Irish Catholic today what the gospel of Christ is (and I’ve asked many) and you get answers largely from ignorance: the most tragi-comical one I’ve heard being “Matthew, Mark, Luke and John”.

Given the above observation we’ll be waiting a long time. It’s recognized in industry that merely issuing a Standard Operating Procedure is but a drop in the ocean in having that procedure understood by anyone. The gospel of Jesus Christ is like an SOP that’s been written up and posted in the company notice board – in the expectation that in doing so it can be considered as having “reaching the ends of the Earth”


A just God won’t rely on a legalistic “well there was a Gideon bible placed in every hotel” when even the most junior barrister could get his client off the charge of having ignored the gospel of Christ.




Revealed is one thing. Active is another. It can have always been active without having being revealed. The ditty:“What the Old Testament conceals, the New reveals" springs to mind. Under what covenant was Abraham saved? It wasn’t the Old.



I beg to differ.





Decide in his mercy? That’s a bit of a fudge isn’t it - as if the theology hits a wall and fills in the gap with a hand wave. Where is this indicated in the Bible?

I’ll await your comment on how faithfulness to the Covenant (the one which you decide governed Abraham’s salvation) is shown in the bible to produce his salvation

We seem to have 4 ways of salvation in your book

1) An Old Testament way for those who were aware of the OT covenant
2) An Old Testament way for those who weren’t aware of the OT covenant
3) A New Testament way (for those who hear it (and in your view, act on it) to the degree considered legally binding such as to consider them having accepted or rejected it)
4) A way for those in the NT who haven’t heard of the New Covenant

You can see this starting to get a bit unwieldy – having the sense of a wonky, man-made theology. Unless there is some common denominator which unifies it into essentially: one way of salvation. All men are born equal and to have a whole range of different means of salvation introduces the impossibility of comparing apple and apples (unless you magically invoke the wisdom and knowledge of God to smooth out the wrinkles)

On the other hand you’ve a means of salvation, by faith, which can be argued to be the same for all men at all times. They believe God (and God has multiple ways of communicating the same message: direct revelation, the bible, conscience, etc) and are declared righteous.

Ockhams Razor and all that.

As I said before, I consider both speaking the same core message in the matter of salvation. They both detail the Old and New Covenants as the two and only sides of a coin relating to man’s eternal destiny that man will ever-encounter:

Old Covenant deals with mans tendency to see his good behaviour as determining his eternal destination (see: every world religion, past and current, bar salvation by faith, in which your eternal life is determined by how you behave in this one). That possibility is exploded by the Old Covenant demand for perfect obedience – which man cannot meet, no matter how hard he tries. I’d point out, with respect, that nowhere does the New Covenant state that "trying your best" to be obedient to God produces salvation. If you want to follow the Law then you do so 100%. You can hope your best efforts are enough but wouldn't it be wise to check that your best efforts actually could produce salvation before embarking on that road?

New Covenant: salvation by faith, since works can’t do it. And God knows it. The only thing left is for man to come to understand that.

You're entirely free to choose to accept or to choose reject Church teaching on any matter you want.

If you choose to adhere to the Heretic Martin Luther and/or to any denominational derivation of that heresy, that is entirely your own choice.

The consequences of the choice you make, you will reap.
Of that there is no question.

Abraham did not possess the benefit of knowing the ministry of Jesus Christ and his Church as recorded by the NT.
You don't have the same defence in 2015.

No, the real danger is that others reading your advocacy may endanger the eternal fate of their souls by subscribing to any of the denominational derivations of the Luther heresy containing the lies and half truths that they do.

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

You're entirely free to choose to accept or to choose reject Church teaching on any matter you want.

If you choose to adhere to the Heretic Martin Luther and/or to any denominational derivation of that heresy, that is entirely your own choice.

The consequences of the choice you make, you will reap.
Of that there is no question.

.

I'm glad I'm neither Protestant or denominational
The just shall live by Faith . it's still true 2000 years later.

hinault

Faith Yellow Tween wrote: »

I'm glad I'm neither Protestant or denominational

East Germany.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

You're entirely free to choose to accept or to choose reject Church teaching on any matter you want.

If you choose to adhere to the Heretic Martin Luther and/or to any denominational derivation of that heresy, that is entirely your own choice.

The consequences of the choice you make, you will reap.
Of that there is no question.

I'm not sure what the sense is of flogging a dead horse and insisting that others take a position that happens to be in disagreement with your own. It ought to be borne in mind that you haven't the Magisterium behind you - merely your own personal belief that the Magisterium view / arguments as to it's being an authority is the correct view. Your pitting your personal belief (and all the reasons you hold it to be the correct one) against everyone else's. It's a level playing field.

If you want to convince another, you need to lay aside personal belief and engage in the argument.

Abraham did not possess the benefit of knowing the ministry of Jesus Christ and his Church as recorded by the NT.
You don't have the same defence in 2015.

Which doesn't add anything to resolve the problem of a theology standing at perhaps 4 different ways of salvation. That was the point of the OP - to examine the way of salvation.

No, the real danger is that others reading your advocacy may endanger the eternal fate of their souls by subscribing to any of the denominational derivations of the Luther heresy containing the lies and half truths that they do.

I'm content to take personal responsibility for my advocacy (not that I suppose myself having any choice before God). I take it that you're prepared to do likewise - in the event you're mistaken?

antiskeptic

Faith Yellow Tween wrote: »

I'm glad I'm neither Protestant or denominational
The just shall live by Faith . it's still true 2000 years later.

Seeing as that's a quote from Habakkuk I'm supposing it true for a bit more than two thousand years. Hence the OP asks: faith in what?

AbE. You can be a denomination of one - although if your views are substantially the same as others you would be a part of a denomination.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure what the sense is of flogging a dead horse and insisting that others take a position that happens to be in disagreement with your own. It ought to be borne in mind that you haven't the Magisterium behind you - merely your own personal belief that the Magisterium view / arguments as to it's being an authority is the correct view. Your pitting your personal belief (and all the reasons you hold it to be the correct one) against everyone else's. It's a level playing field.

That'd be the same Magisterium of the only Church in which the teaching of the Covenant between God and man subsists, but which you beg to differ with.

Or so you claimed earlier.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you want to convince another, you need to lay aside personal belief and engage in the argument.

I'm not here to convert you.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which doesn't add anything to resolve the problem of a theology standing at perhaps 4 different ways of salvation. That was the point of the OP - to examine the way of salvation.

There is nothing to add given that we possess the NT and can partake, should we choose to, in the Church founded by Jesus Christ called the Catholic Church.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm content to take personal responsibility for my advocacy (not that I suppose myself having any choice before God). I take it that you're prepared to do likewise - in the event you're mistaken?

Presumption of God's mercy is a sin.

Being a Catholic is only the bare minimum requirement for one to have a chance of being saved (for those who have been exposed to the Bible and what it teaches).

I will have to account at some point for why I failed to adhere fully to the teachings of His Catholic church.
We are all sinners and only by the virtues faith, hope and charity will any of us have a chance of being with God for eternity.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

That'd be the same Magisterium of the only Church in which the teaching of the Covenant between God and man subsists, but which you beg to differ with.

And which you beg to agree with. My point was that we both rest on personal conviction. There's no other authority to rely on for your position (believing what you do about the primacy of the RC church), at root, than your own

I'm not here to convert you.

Then what's the point of asserting as fact something which can't be established to be fact. It's a belief and statements of belief have little use in a discussion forum

There is nothing to add given that we possess the NT and can partake, should we choose to, in the Church founded by Jesus Christ called the Catholic Church.

There is nothing to add to a theology consisting of at least 4 means of salvation - only one of which has been elaborated upon (NT times faith & works for those who've heard it)?

Fair enough. But it's hardly a rigorous position to hold - one that posits silence or a hand wave (e.g. God in his mercy shall (against criteria unknown) perhaps, grant mercy)

Presumption of God's mercy is a sin.

As you've said. And to which I've responded that knowing your are saved, if such a thing can be known, isn't presumption. Your belief system holds as it holds - but it's only your belief. Not necessarily fact.

You would do well not to state as facts that which is belief. To do otherwise is .. er .. presumptious

Being a Catholic is only the bare minimum requirement for one to have a chance of being saved (for those who have been exposed to the Bible and what it teaches).

I will have to account at some point for why I failed to adhere fully to the teachings of His Catholic church.

I asked you whether you considered yourself personally responsible for propagating the message you do. Say, in the case you are wrong in your belief.

uck51js9zml2yt

antiskeptic wrote: »

Seeing as that's a quote from Habakkuk I'm supposing it true for a bit more than two thousand years. Hence the OP asks: faith in what?

AbE. You can be a denomination of one - although if your views are substantially the same as others you would be a part of a denomination.

I thought i dealt with faith earlier in relation to Abraham.
Hebrews 11 is a good treatise on it.

Hinault is all about works . here's what Jesus said about works in John 6

"Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”"

It's as simp!e as that but of course hinault keeps telling us its not enough and the death of Jesus to save wasn't enough.
Well,here we have it from the horses mouth so to speak.
It's that simple believe in God.

keano_afc

hinault wrote: »

Presumption of God's mercy is a sin.

Being a Catholic is only the bare minimum requirement for one to have a chance of being saved (for those who have been exposed to the Bible and what it teaches).

I will have to account at some point for why I failed to adhere fully to the teachings of His Catholic church.
We are all sinners and only by the virtues faith, hope and charity will any of us have a chance of being with God for eternity.

Wowzers. Is there a source for this unscriptural nonsense?

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

And to which I've responded that knowing your are saved, if such a thing can be known, isn't presumption

It isn't presumption?

What is it if it isn't presumption.

The Catholic holds that the presumption of God's mercy is a sin. Those that are not catholic appear to hold that they will automatically receive God's mercy.

2090-2092 articulates the Churches view regarding presumption.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

And to which I've responded that knowing your are saved, if such a thing can be known, isn't presumption.

If knowing you're saved isn't presumption, what is it?

Of course it is presumption and it is view shared by many of 30,000+ derivations of Luther's heresy.

Presumption of God's mercy is addressed in The Catechism

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

And to which I've responded that knowing your are saved, if such a thing can be known, isn't presumption.

If knowing you're saved isn't presumption, what is it?

Of course it is presumption and it is view shared by many of 30,000+ derivations of Luther's heresy.

Presumption of God's mercy is addressed in The Catechism

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm

keano_afc

hinault wrote: »

It isn't presumption?

What is it if it isn't presumption.

The Catholic holds that the presumption of God's mercy is a sin. Those that are not catholic appear to hold that they will automatically receive God's mercy.

2090-2092 articulates the Churches view regarding presumption.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm

There are multiple, multiple verses of scripture that tell us we can be certain of our salvation. It's not a presumption, it's a scriptural fact.

antiskeptic

Faith Yellow Tween wrote: »

Hebrews ( and numerous other NT writers) says the Abraham believed God and righteousness was attributed to him.

That much seems clear.

So, what do you suppose is the common denominator between the means of salvation applied to Abraham and the means of salvation applied to a person today?

-

My own view (for this was how I was saved) is something along the lines of:

- a person need find themselves in a state of dire, dire need for which there is no solution to be found within themselves or the world. They might not identify their root problem as unrighteousness and their living in a fallen world (they might have no belief in the existence of God at that point) but are suffering its consequences. Addiction, sickness, sin in their lives, unbearable agony of any kind.

- they are in a state where Gods offer to resolve their core problem can be accepted. They have been brought, by circumstance, to the end of themselves.

- God speaks, the person believes what God says (because they are drowning men), they are saved.

The key point in this sequence is the arrival at end of self with no place left to turn. A person can turn to suicide. Or they can go mad. Or they can turn to God.

It fits Abraham and his need for an heir.

It fits all those NT examples who were desperate for one or other reason.

It fits with so many testimonies of those born again in our day

It would accommodate any who never heard of Jesus.

It would accommodate any, like me, who were antagonistic to the God and the gospel story. It would accommodate atheists who reject a cartoon-character version of God but would find the actual one so attractive.

It would, in short, accommodate all peoples, at all times, of all belief systems, classes and education. The same one way of salvation.

God spoke to Abraham in a different way that he spoke to people directly 2000 years ago in Israel. He speaks via his word today, a different medium today. He can reach anyone at any time by any medium he choses.

What do you reckon?

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

If knowing you're saved isn't presumption, what is it?

It's knowing you are saved. It's a piece of information. Very important and life transforming information, but just information.

Of course it is presumption

Do you do logic? IF God saves someone in life AND if he communicates that they have been saved and won't be lost ever THEN it's not presumption to hold that you have been irrevocably saved.

If the IF and AND are true then there's no issue. There is only one way to actually find out and that's die.

Presumption of God's mercy is addressed in The Catechism

Which presumes it's understanding is correct. Who's presumption is correct (don't answer, I'm speaking rhetorically)

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

Those that are not catholic appear to hold that they will automatically receive God's mercy.

This one holds that he has received God's mercy. The point of irrevocable salvation happened in 2001.

I wouldn't get too hung up on when the salvation is granted if it being granted turns eternal at some point.

If you're an eternal creature then life and afterlife is a continuum and the granting in this life (for good) or in the life to come (for good) effectively amounts to the same thing.

The critical thing is how one is to be saved, not when.

antiskeptic

Faith Yellow Tween wrote: »

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”"

It's as simple as that

What about all those who hadn't/haven't access to believe in the one he has sent?

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's knowing you are saved. It's a piece of information. Very important and life transforming information, but just information.

No.

Presumption of God's mercy is not simply a piece of information, it is a sin.

It is a sin, in part, because the presumption seeks to deny, or dilute, God's justice as retribution for sin.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which presumes it's understanding is correct. Who's presumption is correct?

No.
There is no presumption in the teaching upon what constitutes God's mercy, by His Church.

The Church has always taught that every single soul may be subject to God's mercy and justice.

The sacrament of confession was bestowed upon His Church by Jesus to allow the contrite and sincere penitent to access God's mercy in this life.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

This one holds that he has received God's mercy. The point of irrevocable salvation happened in 2001.

Have you attended the sacrament of confession since 2001?

If not, explain to me how the sins you have committed have been forgiven since 2001?

Every single one of us are sinners.

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

Have you attended the sacrament of confession since 2001?

If not, explain to me how the sins you have committed have been forgiven since 2001?

Every single one of us are sinners.

John's epistle says that if we confess our sin we have an advocate with God, Jesus Christ ,who will cleanse us from all sin.

As for salvation, Ephesians is clear that we are saved by grace and that grace is the gift of God.

Hebrews say that we can draw near with confidence.
There is no presumption, just the clear word of God as to the means of our Salvation.

He is the saviour of mankind, not the Church. The Church is His Bride, the gathering of His Sons which He brings to glory.
The problem lies in replacing the Word of God with doctrine and law and making these the foundation. This is something Jesus Himself criticised the pharisees over. Loading laws on the people which no one could live by in their totality.

uck51js9zml2yt

antiskeptic wrote: »

What about all those who hadn't/haven't access to believe in the one he has sent?

I'd have to look for the biblical refers but it clearly says that He will judge us according to what we've heard.
All of creation speaks of His Glory and as such none are without excuse.
Ecclesiastes also says He has put eternity in the hearts of man.
There are countless accounts of God raising up people in remote tribes who told of those who would come with the Gospel. There are accounts were God has appeared to people in closed countries to reveal Himself.
Something I've learned over 30_years is the lengths He will go to to save someone.
Its not so easy anymore to say someone died not knowing Him.
He died for all mankind, it stands to reason He'll do what He needs to do to make it a reality in their lives.
Granted some will refuse but its God who will Judge in that day. We only speak of Him.
My job is to be a steward of the grace entrusted to me.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

Have you attended the sacrament of confession since 2001?

If not, explain to me how the sins you have committed have been forgiven since 2001?

Every single one of us are sinners.

hinault, there is no discussion with you to be had. Your position rests on a personal belief about positions the RC church takes. Just as mine rests on personal belief about what the bible says and what my experiences tell me. Yet there is no acknowledgement of this on your part - even when questioned directly on the unavoidable possibility that you could be wrong.

What comes back is dogged repetition of church theology as if fact, perhaps as a way of avoiding the specific questions set

Which renders what you say, I'm sorry to say, boring.

uck51js9zml2yt

antiskeptic wrote: »

hinault, there is no discussion with you to be had. Your position rests on a personal belief about positions the RC church takes. Just as mine rests on personal belief about what the bible says and what my experiences tell me. Yet there is no acknowledgement of this on your part - even when questioned directly on the unavoidable possibility that you could be wrong.

What comes back is dogged repetition of church theology as if fact, perhaps as a way of avoiding the specific questions set

Which renders what you say, I'm sorry to say, boring.

I'm enjoying the debate, it sharpens us up.
We need to be ready to give an account of what we believe:)

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

hinault, there is no discussion with you to be had. Your position rests on a personal belief about positions the RC church takes. Just as mine rests on personal belief about what the bible says and what my experiences tell me. Yet there is no acknowledgement of this on your part - even when questioned directly on the unavoidable possibility that you could be wrong.

What comes back is dogged repetition of church theology as if fact, perhaps as a way of avoiding the specific questions set

Which renders what you say, I'm sorry to say, boring.

You cannot/will not explain how the sins that you have committed since 2001 have been forgiven.
(I don't know how the sins that you committed before 2001 have been forgiven either).

Church teaching as to the forgiveness of sins is clear. I've outlined that teaching to you earlier.
I suspect that you reject Church teaching on the forgiveness of sin.

You fail to provide any explanation as to how the forgiveness of sins is obtained in whatever belief system you adhere to.

This link is worth reading and perhaps considering.
http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/guide26.htm

antiskeptic

Faith Yellow Tween wrote: »

I'd have to look for the biblical refers but it clearly says that:

He will judge us according to what we've heard.

Interesting in the context of my last post to you.

Conscience is a voice. Everyone has one and it's calibrated (believe it or not, Richard Dawkins cited research to this end in The God Delusion. He intended a common morality to mean a common evolutionary ancestor. I don't think he meant a common-to-all Creator!) against a single standard. A standard not significantly affected by country, education, IQ, sex, religious views..

All of creation speaks of His Glory and as such none are without excuse.

Another voice. Don't men feel insignificant when faced with the depths of space. Doesn't it knock them off the pedestal they erect for themselves

Ecclesiastes also says He has put eternity in the hearts of man.

Another form of communication

That's the kind of thing I was getting at. God is speaking to men in all places and at all times and it's that and life circumstances which brings men to their knees - whether they believe in God or not before they are saved.

There are countless accounts of God raising up people in remote tribes who told of those who would come with the Gospel. There are accounts were God has appeared to people in closed countries to reveal Himself.

Seed planting. hmm

Its not so easy anymore to say someone died not knowing Him.

I'd say it's very easy. Heard of Jesus Christ like heard of Mohammed or Buddha or any other such thing. Ask the average Irish Catholic what the gospel is and you'd weep. Like a school lifetime of Irish and barely a word can be spoken.

To know something of the tale isn't the same as truly knowing him. The latter could only come, I'd argue, by being saved. (Spiritually) Blind people don't see Jesus.

My job is to be a steward of the grace entrusted to me.

Mine too. I just take too much sick leave.

I do think that propagating the most correct mechanism of salvation is critical however. A way that doesn't apply to all, that fills gaps with a fudge, is unhelpful to those who won't be reached that way. Perhaps that stewardship?

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

You cannot/will not explain how the sins that you have committed since 2001 have been forgiven.
(I don't know how the sins that you committed before 2001 have been forgiven either).

Church teaching as to the forgiveness of sins is clear. I've outlined that teaching to you earlier.
I suspect that you reject Church teaching on the forgiveness of sin.

You fail to provide any explanation as to how the forgiveness of sins is obtained in whatever belief system you adhere to.

I've explained that it my earlier post.

we have an advocate with God,Jesus Christ the Righteous. If we confess our sins,He is faithful and just to forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteous.
Just read 1 John.
As for how we are saved
Ephesians 2 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. "
Romans 6 "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
As you can see (or maybe not) its by grace, a free gift, not by works.
Salvation is a great leveller. We can do nothing to get it except come to Him and receive it.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

You cannot/will not explain how the sins that you have committed since 2001 have been forgiven.
(I don't know how the sins that you committed before 2001 have been forgiven either).

For one who fails to respond to direct questions at every turn, this is a bit rich. You've 4 means of salvation running, all but one of which has no means of salvation attaching to it. 1 out of 4 ain't good.

Church teaching as to the forgiveness of sins is clear. I've outlined that teaching to you earlier.
I suspect that you reject Church teaching on the forgiveness of sin.

I do reject most of what I've heard of RC teaching. When the fundamentals are off, so will all that flows from it. Foundations are important. Vital

You fail to provide any explanation as to how the forgiveness of sins is obtained in whatever belief system you adhere to.

The OP looks at the means of salvation as it affects all men. What is common to all / else some multi-means, different to men in places and time. You've not stepped up to the plate on that - you could hardly expect me to follow you down the rabbit hole when you've fudged the central question of the OP.

It's not at all that the question can't be addressed but it's you who has been questioned relating to the OP