I don’t understand this: If Christ forgives the world then he forgives non-Christians too...

The Gospel is very careful not to infer that Christ's sacrifice was made for the salvation of all, because not all shall receive salvation. Nobody can come to the Father except through Christ, so atheists are unquestionably damned. Even those who accept Christ are subject to damnation depending on many criteria regarding their actions on earth. The reason we are Christians are many-fold, principally because we believe that Christ is God and that there is no salvation except through the waters of baptism, but also because devotion to Christ and natural law is the only way to live a peaceful existence. You don't even need God to tell you this, Aristotle articulates as much in Nicomachean Ethics.

Ok so you are a Calvinist. So you ignore John 3:16.

Consider that there might be different levels of salvation.

Why don’t you read the other posts detailing how we are to become actual followers of Christ?

When Christ says "forgive them for they know not what they do" his sacrifice is for the world, but it is not an automatic golden ticket for everyone into heaven. Christ goes into hades and defeats death itself for us, but that does not mean the unrepentant wicked will be saved. There is no contradiction here.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life John 3 16

notthesamething.jpg

What, is that even an argument?

So Christ lied in your estimation? He would have had to if you suppose that He secretly had other criteria. OHH, I suppose that's why you brought up Mormons. Well, ok, have it your way, but the Mormons still have to confront the fact that if Christ had secret criteria, He lied, and hence is not worthy of any special reverence, not even as a generic religious leader. I'm sure though that Morons have a special apologetic to get around this little quandary though.

Nevertheless, it's not a good argument; you first have to assume that Christ lied, and by rejecting that Christ lied (as any Christian would) then the whole argument caves in on itself. In essence, all this means is that Christianity is the taking of Christ at His word, which should appear obvious. Once you take Christ at His word also, but for entirely different reasons, Mormonism and it's claims evaporate upon relatively trivial scrutiny; firstly Mormonism preaches adultery, which Christ obviously rejected as sin, if sin has nothing to do with God, then Mormonism has nothing to do with God (this is and remains true despite attempts by the Mormons to downplay their founder's polygamy).

Really it seems like a cult for sexual deviants, especially given that they say heaven is all about endless celestial sex, which sounds like the name of a shitty 80's pop band, but I digress.

Attached: 399b547d149057cd3e5cf1a39d2db37c231fdb742cfb0981db06ffde9310af98.jpg (400x400, 141.86K)

What tradition are you working from?

I never said it’s an “automatic ticket,” I’m just trying to understand theology. The culprits of deicide ARE your unrepentant wicked and Christ forgives them. What is the meaning of that verse in your estimation?

It’s simply not the common sense reading, so just… why? What does a theology of predestination even add, anyway? Everyone already knows that God is omniscient.

Mormonism was arbitrary. It has nothing to do with Mormonism. I might as well have substituted Buddhism. user argued that salvation requires effort, and I simply countered that every religion requires effort, even atheists often actively try to be better people, therefore it’s not an answer to my question. It’s not clear, say, why Christ would prefer to save practitioners of religion X over religion Y if both are groups of sinners seeking to better themselves morally. (NB This has nothing to do with “No one comes to the Father but by me” — Christ is still God).

The common sense reading is that salvation requires faith.

Forgiveness =\= salvation

God will forgive us but for us to be saved we must believe. We must repent. I gave you a clear cut quote.

Let me explain as simply as possible.

If people could fully return to God without Christ then it wasn't necessary for Him to come, yet He did come.

Now, God, being eternal, one, omnipotent, etc., can only do what is true, good and necessary, for He Himself is Truth, Goodness and, indeed, necessary—He simply is. God is not optional, and nor are His actions.

If we claim that Christ—God in the flesh—did not need to incarnate, this would be a logical contradiction, for God can, by His very nature, only do what is good and necessary.

Therefore, the claim that one can be saved without Christ—who, let me reiterate is God in the flesh—is an absurd statement. It is as insane a statement as saying 2+2=5. It does not actually make sense, because it presupposes God's actions are optional, which is false.

Attached: 6ae7ceefedc571380a909a01dac59f15e53d4e5bd8b933288a68a99c2cd45ff8.jpg (480x629, 36.85K)

Ah, I see the issue. You are confusing personal virtue with the fact of salvation. Salvation is not earned or merited by human effort, it had to be purchased by the blood of Christ Himself. Personal virtue only reflects our cooperation with the goodness of God, His grace and His love, it does not cause or generate these things.

Which quote? And is salvation really different from forgiveness?

I’m going to stop your right there.

No one is saying salvation is not all by and through Christ.

Internalize this, then re-read the question, which is asked on the assumption that Christ is fully God and that no one comes to the Father but by Him.

Does cooperation with grace not not require any effort? None? Salvation is utterly effortless? OK then, we’re back to OP. So then how does being a Christian (decidedly a difficult life, sell your possessions and carry your cross etc.) save you?

I think you quoted me twice my mistake anyway I will explain the issue to you.

Before Christ died everyone went to the same place pretty much. Moses and everyone from scripture were down in a section of hell. Now some people believe in a literal hell and some in a more spiritual hell, that’s not the question you asked though. When Christ died he went down here and then destroyed death. Then he brought up all these virtuous people from scripture trapped in hell to heaven and he rose from the dead. He destroyed death for us meaning the faithful will not go to hell anymore, they will go to heaven instead. Someone who has no faith in Christ will not go to heaven, if that was the case then what’s the point of pentecost? What’s the point of having a church in the first place if it is not for saving people? God is ready to forgive you, death has been destroyed for you if you only believe, but if you turn away Christ in his infinite mercy then you turn away Gods grace aka heaven. That’s a very basic, dumbed down explanation for you.

Attached: EAB5D41D-DEE5-4A9E-BB80-18748A1EFB57.jpeg (354x450, 103.24K)

Except He doesn't, because non-Christians don't ask for forgiveness. You're right in realizing that Christians aren't actually better people than non-Christians, but you're wrong in assuming that the quality of the man has anything to do with Christ's forgiveness of him. The difference between a saint and a serial killer is that the saint at least tries to be pleasing to God, even though he'll never be able to do that of his own effort. The serial killer, however, doesn't even try to care about God's opinion of him; he wants nothing to do with God, so God has nothing to do with him.

It does require some effort on your part. However, the effort you put forward isn't enough to make you actually deserve salvation.

Imagine a child cleaned his room, so his dad gave him a toy as a reward. All of the labor and money that went into actually acquiring the toy was put forth by the dad, but the dad wouldn't have given to the child without some effort on the child's part. That's how salvation through both faith and works works.

You have to ask forgiveness in order to even receive it (and acknowledge that person has the power to absolve one's sins to begin with). The invitation is indeed for all however.

That goes for all forgiveness, afaik. I've always been uneasy by those who say people are in the wrong if they don't forgive their persecutors all of the time, and try to turn the sin on victims instead. But Jesus never told us to flat out forgive anyone. He said, "If he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him." - Luke 17:4. Indeed, it would be a great thing to simply forgive people by default, but one isn't in the wrong for not doing so either. Jesus told us we are obligated when the offender comes back and repents. Otherwise, you are not a sinner for praying for justice.

I imagine that the same people who speak in platitudes and brush aside everyone's pain and says "you're evil if you don't always forgive", are the same people who also think God just absolves everyone without them asking. These aren't people who realize the severity of injustice and sin. They're unthinking and actually more merciless by brushing both the rights of God and the victims of the world aside so easily.

Correct, the second link should indeed be to .
That’s literally the question. Not understanding why Christianity saves people per se.

And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. (Luke 23:33,34)
What is your interpretation of this famous passage?
OK
Erm, that’s precisely what I didn’t assume.
>The difference between a saint and a serial killer is that the saint at least tries to be pleasing to God
My response is simply to point out that many non-Christians “try” to be good. And when I say “good” I mean even for goodness’ own sake, i.e. not expecting anything in return, which is Godly. So what? How is that salvific?

That analogy is a bit sneaky because it suggests a perfectly behaved child who doesn’t need forgiveness in the first place.

That’s off-topic, but it’s certainly not unChristian to pray for justice and for righteousness. At the same time, it’s Thy will be done (referring to God the Father), not our will be done. Jesus also asks us to forgive not seven but seventy times seven times (Matthew 18:22) and to forgive everyone unconditionally privately in prayer, even the unrepentant, so that God may forgive us (Mark 11:25). Forgiveness is pretty much the cardinal virtue of Christianity. It’s impossible to be a Christian and to hold a grudge because that counts as hypocrisy.

There's no such thing as a perfect analogy. The important part is that the child is incapable of earning anything on his own.

That scripture I pointed out is that he said seventy-seven times when/if the offender comes to you and repents. It's conditional.

"If he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him."

The offender needs to take the first step.

It isn't that I'm saying one should hold grudges though - forgiving them on the first step is admirable and would be going above the call of duty. It's just that no one is obligated to so unless the offender repents. And my point above was that sometimes people who speak with platitudes about forgiveness only do so because they simply can't identify with the victim. They're deaf to cries of justice. It's things like this that let predators and pedophiles and rapists and cheating spouses run free or even perpetuate their crimes, while all of the pain rests on their victims.

I don't mean to be off-topic though. I'm trying to relate it to how we approach God as well. Only by approaching God and acknowledging him do we receive mercy.

Yes, Jesus asked the Father to forgive his murderers even on the cross. But not all of them were forgiven. At Pentecost, many Jews of Jerusalem realized their error only later and indeed repented. They were given the opportunity to do this, which led to that forgiveness, but not all of them took it. It would be wrong to say that all of them received the same reward, and there was no difference between the ones who repented and the ones who carried on mocking Christ while Jerusalem eventually burned.

What if someone behaves in a Christian way (follows the commandments, bulwark against fags/degeneracy/etc) but lives in a very remote area/has never heard of Christianity, would that mean in a way he has faith in Christ?

In that case I don’t get it. Jesus is the one who earns the money? What?

Luke 17:4 has them sinning against us seven times per day. And it commanding us to forgive them if they repent is not a license to hold a grudge against them if they don’t repent. Matthew 18:22 has unconditional forgiveness seventy-times-seven times (a metaphor for infinity). Mark 11:25 and Matthew 6:14–15 both also command unconditional forgiveness of others when we pray to God. Note also that there is no sin that Jesus says we should never forgive our neighbour for, not even sins against the Holy Spirit. The only unpardonable sin is against God, and only God reserves the right to withhold forgiveness, we do not reserve that right. So your statements
are just wrong. You are espousing Talmudic morality.

Getting back on topic, I have done some thinking and will share my latest. I think that far too often “Christian” is lazily used as a metaphor for “saved” when that is in no way true. Even as there are those who call Christ “Lord” whom Christ will rebuke (Matthew 7:22-23), so too must there be people who would be morally willing to have Christ as their Lord who don’t self-identify as “Christian” or even think about Jesus explicitly (although I doubt one would happen on such people outside of cultural Christendom — this would be a purely Western phenomenon). For it occurs to me that there is the extreme tendency in Christian discourse to turn salvation into something legalistic, as if Christianity were a second Judaism. It’s not. Whomever Christ likes, the same is saved, and there is nothing more to it than that. The New Testament is a guide to show us what Christ loves, how He reasons, and who God is. It’s NOT executable instructions or a legal document showing how to gain His love. Using it this way, using the New Testament to achieve a measure of self-assuredness, is the worst thing we can do, because it defeats the whole Spirit of the thing. Yet what percentage of Christians are self-assured in their Christianity like a proper Pharisee? Why do Christians have the reputation of being judgmental? “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” (Galatians 5:4) Yet how many Christians treat the new covenant as a “second law”? This is why I am asking out loud whether “Christianity” as it is commonly known has any saving power per se, and suggesting that it doesn’t.

I don’t personally think that anyone who lives outside of Christendom or who hasn’t had exposure to Christianity/the Holy Spirit can have implicit faith in Christ. E.g. You would be surprised how many Asians have an instinctual hatred of God.

In that case I don’t get it. Jesus is the one who earns the money? What?

Luke 17:4 has them sinning against us seven times per day. And it commanding us to forgive them if they repent is not a license to hold a grudge against them if they don’t repent. Matthew 18:22 has unconditional forgiveness seventy-times-seven times (a metaphor for infinity). Mark 11:25 and Matthew 6:14–15 both also command unconditional forgiveness of others when we pray to God. Note also that there is no sin that Jesus says we should never forgive our neighbour for, not obstinance, nor even sins against the Holy Spirit. The only unpardonable sin is against God, and only God reserves the right to withhold forgiveness, we do not reserve that right. Finally, do you like being forgiven? All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. (Matthew 7:12) So your statements
are just wrong. You are espousing Talmudic morality.

Getting back on topic, I have done some thinking and will share my latest. I think that far too often “Christian” is lazily used as a metaphor for “saved” when that is in no way true. Even as there are those who call Christ “Lord” whom Christ will rebuke (Matthew 7:22,23), so too must there be people who would be morally willing to have Christ as their Lord, and who have faith in the morality of Christ, yet who don’t self-identify as “Christian,” perhaps because intellectually they are skeptical of the existence of God, or the moral track record of Christ’s followers (although I doubt one would happen upon such people outside of cultural Christendom — this would be a purely Western phenomenon). For it occurs to me that there is the extreme tendency in Christian discourse to turn salvation into something legalistic, as if Christianity were a second Judaism. It’s not. Whomever Christ loves, the same is saved, and there is nothing more to it than that, because Christ IS the Law. The New Testament is a guide to show us what Christ loves, how He reasons, and who God is. One reads it to see if one loves God. It’s not a recipe book. It’s NOT executable instructions or a legal document showing how to gain His love. Using it this way, using the New Testament to achieve a measure of self-assuredness, is the worst thing we can do, because it defeats the whole Spirit of the thing. Yet what percentage of Christians are self-assured in their Christianity like a proper Pharisee? Why do Christians have the reputation of being judgmental? “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” (Galatians 5:4) Yet how many Christians treat the new covenant as a “second law”? Protestants even treat “justification by faith” legalistically, as absurd as that is (even the demons believe in Christ). This is why I am asking out loud whether “Christianity” as it is commonly known has any saving power per se, and suggesting that it doesn’t.

I don’t personally think that anyone who lives outside of Christendom or who hasn’t had exposure to Christianity/the Holy Spirit can have implicit faith in Christ. E.g. You would be surprised at how many Asians have an instinctual hatred of God. Such people are truly condemned — even their own religions admits this (“life is suffering,” infinite reincarnation, etc. etc.).

Attached: D5C40463-B190-4D21-82F1-C907A878991F.jpeg (298x397, 49.85K)

This post is total nonsense, you clearly don't understand what is being posited.

Hum, what? I literally didn’t even say anything in that post. The absence of statements can’t be “nonsense.”

You seem to be distorting what I said as if it meant we should hold grudges or withholding forgiveness. Indeed, we are commanded to forgive, as many times as we are asked. Even infinitely. I'm just saying it's conditional on someone actually asking (just as God's forgiveness is conditional on our own humility to him). God hears cries of justice too. There's myriad scripture passages about that too. I mean, probably half of the psalms are about deliverance - like David being hounded in the countryside by Saul. David always made a point to never harm Saul, and even give him the benefit of the doubt when Saul appeared to be in his right mind again, but David did cry for justice many times and ask for some end to that debacle. Unfortunately, it ended with Saul's life (and didn't need to be that way, and David showed his mercy by mourning for him), but that too was an answer to prayer for David.

By ignoring victims, we get the "church" as it is sometimes today: A bunch of hippies at best, who don't work on behalf of the victims. People who don't like the "friction" a damaged person causes and just silences them. Disinterested clergy who just want to look "above it all" and say God forgives everything. Even if the offender doesn't change or ask for mercy. The entire pedophile scandal is full of this depravity, for example. Literal decades of outright ignoring justice. This isn't what God wants, and because men are too incompetent, he's decided to speed up Justice himself.

Do our enemies ask us for forgiveness? Does Jesus ask us to pray for them anyway? Is it possible to pray for someone without first forgiving them?
I hate to break it to you but God when he incarnated and tabernacled among us took the form of a long-haired hippie. An extremely conservative and devout hippie, but with many aspects ascribed to modern hippies nonetheless.
In theory, it’s impossible for a pious a Christian to be truly “damaged” as they are regenerated and conformed to the Word through repentance, prayer, fasting, etc.

We can pray for them. It doesn't mean you can't ask for justice. They're not incompatible. It's a matter of conditions, as I keep saying.

Jesus was not a hippy. Free love, rampant pleasure chasing, fiscal carelessness to the point of societal collapse, broken families, abortion, selfishness, etc.. No, Jesus was not a hippy.

Like I said, many in the modern church are careless and don't care about victims. Tell a child who has been raped that it's "All good, bro!" Give them your best John Lennon impression…. or something (*shrug*). All you care about by saying things like this is looking above it all and spouting platitudes. Aim higher. And having some blanket idea of forgiveness is not high minded. Forgiveness is only great when one perceives the crime and pain that sin causes as great as well.

I didn’t say He was a hippie, just He looked like one. That being said…
Free gift of salvation
Maybe not rampant, but read Luke 7:36-50.
Matthew 6:25-34
Jesus’ ministry was thoroughly apocalyptic.
Jesus commands us to “hate” our families.
Obviously not.
It’s not 1:1, but the parallels are there and can’t be denied. Did you think Jesus was like a conservative businessman? Or perhaps a Christian in the manner of the Pope, adorned with jewels? Ha. Besides, you only said “hippie” in the sense of forgiving everyone for everything all the time, which leads to…
Of course. No one is more sensitive to the suffering of man than Christ Jesus. This is why his forgiveness is all the more remarkable.

To drive the point home, I reference another user:
If you would want other people to forgive you of your sins, then you must forgive others of their sins. Only if you do this will God forgive YOU of your sins. Repentance and forgiveness go hand-in-hand. It’s a package.
That’s sin. Plain and simple. Please reconsider that your philosophy of forgiveness may verge on Talmudic. A helpful resource may be this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgiveness#Abrahamic

Compare Judaism to Christianity and notice how your approach fits squarely in the Jewish category.

Christbros, I’ve reached my own conclusion: Christianity is salvific per se because only by knowing the one true God, the only God, and by cooperating with the grace of this God, is a human being able to experience true love and peace, which is to same as being saved. So it’s not a matter of “effort” so much as of participation in the only real life there is, which is life eternal in the Lord Christ Jesus. God bless.

That hippy parallel is an American meme. Angels don't shout "Holy, Holy, Holy!" at the sight of a hippy. Prophets don't weep and say "Woe is me" and curse themselves for having been so unclean to be in the presence of a hippy. Women don't cry and anoint the feet of hippies. Same goes for "conservative businessmen". Not even a bishop creates a fraction of the impression of Holiness that Christ does - and the little they do is because of Christ as well. It's not their own holiness, but the holiness of the office Christ gave to them (and can easily take away).

Every example and image we could give would be a joke. And I think you know that. Christ is God.

Hippies don't truly espouse forgiveness. They're selfish and just dismissive. Anyone who has a serious grievance would be written off by a hippy for "disrupting their vibes". It's ultimately centered on themselves and their sense of pleasure. Not forgiveness or virtue. They only try to appear that way, but their actions are usually self indulgent and careless. For a popular example, think of Jenny in Forrest Gump. She was nothing but a vapid, self-indulgent heartbreaker, who only learned some humanity when she was ready to die.

Everyone is saved. Not just Christians. It just takes many lifetimes.

I don’t like hippies, and I don’t think Christ is a hippie. You are the one that introduced the word, and I agree with you. But I’m not sure if we’ve converged on the same answer when it comes to forgiveness. Did you think about responding to the latter half of ?

Wrong.