Is the common idea of salvation really Biblical?

[prema]

This may seem like a really silly topic, but I've been having a surprising amount of difficulty in getting a satisfactory answer from Christians I've been talking with.

The typical narrative of the Christian journey preached by mainstream churches goes more or less like this:

1. Accept Jesus as Lord and Savior,
2. and you will receive the Holy Spirit,
3. so that you can live a godly life,
4. which the Lord will judge on the final day to prove whether your faith was real,
5. because true faith in Jesus determines whether you spend eternity in heaven or hell.

Christians usually quote a lot of Bible verses to explain that all this is God's plan of salvation for sinners, but I don't see how this doctrine is anything more than conjecture. Does anyone know the reasoning behind why the above narrative is supposed to be a coherent statement of Biblical salvation?

[Abelard]

Here is how I see it.

First, reverse 1 & 2. Accepting Jesus Christ will not be conjecture to you then, although it typically appears so to others.
1. Receive the Holy Spirit,
2. and you will accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
3. so that you can live a godly life,
4. which the Lord will judge on the final day to prove whether your faith was real,
5. because true faith in Jesus determines whether you spend eternity in heaven or hell.

Second, #3 us not right. Anyone can live a godly life. Change it to:
1. Receive the Holy Spirit,
2. and you will accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
3. You will experience a complete change in your psychology, and the desire to obey the Will of God will supplant your natural desires.
4. which the Lord will judge on the final day to prove whether your faith was real,
5. because true faith in Jesus determines whether you spend eternity in heaven or hell.

#4 should be changed to:
1. Receive the Holy Spirit,
2. and you will accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
3. You will experience a complete change in your psychology, and the Will of God will supplant your natural desires.
4. Jesus will justify your faith and forgive your sins.
5. because true faith in Jesus determines whether you spend eternity in heaven or hell.

Fix #5 and you're all set.
1. Receive the Holy Spirit,
2. and you will accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
3. You will experience a complete change in your psychology, and the Will of God will supplant your natural desires.
4. Jesus will justify your faith and forgive your sins.
5. As long as you continie to remain open to the Holy Spitit, your intentions will remain pure and your salvation is assured.

[prema]

Well, that makes more sense than the narrative I originally outlined (which was roughly pieced together from the various concepts of salvation I've heard before). I think the main improvement is that your version presents salvation as the work of Spirit and the grace of Christ more than man's personal effort or decision.

However, there's one thing I don't quite get - your step #5. It seems to imply that salvation is not guaranteed, even with a believer who has already received the Holy Spirit in step #1. But doesn't receiving the Holy Spirit in itself guarantee eternal salvation? Otherwise, I would wonder whether Jesus' sacrifice on the cross may have been wasted in the case of some individuals.


Also, I should probably get back to what my first post was concerned with (perhaps I should have been more clear): It seems that the journey of salvation (as you've outlined) is basically accepted by most mainstream chruches as essential to the Gospel, but how is that narrative even based on the Bible? By what reasoning process?

The reason why the narrative seems like conjecture to me is because most of the verses I've heard quoted in support of it seem to be pulled from various books of the New Testament, from contexts which are a bit too varied and not always related to the issue of eternal salvation (what is salvation if not eternal?). Each of those books were written with different purposes in mind, and I have a hard time seeing how any one or more of them together were intended as some sort of instruction manual on eternal salvation.

It seems to me that most (if not all) of those books were written to deal with intra-church issues, which would make any apparent "plan" of salvation a matter of conjecture and circumstantial evidence. I mean, even if you had all the biographies and personal letters of Ernest Hemingway, does that necessarily give any coherent plan on becoming a good writer? And even if, through the power of exegesis, such a plan could be coherently formulated, wouldn't it still be a product of conjecture? So, regarding the New Testament (which is mostly made up of biographies and personal letters), I don't see why preachers or theologians felt that those scriptures were ever meant to provide a step-by-step plan of salvation.

If my concerns have any validity, then there may be yet another complication: Translations of the Bible throughout the centuries may have been corrupted by the presumption that God's specific plan of salvation is somehow revealed in there. I guess that's what I'm wondering about the most: Is our present concept of the "Gospel" really the revelation of God to man, or just man to man? If the latter is the case, then maybe the Gospel being preached in most churches is actually preventing people from experiencing the Holy Spirit. Once upon a time, people thought that salvation could be earned by paying money to the Pope, so maybe Christians' present concept of faith is just one of the more persistent examples of Bible interpreters jumping to conclusions.

Maybe there's a fundamental error in that concept of faith. The Protestant Reformation seemed to revolutionize things by teaching that salvation is by faith alone. But most Christians I see today seem to think that faith is a matter of doggedly hanging on to a belief in doctrine. To me, that sounds like the impotent sort of faith created in the human imagination, and not the kind of faith inspired by any Spirit worthy of being called holy. Maybe I'm ranting a bit here, but I hope you basically see where I'm coming from.

Btw, although this is a reply to your post, Abelard, I'm really looking for anyone who can address this topic, especially concerning the rational connection between the above 5-step narrative and the Bible passages that are supposed to support its validity.

[Abelard]

However, there's one thing I don't quite get - your step #5. It seems to imply that salvation is not guaranteed, even with a believer who has already received the Holy Spirit in step #1. But doesn't receiving the Holy Spirit in itself guarantee eternal salvation? Otherwise, I would wonder whether Jesus' sacrifice on the cross may have been wasted in the case of some individuals.

The specifics of sanctification are a major point of contention between denominations.

I will let others comment further and expand our mutual understanding.

[Bernie]

Hi prema,

You ask some good questions. I'll take a stab at 'em.

there's one thing I don't quite get - your step #5. It seems to imply that salvation is not guaranteed, even with a believer who has already received the Holy Spirit in step #1. But doesn't receiving the Holy Spirit in itself guarantee eternal salvation? Otherwise, I would wonder whether Jesus' sacrifice on the cross may have been wasted in the case of some individuals.

Yes, it seems you're well aware of the logical inconsistencies imposed on salvation by the traditional picutre, but folks keep hanging with it.

It seems that the journey of salvation (as you've outlined) is basically accepted by most mainstream chruches as essential to the Gospel, but how is that narrative even based on the Bible? By what reasoning process?

Let's go back to Abelard's final five points....

1. Receive the Holy Spirit,
2. and you will accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
3. You will experience a complete change in your psychology, and the Will of God will supplant your natural desires.
4. Jesus will justify your faith and forgive your sins.
5. As long as you continie to remain open to the Holy Spitit, your intentions will remain pure and your salvation is assured.

Your question is a bit vague, Prema. What in the above do you see as inconsistent with what is in the Bible? [BTW, I do not necessarily endorse all Abelard's five points as they stand; this is just our starting reference point...for example, I think the 'complete' is innacurate in describing the change faith brings....]

It seems to me that most (if not all) of those books were written to deal with intra-church issues, which would make any apparent "plan" of salvation a matter of conjecture and circumstantial evidence. I mean, even if you had all the biographies and personal letters of Ernest Hemingway, does that necessarily give any coherent plan on becoming a good writer?

As an esotericist, my answers will likely step some distance outside tradition's, but I believe there's a higher structure woven by God throughout both Testaments of the Bible in which an amazingly consistent picture is painted in all books. Because the Bible is a spiritual book under God's control, the intended meaning authors were inspired to record is merely the base meaning and not, as our dogmatic literalist brethren often claim, the only valid one.

Example: to my thinking, Ezekiel is referring to the same principle in 21:3-5:
"and say to the land of Israel, 'Thus says the LORD, "Behold, I am against you; and I shall draw My sword out of its sheath and cut off from you the righteous and the wicked. Because I shall cut off from you the righteous and the wicked, therefore My sword shall go forth from its sheath against all flesh from south to north. Thus all flesh will know that I, the LORD, have drawn My sword out of its sheath. It will not return to its sheath again."'
....that Paul teaches in Rom 8:1-7:
1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
4 in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so;

The rational connection here is one of good old traditional theological dualism, spirit and body. I think Ezekiel is in esoteric [hidden] language describing the spiritual surgery necessary to salvation...the cutting off from human spirit of falsity or evil [wicked] and the righteous [true or good] by use of literal structure--the destruction of Israel historically by Nebuchadnezzar. These are fragmental existents in every human spirit. Paul's contradistinction between "flesh" and "spirit" describe the same elements. What tradition misses IMHO is the proper place to ascribe these teachings...they either fit salvation's temporal sense [which pertains to the nature of mutability] or it's eternal sense [pertaining to immutability].

Too much to get into now, but v. 1..."There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." carries both connotations....there is no [eternal] condemnation for those in Christ, which decree in the changeability of time translates into 'there is now no condemnation to the extent one is in Christ [regenerate], which leaves room for mutability or falling from grace. This is reasonable in light of Paul's warning us that "the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so"

The fact that the mind can yet be 'set on the flesh' or evil identifies that evil still exists internally, which Paul confirms in Rom 7. I take from this that regeneration is identical to salvation, and it is both fragmental and progressive. Popular thinking today among many Christians is to take vv. 1 & 10 to impose an actual literal cleanliness on human spirit, a 'done deal' that just doesn't jibe in a variety of ways. I believe sin follows the causitive path of spirit->mind->reason->act. If spirit were completely 'clean' or regenerate, there would be no "flesh" to warn us away from. Paul was identifying falsity and truth [good/evil] as simultaneous components within human spirit when after noting the particular is by faith "in Christ", he exhorts us to yet avoid the flesh/evil...thus sending to ruin the notion that a literal and whole regeneration of the spirit was accomplished in the 'born again' event or process.

The Hemingway thing doesn't work as it's not an inspired text and not subject to the rules that goven normative truth.

Sorry so long, I tend to get carried away. Enough for now...is this at all what you're looking to find, or have I missed your point and gone spinning off into the deep end?

[prema]

Your question is a bit vague, Prema. What in the above do you see as inconsistent with what is in the Bible?

It's easy enough to quote verses to say that those steps to salvation are based on the Bible. I used to do that a lot when I was evangelizing for the church I went to. But people throughout history have been able to pick and choose a set of passages to support their own particular ideologies. Some of the more obvious examples are those who convinced themselves that Biblical "prophecies" predict the end of the world on a particular date; and, of course, most of these have already been proven false interpretations.

Similarly, I want to know the rationale behind why the commonly accepted "plan" of salvation is any more legitimately Biblical than any number of examples inflated exegesis that have plagued Christian history. I realize there are some variations in the doctrine of salvation among mainstream Christians, but right now, I'm just looking for anybody who is able to explain their idea of the salvation process and, more importantly, is able to outline the Biblical basis for their particular view. This is the second Christian forum I've presented this topic to, and I'm really surprised that nobody has been willing (or able?) to give such a basic defense of their faith. This is why I strongly suspect that the mainstream doctrine of salvation is a revelation of man to man and not from God. It seems that the vast majority of Christians are simply accepting the reasonings preached by their spiritual parents or church leaders. Nobody seems to know how to grow their own spiritual fruit anymore; they think food comes from the supermarket.

The Hemingway thing doesn't work as it's not an inspired text and not subject to the rules that goven normative truth.

I brought up Hemingway to contend that the Bible doesn't really qualify as normative truth, as far as the issue of eternal salvation goes. I definitely agree with most Christians that following Biblical doctrines can transform a person's life (just as following the doctrines of various other religions, I would add), but the promise of eternal salvation goes way beyond the field of such mundane self-help concerns, and I would contend that the Bible is merely an artifact of a religion which granted eternal salvation to early Christians, but the Bible itself has neither normative nor practical value to grant such salvation. To put it bluntly, the Bible is not any sort of instruction book on salvation. Moreover, Jesus was sent to bring eternal salvation, but the Bible was not, so it seems illogical to me that Christians today should try to base their assurance of salvation on any sort of faith or obedience to the apparent teachings of particular Biblical passages.

And as much as I appreciate what it takes for you to give a thoughtful response, I think that the issue of literal or esoteric interpretation is, on a practical level, irrelevant to the topic I'm bringing up. Different people can base their concept of the salvation "plan" on varying degrees of literal and esoteric interpretation. But I would question any of them by saying that following any such plan, no matter whether it is based literally or esoterically, involves, on the practical level, an assumption of salvation based on belief and/or obedience to that salvation doctrine. I would say that the Bible doesn't really support the idea that belief and/or obedience to that doctrine can lead to eternal salvation.

[Bernie]

I want to know the rationale behind why the commonly accepted "plan" of salvation is any more legitimately Biblical than any number of examples inflated exegesis that have plagued Christian history. I realize there are some variations in the doctrine of salvation among mainstream Christians, but right now, I'm just looking for anybody who is able to explain their idea of the salvation process and, more importantly, is able to outline the Biblical basis for their particular view. This is the second Christian forum I've presented this topic to, and I'm really surprised that nobody has been willing (or able?) to give such a basic defense of their faith.

On the other hand, I'm not at all surprised that you don't generate a lot of response with these questions. Theology boards serve a relatively narrow function in the exchange of ideas. They're more of a "ten second sound bite" role and you're asking questions that seem to me (can't speak for anyone else) to be first, too widely defined--salvation is the most considerable of Christain doctrines and doesn't lend itself to easy presentation/manipulation for purposes of general debate. Second, you appear to bring some antagonistic presuppositions into the discussion, and lots of folks would probably avoid discussion with you on this basis. When you combine the two, it's easy to see why you may be having trouble getting answers to your questions.


[quote]This is why I strongly suspect that the mainstream doctrine of salvation is a revelation of man to man and not from God.[quote]
What would be the point of debating salvation with someone who rejects a fundamental belief in the authority of Scriture?

It seems that the vast majority of Christians are simply accepting the reasonings preached by their spiritual parents or church leaders.

So what's new under the sun?

I brought up Hemingway to contend that the Bible doesn't really qualify as normative truth, as far as the issue of eternal salvation goes.

And there you present an immediate stumbling block to discussion from many Christians, including me....unbelief vs. belief. If the Bible carries no weight in prescriptive issues, why would you even want to debate the Christian doctrine of salvation?

the promise of eternal salvation goes way beyond the field of such mundane self-help concerns, and I would contend that the Bible is merely an artifact of a religion which granted eternal salvation to early Christians, but the Bible itself has neither normative nor practical value to grant such salvation. To put it bluntly, the Bible is not any sort of instruction book on salvation.

I appreciate your honesty, prema, but I tend to avoid what are to me meaningless [and endless] discussion with unbelievers. The Bible is nothing but an instruction book on salvation.

Moreover, Jesus was sent to bring eternal salvation, but the Bible was not, so it seems illogical to me that Christians today should try to base their assurance of salvation on any sort of faith or obedience to the apparent teachings of particular Biblical passages.

Now you're not making sense. Jesus isn't here in the flesh today, due to inherent falsity in our makeup we humans don't listen well on a spiritual level and the Bible is authored by those Christians generally believe to be inspired by God. It's therefore natural that one turn to the writings of those involved in the formulation of the Scriptures (including those who recorded the life and sayings of Jesus) to see if an acceptable synthesis can be drawn and assembled from them. I and many others believe the Bible adequately fulfills this purpose. You appear to reject the basis upon which this formulation is given credence, so what's the point in arguing? Frankly, what's the point of me or anyone else formulating an in-depth presentation of our belief in Biblical salvation based on the fundamental tenets of the faith (which would be my basis)....you've already noted that you reject the Bible's authority, having formerly entertained some traditional form of belief yourself. Why would anyone waste the time? I'm not being cantankerous, only posing an honest question.

BTW, that you automatically also reject a 'salvation "plan" on varying degrees of literal and esoteric interpretation' makes discussion even more fruitless. If the Bible is a spiritual book in any real sense, you automatically reject the assumptions in unbelief which lead to what is to me the valid explanation of its tenets.

I tend to stay away from debates with unbelievers, prema. Once one understands their basic premise--that of the unbeliever insisting upon setting the rules in the arena into which the Christian is invited to participate, that only a materialistic/physicalist interpretation of reality is valid--the whole thing becomes pointless and a waste of time. I can't see that you're doing anything different here, frankly.

[God_is_personal]

That five-step "plan" is >
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . what you make it,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . how you take it >
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .just don't YOU fake it!!!

If you get too technical picking about the words, you can get into a problem.

Now, YES, I'm satisfied that we have what I call the born-again CULTURE, now...of ones who have merely copy-catted what their pastors and parents told them to do, and are culturally conforming in churches, passing themselves for Christians, even becoming ordained, etc. Perhaps like this > say a prayer, and you are guaranteed forever to not lose your salvation, etc. Ask Jesus into your life and BELIEVE He has come in, and spend the rest of your life assuming you're assured of Heaven and can't lose this.

But, I offer, if you really offer yourself to Jesus, NOT just saying some copy-cat prayer, He will receive you and it will be PERSONAL. You will experience personal sharing and communication with Him. And it says, "But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (1 Corinthians 6:17) So if God REALLY brings you together with Jesus, you are "joined" to Him, even "one spirit" > THIS is VERY intimate...in actual contact with God Himself who is so unbelievably and specially sweet and kind and pleasant > so this will be obvious...how you are in this pleasantness of His own peace and joy of loving Him AND caring about ALL other people > "'For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?'" (in Matthew 5:46) So you will change into a person loving ALL people...IF you have joined to God's own Holy Spirit. This will be obvious.

As for if you can lose this > if God has joined you to Him, this will make you very different, so you can't change back; so you ARE guaranteed not to lose this. God is not just all of a sudden going to decide to let go of you so you stop being loving and then get back into Satanic fako love stuff of just using people for what you want. And marriage is like this, too, I think, IF it is HUMBLE matrimony.

[prema]

*sigh* Again, I'm still surprised that nobody has responded to my basic request in this topic. I'll probably keep fishing like this for a few more weeks. Btw, if a moderator is reading this, I was wondering if moving this thread to another category on the boards would help get me the kind of response I'm looking for. I don't know...maybe the Unorthodox Theology forum doesn't have the kind of Christian apologists who can answer this topic?

On the other hand, I'm not at all surprised that you don't generate a lot of response with these questions. Theology boards serve a relatively narrow function in the exchange of ideas. They're more of a "ten second sound bite" role and you're asking questions that seem to me (can't speak for anyone else) to be first, too widely defined--salvation is the most considerable of Christain doctrines and doesn't lend itself to easy presentation/manipulation for purposes of general debate. Second, you appear to bring some antagonistic presuppositions into the discussion, and lots of folks would probably avoid discussion with you on this basis. When you combine the two, it's easy to see why you may be having trouble getting answers to your questions.

I'm repeating myself here, but if you really look at what I'm asking for at this point, it's not much:

1. Someone who is willing to explain their concept of the salvation plan
2. and who is also willing to explain why they believe the plan is clearly biblical.

I don't agree that I've been antagonistic. And my questions shouldn't be too difficult for those Christians who have taken the trouble to study the scriptural basis for their faith. Anyway, there's really no point in making my character an issue here. I may be proposing a challenge, but I'm not out to insult anyone. Besides, doesn't the Bible say that Christians should be ready to give a defense of their faith?

What would be the point of debating salvation with someone who rejects a fundamental belief in the authority of Scriture?

I've said nothing about rejecting the authority of Scripture. I'm only questioning the process of interpretation which resulted in the mainstream concept of salvation. Is that process really inspired by God, or is it just another episode in man's long history of inspiring (and deceiving) himself with his own cleverness?

Christians use terms like "fundamental belief" and "authority of scripture"; but, for example, there was once a time when the popes abused their power to absurd proportions, and they persecuted anyone who questioned the "fundamental belief" in the "authority of scripture" which supported the abuses of the papacy. After a while, people realized there was nothing "fundamental" about the "authority" of certain Bible interpreters.

And there you present an immediate stumbling block to discussion from many Christians, including me....unbelief vs. belief. If the Bible carries no weight in prescriptive issues, why would you even want to debate the Christian doctrine of salvation?

I don't understand what you mean by unbelief vs. belief. If I disbelieve that the Bible is a prescription for eternal salvation, then am I not still able to question the believers about the basis of their belief? And aren't the believers still able to respond with a rationale for their belief?

I appreciate your honesty, prema, but I tend to avoid what are to me meaningless [and endless] discussion with unbelievers.

You have a right not to talk to me, of course. As for myself, I intend to keep looking for a Christian who will.

You know, this reminds me of someone on another forum who told me that he doesn't debate or argue his faith. I'm not saying you're really like this, Bernie, but some Christians I talk to seem to think that believing in something without questioning it is enough to qualify as true faith. And some would say it's even pointless to debate spiritual issues with non-believers. But I refuse to believe that Christianity became what it is by relying so much on "preaching to the choir". Somewhere behind that thick shroud of "faith", there has to be a coherent rationale for believing. Although I would concede that eternal salvation is definitely possible without being aware of a biblical rationale for faith, I think there at least had to be a rationale connecting the Bible to the present day salvation doctrine. I'm trying to see how valid that rationale is (assuming someone can inform me about it).

Btw, in case anyone is wondering. I believe in God, the power of Christ, and the potential for eternal salvation. It's mostly the potential for human error in Bible interpretation that gives me cause for doubt.

The Bible is nothing but an instruction book on salvation.

I hope you don't mean that as categorically as it sounds. For example, much (some might say all) of the New Testament was written for a Christian audience. But why would believers who are already saved need an instruction book on salvation?

Now you're not making sense. Jesus isn't here in the flesh today, due to inherent falsity in our makeup we humans don't listen well on a spiritual level and the Bible is authored by those Christians generally believe to be inspired by God. It's therefore natural that one turn to the writings of those involved in the formulation of the Scriptures (including those who recorded the life and sayings of Jesus) to see if an acceptable synthesis can be drawn and assembled from them. I and many others believe the Bible adequately fulfills this purpose. You appear to reject the basis upon which this formulation is given credence, so what's the point in arguing?

Again, I don't reject the Scripture. And I don't even dispute that the authors of the Bible were inspired by God. I'm questioning the process of interpretation which the commonly accepted salvation doctrine is based on.

Also, if it's true that humans don't listen well on a spiritual level, then how is a verbal document (subject to errors of interpretation) like the Bible supposed to be a remedy to that problem? Maybe listening on the spiritual level is the better way to go. I'm thinking of John 5:24. The "word" in that verse is translated (I believe mistranslated) from the Greek term "logos".

Frankly, what's the point of me or anyone else formulating an in-depth presentation of our belief in Biblical salvation based on the fundamental tenets of the faith (which would be my basis)....you've already noted that you reject the Bible's authority, having formerly entertained some traditional form of belief yourself. Why would anyone waste the time? I'm not being cantankerous, only posing an honest question.

Yeah, I understand. Life's too short to be wrangling with people or subjects where there is no foundation for mutual understanding.

But to be clear, in this matter between you and me, if you believe that the biblical basis of the current salvation doctrine is validated not by reason but by faith alone, then it makes sense for you not to bother with me (also, I would be forced to conclude that your belief is pure dogma). But if you believe that there's a clear rationale behind the biblical validity of the current salvation doctrine, then you may still be in a position to put my doubts at rest.

BTW, that you automatically also reject a 'salvation "plan" on varying degrees of literal and esoteric interpretation' makes discussion even more fruitless. If the Bible is a spiritual book in any real sense, you automatically reject the assumptions in unbelief which lead to what is to me the valid explanation of its tenets.

My statement about literal and esoteric interpretations was just a logical extension of my statement that the Bible is not an instruction book on eternal salvation. Just because I see no practicable plan of salvation in the Bible doesn't mean that I reject the Bible's many spiritual merits. The Bible has great spiritual value in terms of morality and inspiration, but I think the most important thing the Bible gives us is a strong testimony of the existence of life in the Holy Spirit along with some tantalizing clues into the experience of such a holy life.

Maybe that's the major difference in my point of view. Most Christians believe (as I do) that salvation is by faith. But while they usually think of faith as a persistent belief in a verbal doctrine (which is the "plan" of salvation supposedly taught in the Bible), I believe the Bible is talking about the kind of faith which is based on direct and nonverbal experience of the Holy Spirit. Today's common idea of salvation sounds like it relies too much on a book, a creed, or agreement bound by contract. But such things seem too much like human inventions and not like the work of an indwelling Spirit. And when I ask Christians about why they think their faith was given by the Holy Spirit (or the Holy Spirit was given through their faith? There seems to be some confusion about this), most of their replies boil down to, "I know it's true because I believe it's true." So you can't really blame me if I smell dogma.

I tend to stay away from debates with unbelievers, prema. Once one understands their basic premise--that of the unbeliever insisting upon setting the rules in the arena into which the Christian is invited to participate, that only a materialistic/physicalist interpretation of reality is valid--the whole thing becomes pointless and a waste of time. I can't see that you're doing anything different here, frankly.

First of all, I am definitely not a materialist. My faith in God and the Bible is very strong, so I would also object to any suggestion that I'm an unbeliever. I'm just an avowed skeptic when it comes to human interpretations of things, especially when it comes to the Bible.

Also, if you consider how I've been skeptical about whether mental or emotional efforts (like the usual idea of faith and belief), not to mention physical works of the flesh, can ever lead to eternal salvation, and if you consider how I see saving faith is based on a nonverbal experience of the Holy Spirit, then there's not much reason to suspect that I'm trying to impose a materialistic philosophy of some sort.

But, I offer, if you really offer yourself to Jesus, NOT just saying some copy-cat prayer, He will receive you and it will be PERSONAL. You will experience personal sharing and communication with Him. And it says, "But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (1 Corinthians 6:17) So if God REALLY brings you together with Jesus, you are "joined" to Him, even "one spirit" > THIS is VERY intimate...in actual contact with God Himself who is so unbelievably and specially sweet and kind and pleasant > so this will be obvious...how you are in this pleasantness of His own peace and joy of loving Him AND caring about ALL other people > "'For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?'" (in Matthew 5:46) So you will change into a person loving ALL people...IF you have joined to God's own Holy Spirit. This will be obvious.

I can agree that being joined with Christ like that will result in all the intimacy and bliss of God's Spirit. But are you just saying it's enough to be sincere in one's belief and all those spiritual experiences will naturally follow? There are plenty of people who wholeheartedly put their faith in Jesus but never experience any kind of spiritual joy beyond what even nonbelievers are capable of experiencing. I've never met a Christian (and I've met a lot of admirable ones) who could explain why their experiences in faith are any more spiritual than the various kinds of happiness and enthusiasm experienced by non-Christians.

As for if you can lose this > if God has joined you to Him, this will make you very different, so you can't change back; so you ARE guaranteed not to lose this. God is not just all of a sudden going to decide to let go of you so you stop being loving and then get back into Satanic fako love stuff of just using people for what you want. And marriage is like this, too, I think, IF it is HUMBLE matrimony.

Even the most sincere and loving marriages can end in divorce. I've seen the same thing happen with people who loved Jesus with all sincerity. Certainly, faith in the salvation doctrine may change a person's life for the better. But does such a belief lead to eternal salvation? I have yet to see how.

[Bernie]

Hello prema,

I'm repeating myself here, but if you really look at what I'm asking for at this point, it's not much:

1. Someone who is willing to explain their concept of the salvation plan
2. and who is also willing to explain why they believe the plan is clearly biblical.

And I still say you're too vague and the topic is too broad.

Here's a short version. Humans are evil. Salvation is being saved from one's evil.

I don't agree that I've been antagonistic....Anyway, there's really no point in making my character an issue here. I may be proposing a challenge, but I'm not out to insult anyone.

Who has called you antagonistic? Who is making your character an issue? Where are you getting these ideas, prema? Go back and read those who've posted. You're imagining things.

Somewhere behind that thick shroud of "faith", there has to be a coherent rationale for believing. Although I would concede that eternal salvation is definitely possible without being aware of a biblical rationale for faith, I think there at least had to be a rationale connecting the Bible to the present day salvation doctrine. I'm trying to see how valid that rationale is (assuming someone can inform me about it).

The rationale you seek has been formulated for a number of centuries. I can't imagine why you can't underestand that you're asking too broad a question. Why didn't you respond to the five points outlined above? What do you want, a 78 page thesis?

My faith in God and the Bible is very strong, so I would also object to any suggestion that I'm an unbeliever. I'm just an avowed skeptic when it comes to human interpretations of things, especially when it comes to the Bible.

So how do you distinguish between interpretations that are "human" as opposed to those [if any] that are from the Spirit of God? What standard of judgment do you use in making distinctions between the two? You say your faith in the Bible is very strong. If so, you must have an interpretation that works for you. Why don't you share it and maybe we can disguss those points which seem to in conflict with an 'orthodox' or traditional understanding? I think this would be a more reasonable starting point than asking someone to explain the myriad associations involved inthe formulation of one's undersanding of Biblical salvation.

...much (some might say all) of the New Testament was written for a Christian audience. But why would believers who are already saved need an instruction book on salvation?

Because the temporal aspect of salvation follows the rules and nature of time and space...it's mutable and can be lost. I may not be the best one to discuss this with as my view is considered pretty unorthodox, but my take is that Christian salvation is distinct from eternal salvation in that the former is a salvation from God's wrath, while in the eternal sense all are saved already. To receive the salvation available by faith in this life is to avoid the refinement necessary in the next, what most call hell.

Thus, because the process of 'minor refinement' [sanctification] may be lost, it's appropriate that Christians have been given an instruction book.

[God_is_personal]

Hi, prema > I have looked at some of your Post #9 > quotes here are yours >

"Also, if you consider how I've been skeptical about whether mental or emotional efforts (like the usual idea of faith and belief), not to mention physical works of the flesh, can ever lead to eternal salvation, and if you consider how I see saving faith is based on a nonverbal experience of the Holy Spirit, then there's not much reason to suspect that I'm trying to impose a materialistic philosophy of some sort."

Yeah, I would say my salvation does not depend on my own mental and emotional efforts, but how God changes me. And physical works of the flesh can't save me; BUT look at James chapter two, and see what you think.

"I can agree that being joined with Christ like that will result in all the intimacy and bliss of God's Spirit. But are you just saying it's enough to be sincere in one's belief and all those spiritual experiences will naturally follow?"

Well, prema, I myself have actually gone around and told people the real truth about myself, i.e., about things I knew were wrong about myself...doing this in order to start personal and intimate sharing with other people. BUT when no one joined me in this confessing, I got pretty upset...self-righteously criticizing people for not being mutually confessing with me > see James 5:16 > but if I had been doing that honesty and sincerity thing with real love, I would not have turned on all those people, but would have just kept offering my best to them > "And I will very gladly spend and be spent for your souls; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I am loved." (2 Corinthians 12:15)

"There are plenty of people who wholeheartedly put their faith in Jesus but never experience any kind of spiritual joy beyond what even nonbelievers are capable of experiencing. I've never met a Christian (and I've met a lot of admirable ones) who could explain why their experiences in faith are any more spiritual than the various kinds of happiness and enthusiasm experienced by non-Christians."

I'll offer > that joy of nonbelievers is depending on things and what other people can do for them...isn't it? And what can happen to that joy when things don't go the way they were hoping? Well, there can be Christians, also, who let our joy depend on what others do and whether we get what we desire. We need to more truly trust You, LORD, don't we? And I find how God gives me joy that is very nicely quiet, sweetly sensitive, personal with Him...not necessarily what you would see > not for show > don't a number of nonbelievers make quite a boastful show of how happy they are? Joy in Jesus is HUMBLE. He said not to do things for show...for status.

"Even the most sincere and loving marriages can end in divorce. I've seen the same thing happen with people who loved Jesus with all sincerity. Certainly, faith in the salvation doctrine may change a person's life for the better. But does such a belief lead to eternal salvation? I have yet to see how."

This is a very sensitive thing, prema. Marriages breaking up is very tragic. Let me consider this for a while, and see if I can get back to you on this.

[prema]

And I still say you're too vague and the topic is too broad.

Nonsense. I've been with evangelicals long enough to know that many Christians who go out to preach or "witness" to the public are capable of briefly articulating the basic plan of salvation and explaining why it's based on the Bible. They don't have to go through an in-depth analysis to do that. And if there are questions about the explanation, that can be done step by step to develop things as deep as they need to go. A forum like this is perfectly suited for that kind of discussion.

I'm starting to think you're simply not able to answer the topic because you don't really have an answer in the first place. I'm also starting to think that, while there are plenty of Bible-literate Christians who can answer the thread topic, very few of them are prepared to expose their assumptions to scrutiny. I can't blame them, either. Most of them never really mentally venture outside the cloister of Christian books and other Christian voices.

Who has called you antagonistic? Who is making your character an issue? Where are you getting these ideas, prema? Go back and read those who've posted. You're imagining things.

Umm...try doing a search for the word "antagonistic" in this thread. Guess who's the first one to bring it up? And don't tell me to read what I've already written when you have trouble remembering what you've written yourself.

I wasn't really antagonistic before, but I'm feeling it now.

The rationale you seek has been formulated for a number of centuries. I can't imagine why you can't underestand that you're asking too broad a question. Why didn't you respond to the five points outlined above? What do you want, a 78 page thesis?

Okay, then. If the rationale exists, then where is it? It would only seem natural that somebody would have bothered to write it down.

You already know why I haven't responded to Abelard's five points (unless you forgot). I already explained the two basic things I need to really proceed with the topic and why I need them. Let me remind you again:

1. Someone who is willing to explain their concept of the salvation plan
2. and who is also willing to explain why they believe the plan is clearly biblical.

I need the second item because the rationale behind the salvation plan is the whole reason I made this thread in the first place.

So how do you distinguish between interpretations that are "human" as opposed to those [if any] that are from the Spirit of God? What standard of judgment do you use in making distinctions between the two? You say your faith in the Bible is very strong. If so, you must have an interpretation that works for you. Why don't you share it and maybe we can disguss those points which seem to in conflict with an 'orthodox' or traditional understanding? I think this would be a more reasonable starting point than asking someone to explain the myriad associations involved inthe formulation of one's undersanding of Biblical salvation.

My way of interpreting will be revealed naturally enough if somebody would be so kind as to provide the rationale I've been asking for all along.

And not that I want to discuss my method of interpretation at this point in a discussion which hasn't really gotten started, but in my previous post I gave a pretty obvious hint about my point of view. I'm not going to point it out again, because I'm getting pretty sick of this thread right now, with having to explain this and that while no progress is made with the question I really wanted answered.

Because the temporal aspect of salvation follows the rules and nature of time and space...it's mutable and can be lost. I may not be the best one to discuss this with as my view is considered pretty unorthodox, but my take is that Christian salvation is distinct from eternal salvation in that the former is a salvation from God's wrath, while in the eternal sense all are saved already. To receive the salvation available by faith in this life is to avoid the refinement necessary in the next, what most call hell.

Thus, because the process of 'minor refinement' [sanctification] may be lost, it's appropriate that Christians have been given an instruction book.

For one thing, there's no way you can say that the Bible is nothing but an instruction manual on salvation. There are geneologies, cordial greetings, and other passages that have nothing to do with salvation. I think I was correct in objecting to the categorical nature of your previous statement.

But sorry, I'm probably being overly nitpicky here. At least you've said that Christians "may have" been given an instruction book, so I suspect that you don't mean things as categorically as I supposed.

More generally, however, if I were to accept that the Bible is a manual on refining one's character or soul in order to avoid the pains of hell (purgatory in your view?), wouldn't that reduce the Bible to a doctrine of salvation by works? Because I don't see how the Bible speaks of salvation in any sense but the eternal sense. If a Christian who has gained eternal salvation appears before Christ at the Judgment, is Christ really going to say, "You're not quite pure yet, so you have to be purified by the fire of hell for a while"? Or, "You're saved, but not yet"? That scenario seems to cheapen the sacrifice on the cross. And all those hymns which sing "whiter than snow" and "washed by the blood" would not mean much as the believer is thrown into the fire. Wasn't the crucifixion supposed to provide atonement once and for all, replacing the Old Testament practice of periodic sacrifices?

I'm sure you have a lot of responses to that. And I'm pretty sure my replies will be based on something like this: The Bible was never meant to provide a practicable plan of salvation. Most Christians assume otherwise, and that assumption naturally leads to a lot of confusion about the role of faith and works, the definition of saving faith itself, not to mention a lot of presumptuous ideas and grief about how salvation is or is not eternal.

Btw, it occurred to me that maybe the reason why it's difficult for Christians even to entertain the idea that the Bible contains no practicable plan of salvation is because that would make it sound like I'm denying the existence of any path of salvation at all. In the back of their minds, some are surely thinking, "If there's no path to salvation in the Bible, then where else would it be?"

I'd rather hold off on branching into that question, since, again, I'm really keen on first getting a proper reply to the topic I've been repeating all this time. For now, I'll just suggest that the salvation of many of the Christians in the Bible appears to have had little or nothing to do with instruction from scripture.

Another btw: I hope you'll be patient with me if I come across as antagonistic or rude. I really don't enjoy being that way, but sometimes I have to tell you how I really feel.

Yeah, I would say my salvation does not depend on my own mental and emotional efforts, but how God changes me. And physical works of the flesh can't save me; BUT look at James chapter two, and see what you think.

I assume you're referring to the second half of the chapter which talks about how faith without works is dead. I like that passage a lot, but you know, it's also a pretty good example of the kind of thing that makes most Christians scratch their heads in confusion.

Probably the most revolutionary moment in the Protestant Reformation was when Martin Luther concluded from his study of the Bible that salvation was "by faith alone". But then, when most Christians read that passage in James, it sounds like the Bible says the exact opposite in verse 24: "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." And then I hear a lot of church leaders in other instances use verse 23 to support the idea that salvation is by faith alone. And it just confuses the idea of faith even more to equate Abraham's "belief" with the concept of a saving faith.

But all that confusion comes to nothing if you look at the passage as not having anything to do with the issue of eternal salvation. Belief (what most Christians consider as faith) and deeds are basically the actions of brain and body - they are basically the actions of flesh and not necessarily spirit. The Bible is mostly a collection of words giving testimony to the outward aspects (such as belief and deeds) of spiritual activity. If the Holy Spirit is behind a Christian's belief and deeds, then they can be called works of the Spirit; otherwise, even someone who calls himself a Christian is just performing works of the flesh if he believes and obeys the Bible without the Spirit to give his thoughts and actions any substance.

And that's just the natural limitation of the Bible as a verbal document. It can tell about all the outer stuff, but the specific nature of the inner Spirit can never be told in words. So it's no wonder so many Christians are confused and end up assuming all sorts of things about their "Spirit", "faith", and "salvation".

Well, prema, I myself have actually gone around and told people the real truth about myself, i.e., about things I knew were wrong about myself...doing this in order to start personal and intimate sharing with other people. BUT when no one joined me in this confessing, I got pretty upset...self-righteously criticizing people for not being mutually confessing with me > see James 5:16 > but if I had been doing that honesty and sincerity thing with real love, I would not have turned on all those people, but would have just kept offering my best to them > "And I will very gladly spend and be spent for your souls; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I am loved." (2 Corinthians 12:15)

I think what you're talking about here is an example of how the Bible can have a positive effect on a person's life and the lives of others. But I still have to say that what you've said and the verses you've mentioned don't really say anything definitive about whether the eternal salvation or the accompanying Holy Spirit plays a role.

But don't get me wrong. Personally, I believe the Holy Spirit is certainly playing a role in any situation where people are growing in love and generosity. That doesn't necessarily mean eternal salvation for those involved, but I do think the Holy Spirit is not exclusive to the Christian faith.

I'll offer > that joy of nonbelievers is depending on things and what other people can do for them...isn't it? And what can happen to that joy when things don't go the way they were hoping? Well, there can be Christians, also, who let our joy depend on what others do and whether we get what we desire. We need to more truly trust You, LORD, don't we? And I find how God gives me joy that is very nicely quiet, sweetly sensitive, personal with Him...not necessarily what you would see > not for show > don't a number of nonbelievers make quite a boastful show of how happy they are? Joy in Jesus is HUMBLE. He said not to do things for show...for status.

The joy which comes from selflessness is central to all the great religions and philosophies. I've seen very selfless givers from all sorts of religious and non-religious backgrounds, and they are all capable of the great ecstasy which comes from truly selfless service. The joy of selflessness doesn't depend on whether someone is Christian or not; it's really just a matter of whether that person truly practices the selfless ideal he believes in.

[Bernie]

Hello prema,

I'm starting to think you're simply not able to answer the topic because you don't really have an answer in the first place. I'm also starting to think that, while there are plenty of Bible-literate Christians who can answer the thread topic, very few of them are prepared to expose their assumptions to scrutiny.

My, you're much more astute than I thought. Of course it's all that everyone else is a cowering imbecile....couldn't be you or the ambiguity in what you're asking. *sheesh*

BTW, the heckling-as-challenge thing worked pretty well in junior high...but for me that was over 40 years ago.

Umm...try doing a search for the word "antagonistic" in this thread. Guess who's the first one to bring it up? And don't tell me to read what I've already written when you have trouble remembering what you've written yourself.

Yikes, how does it feel to have egg all over your face? In fact, what I actually said was: "...you appear to bring some antagonistic presuppositions into the discussion, and lots of folks would probably avoid discussion with you on this basis" How you arrived at character assasination from this statement is a mystery.

Note the modifier APPEAR which prefaces 'antagonistic' and was directed to 'presuppositions'. I was being honest with you, and this simple sentence seems to have served well to reveal the actual quality of your own sincerety.

I already explained the two basic things I need to really proceed with the topic and why I need them. Let me remind you again:

1. Someone who is willing to explain their concept of the salvation plan
2. and who is also willing to explain why they believe the plan is clearly biblical.

Actually, I did....

Humans are evil. Salvation is being saved from one's evil.

2 "Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Gen 6:5)
"But the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the platter; but inside of you, you are full of robbery and wickedness." (Luke 11:39)

As to salvation, read the NT in light of the Old.

I hope you'll be patient with me if I come across as antagonistic or rude. I really don't enjoy being that way, but sometimes I have to tell you how I really feel.

Actually, it's not much in my nature to be patient with other humans, much less with someone whom I feel is playing games.

I know you. You're legion, or one of several. The thing is, you can impose changes in online personas to take stabs at concepts from different angles...I think there are quite a number of sharp individuals who use internet theology and philosophy boards in just this way...but ultimately the nature of one's line of questioning gives 'em away.

God bless you in your search for truth.

[God_is_personal]

Hi, prema > by the way, notice that this thread IS in the "let the rocks fly" section. Maybe I and bernie are playing "good cop, bad cop" with you, though if we are it's not intentional, I'd say.

And, yes Bernie, I'd say you would NOT care for that representation, since YOU AREN'T PLAYING. Understood. About the multiple persona approach of prema...I didn't consider that, but have noticed how things can get turned around from how prema could just understand something, rather than turn so many things into cause for reflection about certain folks he has known. He reminds me of honestseeker, a little.

Ok, so we are talking about if the Bible is a handbook for salvation? Yes, I would say EVERY bit of the Book is dealing with salvation, SOMEHOW. Even the genealogies, greetings, on we could go. It is ALL relevant, SOMEHOW. Example, the greetings God WANTS are part of our salvation, meaning part of the lives of love He has for us now that we are saved. The right greetings are not the plan, but part of the process...of doing what God's love has us doing > and this love is changing us while this love has us doing what God so desires, prema. Notice in James chapter two how those examples of works involve personal relating with God or with people, in order to do good that God wants, and put Him first. We need to do works of God's love so this love can be changing us to be like our Groom Jesus so we will be compatible with Him so we can spend eternity with Him and each other. So, when it says in James chapter two, as we were discussing, that it's NOT by faith alone...it means we need to do the works that God's love has us do---so this love changes us to become loving the way Jesus will expect. This is what I offer it REALLY means to be "justified by works and not by faith only" > God's love changes us while we do the works of His love. So, then, it's NOT the physical actions but the love in us acting upon our spirit.

So, if those guys in various religions get their highs from humanitarian and selfless deeds > this can be just human. You have indicated this.

Many "Christians" are just human-effort, second and more generation CULTURAL products, copy-catting in their churches, including copy-catting that "sinner's prayer" that they are told guarantees their salvation forever. But there's a difference between how God brings us to Jesus and how born-again culture does it.

We need to examine ourselves to make sure we haven't fooled ourselves. Speaking for myself, anyway. NO, I didn't mean that stuff about you, above, to belittle you or whatever, but just to air myself so you can read me.

[prema]

I know you. You're legion, or one of several. The thing is, you can impose changes in online personas to take stabs at concepts from different angles...I think there are quite a number of sharp individuals who use internet theology and philosophy boards in just this way...but ultimately the nature of one's line of questioning gives 'em away.

Yesss...oh my God. You have discovered my TRUE NAture with the power of THE HOOOLY Spirit within you. You have SPECIAL HOLY POWERS to spot the works of SATAN. I am now exposed as an agent of the ANTICHRIST!!

Okay, this thread has officially gone off the deep end. You say you know me, but you don't know anything. Just admit it. You are a very deluded person. You have no foundation for your faith, since it's based on nothing but dogma and centuries-old biblical misinterpretations that were based on the theologies of popes and emperors whose aims were less than heavenly. You have no legitimate basis for thinking you're saved in any sense. And the only way you can say you have the Holy Spirit is by imagining that you do and perhaps demonizing people like me who dare to suggest otherwise. If you have a conscience at all, then at least admit it to yourself: you're afraid, afraid that your faith may very well be based on a flimsy, self-serving theory.

Personally, I would very much like to see people find eternal life in Christ. And if this discussion ever gets off the ground, maybe even the Bible might be found to have some clues supporting that. But I see no reason to think that the Bible can be the source of any practicable step-by-step plan for eternal salvation. And that consideration, if you really think about it, should be a relief and not a threat to anyone's search for spiritual life.

If I am Legion, then there would be no point in me encouraging people to seek Christ or the Holy Spirit. Remember what Jesus said about a house divided against itself. Also, accusing someone of Satanic influence is really a meaningless gesture. Martin Luther's fight against Catholic orthodoxy is a perfect example. In that fight, both sides accused each other of working for the devil. History teaches us that, if you care for your soul at all, there are times that you just have to stand up and question traditional beliefs to see if they are really from God or from man. If Martin Luther had not persisted in his quest, then Christians today may very well have been stuck with paying money to the Pope to be forgiven of sins.

This thread is based on my very sincere concern for the state of Christianity today. The present Church is in a confused state with a lot of believers depending on dogma and emotional fantasies to justify the idea that they have some Holy Spirit. In my entire life, I have NEVER seen any so-called Christian manifest any degree of holiness above that which even the atheists could attain. And that can only mean that there's something seriously wrong with how Christians understand their own Gospel today.

Yes, I would say EVERY bit of the Book is dealing with salvation, SOMEHOW.

If you say "somehow", that means you're reaching, and you're trying to MAKE things fit somehow or anyhow. That's how theology gets messed up and even contradictory. If you're not sure deep down about whether EVERY part of the Bible is teaching about salvation, then the most honest answer is: "I don't know." Otherwise, you end up playing the game of blind leading blind, just like preachers have been doing for centuries - finding ways to MAKE the Bible fit their hopes and fears of what salvation should be.

Yes, I would say EVERY bit of the Book is dealing with salvation, SOMEHOW. Even the genealogies, greetings, on we could go. It is ALL relevant, SOMEHOW. Example, the greetings God WANTS are part of our salvation, meaning part of the lives of love He has for us now that we are saved. The right greetings are not the plan, but part of the process...of doing what God's love has us doing > and this love is changing us while this love has us doing what God so desires, prema.

Bernie's original statement was that the Bible is nothing but an instruction book on salvation. What you're talking about here is the outer aspect of life with God, not anything about giving or following instructions to be saved. If you are a non-Christian reading those greetings or geneologies, you would not be able to find any sort of instruction in them about taking steps to being saved. If an evangelist wants to instruct someone about how to find eternal salvation, is he seriously going to refer to any of the geneologies? I don't think so.

Notice in James chapter two how those examples of works involve personal relating with God or with people, in order to do good that God wants, and put Him first. We need to do works of God's love so this love can be changing us to be like our Groom Jesus so we will be compatible with Him so we can spend eternity with Him and each other. So, when it says in James chapter two, as we were discussing, that it's NOT by faith alone...it means we need to do the works that God's love has us do---so this love changes us to become loving the way Jesus will expect. This is what I offer it REALLY means to be "justified by works and not by faith only" > God's love changes us while we do the works of His love. So, then, it's NOT the physical actions but the love in us acting upon our spirit.

I can basically agree with what you're saying here. The process you're describing is the way of justification - becoming more just, righteous, and Christlike. But like I was saying before, it says nothing about the issue of eternal salvation. Becoming more virtuous and saintly is one thing (I'd say it's a legitimate aim of learning from the Bible), but the promise of eternal salvation is not really addressed in that passage from James.

But then again, I've heard many times when preachers will use a verse or two from that passage to talk about eternal salvation. I sort of blame them for doing that, and I sort of don't. They have a job to do, and every week they have to find some useful or inspiring "insight" from the Bible to preach to their congregation about. The art of exegesis has become so developed that almost any Bible passage can be used to expound on all sorts of subjects, regardless of whether those passages are being taken out of context. Again, they get in the habit of MAKING things fit.

So, if those guys in various religions get their highs from humanitarian and selfless deeds > this can be just human. You have indicated this.

Yes, and you've also mentioned that professed Christians may be acting out deeds of the flesh and not the Spirit. Any religion is going to have people at very low or very high levels of spiritual development. And there's nothing in the Bible that makes godliness an exclusive possession of those who take Jesus as the ideal.

But there's a difference between how God brings us to Jesus and how born-again culture does it.

I wonder what that difference is.

And I don't know, but are you talking about eternal salvation when you say "brings us to Jesus"?

NO, I didn't mean that stuff about you, above, to belittle you or whatever, but just to air myself so you can read me.

It's cool, man. I just want to hear what people think about my topic. And I have to be ready to hear whatever positive or negative responses I get for my views.