Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture

[GWH]

TU-4. Because dead sinners cannot "decide" to believe (Rom 8:8), the Holy Spirit must first perform a sovereign, irresistible miracle of regeneration. God takes away the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh (Ezek 36:26), making the elect completely willing in the day of His power (Psa 110:3). Faith and repentance are the immediate, inevitable fruits of this new birth, given exclusively to those ordained to eternal life (Acts 13:48, Eph 2:8).

NT-4. Every person who hears the NT Gospel needs to repent (Matt. 4:17) and accept God’s justification in Jesus as Christ/Messiah the Lord or Supreme Commander (Luke 2:11, John 14:6, Acts 16:31), which means trying to obey (Phil. 3:12, 1John 1:8) His commandment to love one another (Matt. 22:37-40, John 13:35, Rom. 13:9)—forever (Matt. 10:22, Psa. 113:2).

C-4. Rom. 8:8 does not say sinners cannot decide to believe but rather that those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God, and Rom. 6:16 says souls are slaves to the one whom they obey. Rom. 3:21-5:1 teaches that sinners are saved through faith in Christ's atonement, so those appointed for eternal life in Acts 13:48 are those who fulfill the condition cited in Acts 16:31: faith in Jesus as Lord, as indicated also in Eph. 2:8 and Luke 2:11. John 14:6 says that Jesus is the way, truth and life.

Matt. 22:37-40, John 13:35 and Rom. 13:8-9 say the Lord's command is for souls to love one another, and numerous verses in the vein of Matt. 10:22 say saints should persevere in faith, although Phil. 3:12 indicates perfection will not be attained in this life.

 

[GWH]

TU-5. Salvation does not depend on human cooperation or man's ability to maintain his faith. Those whom God has chosen, Christ has bought, and the Spirit has regenerated are kept securely by the power of God (1 Pet 1:5). Christ will lose none of those the Father gave Him (John 6:39). Their perseverance in holiness is guaranteed because God continuously works in them both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Phil 2:13).

NT-5. Saints need to persevere in saving faith and not commit apostasy (Rom. 11:22, 1Cor. 15:2, Col. 1:22-23, 2Thes. 1:4-5, 2Tim. 2:12, Heb. 3:6&14, 6:4-6, 10:35-36, Jam. 1:12, 2Pet. 1:10-11, 2:20, 1John 2:24-25 and Rev. 2:10), which is the ultimate blasphemy (Matt. 12:31-32). These numerous exhortations to persevere imply the possibility of choosing not to do so.

C-5. 1Peter indicates continuing faith is needed in order to be shielded from being devoured (1Pet. 1:5, 5:8). 1Pet. 1:1-2 seems to parallel Eph. 1:3-14, which indicates that God foreknew who would exercise His gift of enabling faith to choose belief in Jesus and thus become IN him or saved/elect (Eph. 2:8-9, Acts 16:31). John 6:39-40 and 3:16 indicates that God wants everyone to believe in His Son and become righteous (cf. 1Tim. 2:3-4, 1Cor. 6:9-11). Phil. 2:12-13 indicates that God works in those who continue to cooperate with Him.

 

[GWH]

In conclusion, when a comparison of TULIP and the Christian Creed is made with an open mind, it becomes obvious that what Paul taught in Rom. 3:21-5:11 is that anyone may be justified/saved via faith, which may be referred to as positional righteousness because of being IN Christ (Eph. 1:3-14)/elect/saved/redeemed. etc.

Paul also taught that those who have saving faith will cooperate with God's HS/manifest godly behavior (Rom. 5:5, Gal. 5:16-25, etc.), which practical righteousness or becoming loving like Christ is the goal/end of saving faith/sanctification (Eph. 3:16-19, 4:11-24, Phil. 3:12-21). Hence the importance of perseverance in saving faith is taught in sixteen passages of Scripture.

IOW, TULIP is problematic because it is baloney!

 

[GWH]

The sixteen Scriptures indicating the need for voluntary perseverance in satisfying God's condition for justification/saving faith are not teaching salvation by works, because there is no qualitative difference between faith that accepts God’s saving grace at conversion (John 6:29, Eph. 2:8-9) and faith that accepts God’s working grace while walking/living (Eph. 2:10, 1Cor. 15:10, 2Cor. 5:7, Rom. 1:17), but only a quantitative difference as each additional moment passes–and of course faith remains non-meritorious during the saint’s entire lifetime. Accepting God's free grace is not earning salvation (Matt. 10:8, Rom. 3:24, Eph. 1:6).

 

[GWH]

Romans 9 should be interpreted in context, beginning with the rest of Romans:

26. In Romans 8:1-25 Paul describes the s/e struggle in terms of Christians–who are indwelt by the Spirit and freed from living in accordance with the sinful nature—as putting to death sinful deeds, because they are God’s children and co-heirs of Christ’s glorious resurrection.

27. In Romans 8:28-30 Paul says that those who love God were foreknown and “predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son”, which is akin to what Paul said in Ephesians 1:4-14, that before creating the world God chose or predestined those sinners “in Christ” to be blameless sons and receive the Holy Spirit.

28. Romans 8:31-39 elaborates on the previous point by saying that there is nothing that can separate “we” (who reflect God’s love per v.28) from Christ’s love (but Heb. 10:26-36 indicates one exception).

29. In Romans 9:1-5 Paul notes how sad it is that those who are part of the human ancestry of Christ reject him as Messiah, but being a member of Abraham’s spiritual children is what is crucial (#17).

30. Romans 9:6-13 states that God had chosen which one of Rebecca’s sons (through whom Messiah’s lineage would be traced) before they were born (cf. Mal. 1:2-3). The word translated as “hate” (miseo) is the same as in Luke 14:26 with reference to family, so a better translation would be “preferred”: loving Jacob/hating Esau refers to God preferring that Jacob’s descendants serve as the heritage for Messiah rather than to individual salvation.

31. Romans 9:14-16 stresses that s/e depends on God’s mercy rather than being achieved by human effort (#12), although the preceding context has shown that (the non-meritorious condition of) faith is involved, which truth can be stated as “God initiates; sinners cooperate—or not”, because of MFW.

32. Romans 9:17 refers to pharaoh in Exodus 9:13-35 as an example of someone whom God allowed to oppose His will so that His power might be manifested by the plagues. The OT passage indicates that pharaoh was conscious of his sin but “He and his officials hardened their hearts” (v.34b).

33. Romans 9:18 says that God “hardens whom He wants to harden”, which raises the question asked in v.19, “Why does God blame sinners who cannot resist His will?” Paul’s response (Rom. 9:20-21) is that God has the might and thus the right to determine what is right. Then he speculates (“What if”) that God might have patiently endured evildoers (#20) as evidence of His glory toward recipients of His mercy (Rom. 9:22-23).

34. In Romans 9:24-33 and 10:1-4 Paul notes that God elected to choose Gentiles with saving faith instead of Israelites who sought salvation by works and stumbled over the Gospel of Christ, even though “everyone who believes” receives righteousness or s/e.

35. Romans 10:9 states God’s requirement for s/e as “confess Jesus as the resurrected Lord”, v.10 clarifies that the condition of faith (#31) precedes the work of confession, and vs.11-13 reiterate that all sinners who call on the name of the Lord will be s/e.

36. Romans 10:18 cites Psalm 19:4, which hints that God’s s/e has been possible for everyone in the world. This implication may also be seen in Gal. 3:8, Col. 1:23 and Tit. 2:11 as well as Rom. 1:20.

37. Romans 11:5-7a refers to an elect “remnant chosen by grace”, which indicates that sinners may cooperate with God’s calling to be s/e “or not” (#35).

38. Romans 11:7b-8 needs to be understood in the context of pharaoh (#32), whose heart God allowed to be hardened. “God gave them a spirit of stupor” echoes what Paul said in Romans 1:24 & 28, that God gave fools over to perversion and a depraved mind.

39. Romans 11:11-15 speaks of the blindness of Israel as the reason s/e was offered to Gentiles,

and Paul hopes Israel will become envious (v.11 & 14) and prompted to accept Christ.

40. Romans 11:17-24 describes the situation of Israel as comparable to grafting branches onto a tree, and the condition of faith (#37) is quite explicit (v.20-23).

41. Romans 11:25-32 explains the s/e of corporate Israel as a partial and temporary hardening until all in corporate Gentiles “may” be s/e, at which time all Israel “may” be s/e.

42. Romans 11:33-36 concludes Paul’s development of the DOE by acknowledging that God’s mind is unknowable beyond what He reveals.

 

[GWH]

Another problematic passage of Scripture is by Paul in 1Tim. 2:13-14, "Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

Although Paul had the mind of Christ (1Cor. 2:16), however imperfectly (Phil. 3:12), those who learn from Paul can be said to share the mind of Paul (1Cor. 11:1), although much more imperfectly (Phil. 3:15, Eph. 4:13).

Thus, I am encouraged to opine that in 1Tim. 2-3 Paul's concern for order in the family and church caused him to overlook for the moment how Gen. 1:26-27 indicates humanity was created at essentially the same time and with equal status, because Eve was created out of Adam's side to be his partner (Gen. 2:22). Also, Gen. 3:1-7 clearly indicates that Adam and Eve were partners in sin.

Elsewhere (in Rom. 3:23-25, cf. Psa. 14:3) Paul states that all (both sexes) have sinned and are justified via faith in Christ's atonement,
and in Gal 3:28 Paul indicates that male and female are equally saved, thus his teachings regarding gender role differences may be due to concern about cultural mores rather than be expressive of eternal moral laws (1Tim. 3:7, Tit. 2:3-11).

 

[GWH]

Another problematic passage of Scripture is by Paul in 1Tim. 2:13-14, "Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

Although Paul had the mind of Christ (1Cor. 2:16), however imperfectly (Phil. 3:12), those who learn from Paul can be said to share the mind of Paul (1Cor. 11:1), although much more imperfectly (Phil. 3:15, Eph. 4:13).

Thus, I am encouraged to opine that in 1Tim. 2-3 Paul's concern for order in the family and church caused him to overlook for the moment how Gen. 1:26-27 indicates humanity was created at essentially the same time and with equal status, because Eve was created out of Adam's side to be his partner (Gen. 2:22). Also, Gen. 3:1-7 clearly indicates that Adam and Eve were partners in sin.

Elsewhere (in Rom. 3:23-25, cf. Psa. 14:3) Paul states that all (both sexes) have sinned and are justified via faith in Christ's atonement,
and in Gal 3:28 Paul indicates that male and female are equally saved, thus his teachings regarding gender role differences may be due to concern about cultural mores rather than be expressive of eternal moral laws (1Tim. 3:7, Tit. 2:3-11).

Another way of stating this point is that some teachings of Paul (such as those about gender roles) deal with didachaic doctrines rather than with God's requirement for salvation.

Sometimes we can discern Paul applying the teachings of Jesus (1Cor. 7:10, 11:23-26), and at other times he seems to be using his God-given logical ability guided by the Holy Spirit to figure things out (most of his epistles, but specifically 1Cor. 7:12-24 & 25-40).

Both types of teaching should be esteemed as part of the canon of Scripture God has allowed or caused to be cobbled together like sausage, but we also must use our minds of Christ and Paul to arrive at the best understanding (1Thes. 5:21), as the thread about the Didache attempts.

Are there other examples of Paul quoting or citing the teachings of Jesus?

 

[BartholomewB]

Are there other examples of Paul quoting or citing the teachings of Jesus?

"The worker deserves his wages." In 1 Tim 5:18 Paul seems, at least, to be quoting Jesus' saying (Luke 10:7).

 

[GWH]

"The worker deserves his wages." In 1 Tim 5:18 Paul seems, at least, to be quoting Jesus' saying (Luke 10:7).

Oh yeah, I forgot about that; thanks!

TOP #242: Church leaders including preacher-teachers deserve material support. [1Tim. 5:17-18] Paul cited Deut. 25:4 in this regard
(cf. Luke 10:7). This is akin to TOP #97 regarding supporting apostles.

Are there any others?

 

[GWH]

Let us specify the example mentioned briefly above of Paul citing a teaching of Jesus about divorce in 1Cor. 7:10,
"To the married I give this charge—not I, but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband."
(cf. Mark 10:11-12 and Matt. 5:32).

TOP #92: Believers must not divorce, although unbelievers cannot be forced to stay. [1Cor. 7:10-15] Jesus forbade divorce except for marital unfaithfulness in Matt. 19:8-9.

TOJ #26: You should not divorce. [Matt. 5:31-32a//Mark 10:11//Luke 16:18a] Jesus said that the only permissible reason for legal divorce is marital unfaithfulness or when the sin of spiritual divorce signified by adultery has already occurred. {Matt. 19:6-9//Mark 10:6-9} See TOJ #104 on the meaning of marriage. The divine viewpoint, which all humans need to acquire, is that sexual intimacy should mean marriage, that divorce is a spiritual disaster before it leads to a legal dissolution, and that neither divorce nor a miserable marriage are moral options. This leaves only celibacy or a happy marriage as permissible alternatives.

 

[GWH]

Another verse sometime cited by tulipists in support of their problematic dogma is Jeremiah 17:9a,”The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure.” The immediate context includes:

Jer. 17:5, “Cursed is the one who trusts in man… and whose heart turns away from the Lord.”
Jer. 17:7, “But blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, whose confidence is in Him.”
Jer. 17:10, “I, the Lord, search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds deserve.”

Jer. 12:1, 3, 14, 16, “You are always righteous, O Lord… you see me and test my thoughts about you…
This is what the Lord says… if the wicked learn well the ways of my people… then they will be established among my people.”

Jer. 14:10, “This is what the Lord says about the people of Judah, They greatly love to wander…
so the Lord does not accept them; he will now … punish them for their sins.”

Jer. 18:8-11, “If that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned…
And if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it…
So turn from your evil ways, each one of you.”

Thus, we see that Jeremiah actually supports belief in MFW instead of TULIP.

 

[GWH]

In order to resolve the debate between TULIPists and MFWers, Scriptures stressing divine sovereignty and sounding as though God prevents some sinners from becoming elect must be harmonized with Scriptures indicating that souls have MFW and stressing God’s love for humanity. Just as Rom. 9:11-23 appears to be the foundational Scripture for the problematic and divisive doctrine of tulipists, so also 2Thes. 2:10-13 and 1Tim. 2:3-4 may be viewed as the Scriptural fount of the unifying understanding of volitionists.

Scriptures stressing sovereignty may be represented by the following:
1. Matt 11:27, “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
2. Luke 8:10, To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables, so that ‘seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.’”

God’s Word stressing love for humanity may be represented by:
3. John 3:16, “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.”
4. 1Tim. 2:3b-4, “God our Savior wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”

These two themes can be harmonized and unified as follows:
Jesus does not say in #1 that he wants to reveal the Father only to a few and condemn the majority to hell,
and Paul does say in #4 that God wants all to be saved, so the Son must choose to reveal the Father to all who choose to seek Him per Matt. 7:7. Although #2 by itself may be understood as indicating God withholds His Word regarding the kingdom of God from those He hates, both Jesus and Paul quote Isa. 9:6 (in Matt. 13:14-15 & Acts 28:26-27) in a way that puts the responsibility for not receiving God’s Word (GW) on those whose hearts are hardened or not open to it (in agreement with #3).

Scripture stressing God’s role in election may be represented by the following:
5. John 15:16, “You did not choose Me, but I chose you to bear fruit that will last.”
6. Rom. 9:11&16, “In order that God’s purpose in election might stand… It does not depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”

And GW stressing the role of human agency in election may be represented by the following:
7. Deut. 30:19, “This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.”
8. Matt. 23:37, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.”

These two themes can be harmonized and unified as follows:
Jesus does not say in #5 that his disciples could not have chosen to refuse to follow him, and God does say in #7 that He provides the opportunity to choose life or death, so Jesus saying that he chose his disciples means that God urges souls to choose life. Although #6 may be understood as indicating human volition has no role in salvation, #8 reveals Jesus lamenting the fact that although God offers salvation to souls, those unwilling to cooperate are not saved.

This interpretation/harmonization affirms BOTH God’s sovereignty AND love for humanity as well as BOTH His elective will and credit for salvation AND humanity’s God-given volition and accountability for cooperating with God’s will that souls accept salvation via faith in The Elect, who is Christ Jesus. God initiates; souls may cooperate–or not.

 

[GWH]

The purpose of this thread is to promote Christian unity and resolve arguments by applying key Scriptures in wide (holistic) context, hoping that intra-Christian apologetics will convince many to adopt the better belief regarding divisive doctrines. Again, some doctrines that are controversial within the Christian community will be discussed in an effort to answer the prayer of Jesus (in John 17:20-23) for spiritual unity among his followers. Many pastors either avoid these issues or else mention only their viewpoint, but this thread will share both sides of the issue, trying to resolve conflict in accordance with what Paul wrote (in Phil. 3:15b-16), “…If on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. Only let us live up to what we have already attained.”

Because the most divisive doctrine that causes the most argumentation on CC seems to be TULIP, this thread will begin by considering that topic in a way that does not duplicate other threads, but by politely presenting Scripture interpreted holistically or in context. TULIP is described as follows:

T – total depravity, meaning that all souls are unable to seek salvation.

U – unconditional election, meaning that souls cannot satisfy a divine condition (such as faith or repentance), but God elects to save some while damning the rest to hell.

L – limited atonement, meaning that Christ died to pay the penalty of sin only for the elect souls.

I – irresistible grace, meaning that elect souls cannot resist God’s will for them to believe and be saved.

P – perseverance of the saints, meaning that the elect cannot repudiate their salvation and commit apostasy.

Would anyone like to begin (politely presenting Scripture interpreted holistically or in context)?

Bumped for OMC.

 

[OMC]

Because the most divisive doctrine that causes the most argumentation on CC seems to be TULIP, this thread will begin by considering that topic in a way that does not duplicate other threads, but by politely presenting Scripture interpreted holistically or in context. TULIP is described as follows:

T – total depravity, meaning that all souls are unable to seek salvation.

U – unconditional election, meaning that souls cannot satisfy a divine condition (such as faith or repentance), but God elects to save some while damning the rest to hell.

L – limited atonement, meaning that Christ died to pay the penalty of sin only for the elect souls.

I – irresistible grace, meaning that elect souls cannot resist God’s will for them to believe and be saved.

P – perseverance of the saints, meaning that the elect cannot repudiate their salvation and commit apostasy.

Would anyone like to begin (politely presenting Scripture interpreted holistically or in context)?

John 3:16, 1 Tim 2:4–6, Heb 10:26–39, Acts 7:51 — which all contradict the TULIP definitions given. Why would I be part of this?

 

[OMC]

Perhaps before proceeding any further it would be helpful to mention the interpretation of Scripture that objects to TULIP,
which viewpoint may be termed Moral Free Will (MFW or MFWism) and described as follows:

M – moral requirement, meaning that God's requirement for salvation (GRFS) is righteousness, which presumes sinners are morally accountable.

F – free faith, meaning that GRFS or condition for attaining righteousness is faith in God's Word is IF they believe, which implies
sinners are enabled to repent, seek salvation and believe the Gospel of Christ’s atonement.

W – will, meaning that the essence of faith is the desire to cooperate with God (or not), and choosing to cooperate with God
opens the door of a sinner's heart to the entrance of Christ's loving Holy Spirit.

Here again is the opposing dogma of tulipism:

T – total depravity, meaning that all souls are unable to seek salvation.

U – unconditional election, meaning that souls cannot satisfy a divine condition (such as faith or repentance), but God elects to save some while damning the rest to hell.

L – limited atonement, meaning that Christ died to pay the penalty of sin only for the elect souls.

I – irresistible grace, meaning that elect souls cannot resist God’s will for them to believe and be saved.

P – perseverance of the saints, meaning that the elect cannot repudiate their salvation and commit apostasy.

How shall we begin to discuss which is the better belief, politely presenting Scripture interpreted holistically or in context?

start with GRFS itself — what God actually requires for salvation — and let Scripture define the condition (John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Rom 10:9–13). Once the condition is established, M‑F‑W naturally follows: righteousness required, faith offered, will engaged. From there, every doctrine can be tested in context rather than imposed by system.

 

[GWH]

start with GRFS itself — what God actually requires for salvation — and let Scripture define the condition (John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Rom 10:9–13). Once the condition is established, M‑F‑W naturally follows: righteousness required, faith offered, will engaged. From there, every doctrine can be tested in context rather than imposed by system.

Okay, but I want to sleep on it now, and will reply in the morning at dark thirty.

 

[GWH]

Okay, it is a little darker than usual, but I am ready to start our discussion with GRFS itself: What does God require for salvation?,
which is the most important question in life (asked of Paul and Silas in Acts 16:30), because—as sinful and mortal souls—we need saving from corruption, both moral and physical. We need saving from physical death if we value or enjoy life, and we need saving from immorality or evil-doing if it results in unhappy existence, especially after this lifetime. The question regarding GRFS is the OP topic of the thread entitled "The Kerygma: the Christian Creed".

However, although we want to "let Scripture define the condition", we must realize that the answer/truth/GRFS is not zapped into people's minds, but rather most of humanity for most of history has not known Scripture, and even those of us who have believed the Bible from infancy cannot avoid employing logic when discussing it, which is why I begin the thread "Apologetics: Witnessing to Atheists (& Heretics)" by attempting to be unbiased as I employ a logical train of thought beginning as Descartes.

The reply/answer of Paul and Silas was this: “(IF you) believe in the Lord Jesus, you will be saved.” (Acts 16:31) This is GRFS in a nutshell. The implied "IF" connotes God’s condition for repentance (cf. the IFs in John 8:7, 14, 16, 19, 24, 31, 36, 39, 42, 46, 51, 54, 55). Jesus Himself expressed GRFS even more succinctly using three, four and five letter words: “(IF you) Ask… seek… knock…” (Matt. 7:7), and Heb. 11:6 indicates that seekers of the answer will find faith in God.

As you noted, Scriptures in the vein of John 3:16 and Acts 16:31 (Gen. 3:6, Deut. 30:19, Josh. 24:15, 2Chron. 7:14, Matt. 4:17, 7:7, 23:37, John 6:39, Acts 2:38, 28:27, Rom. 1:20, 2:4, 11&15, 3:22, 4:23-24, 5:15&19, 10:9-13, 11:32, Gal. 3:8&14, Eph. 2:8-9, Phil. 2:10-11, Col. 1:19-23, 1Tim. 2:3-4, etc.) indicate that God enables/gives/graces every sinful soul with the ability and opportunity to repent of sin (Matt. 4:17) and seek salvation (1Tim. 2:3-4, Ezek. 33:11). Seeking God is the beginning of saving faith, and not seeking God or rejecting His grace/salvation in Christ is the essence of evil atheism or faith in I-dolatry (Rom. 3:11, 1:18-23).

Seeking grace logically implies the most primitive but universal truth is that souls must love and believe truth (God's Word) in order to be saved (2Thes. 2:10). This soteriological nucleus of GRFS can be compared to a fractal design. A fractal is a never-ending geometric pattern where a shape repeats itself in smaller and smaller sizes, so that when one zooms in on a fractal design forever, each part is a microcosm of the whole design. What is the soteriological shape/fractal truth in the divine design/plan? God’s Love (1John 4:7-16, Rom. 5:5).

Jesus implied that a child too young to know Scripture can be saved (Matt. 19:14), and Paul indicated every sinner who has ever lived has no excuse for not reflecting the Creator’s good/loving nature (Rom. 1:20, 2:6-11). This kerygmatic truth is the fractal fact all who are saved agree on, no matter which aspect of the hippo/design they see from where they are. This condition is what may be called the foreshadowed or proto-Gospel, and it logically implies M‑F‑W IMO.

And you say?

 

[OMC]

Okay, it is a little darker than usual, but I am ready to start our discussion with GRFS itself: What does God require for salvation?,
which is the most important question in life (asked of Paul and Silas in Acts 16:30), because—as sinful and mortal souls—we need saving from corruption, both moral and physical. We need saving from physical death if we value or enjoy life, and we need saving from immorality or evil-doing if it results in unhappy existence, especially after this lifetime. The question regarding GRFS is the OP topic of the thread entitled "The Kerygma: the Christian Creed".

However, although we want to "let Scripture define the condition", we must realize that the answer/truth/GRFS is not zapped into people's minds, but rather most of humanity for most of history has not known Scripture, and even those of us who have believed the Bible from infancy cannot avoid employing logic when discussing it, which is why I begin the thread "Apologetics: Witnessing to Atheists (& Heretics)" by attempting to be unbiased as I employ a logical train of thought beginning as Descartes.

The reply/answer of Paul and Silas was this: “(IF you) believe in the Lord Jesus, you will be saved.” (Acts 16:31) This is GRFS in a nutshell. The implied "IF" connotes God’s condition for repentance (cf. the IFs in John 8:7, 14, 16, 19, 24, 31, 36, 39, 42, 46, 51, 54, 55). Jesus Himself expressed GRFS even more succinctly using three, four and five letter words: “(IF you) Ask… seek… knock…” (Matt. 7:7), and Heb. 11:6 indicates that seekers of the answer will find faith in God.

As you noted, Scriptures in the vein of John 3:16 and Acts 16:31 (Gen. 3:6, Deut. 30:19, Josh. 24:15, 2Chron. 7:14, Matt. 4:17, 7:7, 23:37, John 6:39, Acts 2:38, 28:27, Rom. 1:20, 2:4, 11&15, 3:22, 4:23-24, 5:15&19, 10:9-13, 11:32, Gal. 3:8&14, Eph. 2:8-9, Phil. 2:10-11, Col. 1:19-23, 1Tim. 2:3-4, etc.) indicate that God enables/gives/graces every sinful soul with the ability and opportunity to repent of sin (Matt. 4:17) and seek salvation (1Tim. 2:3-4, Ezek. 33:11). Seeking God is the beginning of saving faith, and not seeking God or rejecting His grace/salvation in Christ is the essence of evil atheism or faith in I-dolatry (Rom. 3:11, 1:18-23).

Seeking grace logically implies the most primitive but universal truth is that souls must love and believe truth (God's Word) in order to be saved (2Thes. 2:10). This soteriological nucleus of GRFS can be compared to a fractal design. A fractal is a never-ending geometric pattern where a shape repeats itself in smaller and smaller sizes, so that when one zooms in on a fractal design forever, each part is a microcosm of the whole design. What is the soteriological shape/fractal truth in the divine design/plan? God’s Love (1John 4:7-16, Rom. 5:5).

Jesus implied that a child too young to know Scripture can be saved (Matt. 19:14), and Paul indicated every sinner who has ever lived has no excuse for not reflecting the Creator’s good/loving nature (Rom. 1:20, 2:6-11). This kerygmatic truth is the fractal fact all who are saved agree on, no matter which aspect of the hippo/design they see from where they are. This condition is what may be called the foreshadowed or proto-Gospel, and it logically implies M‑F‑W IMO.

And you say?

I agree with this.

 

[GWH]

If you agree, then I guess you must not be a tulipist as something you said on other threads indicated,
but let us pursue this discussion a little further just to be sure/clear.

As I say in the Apologetics thread, answering ultimate questions involves understanding how truth is acquired (epistemology). Some knowledge is gleaned directly from personal experiences and is available to all who seek to know the truth with an open mind (like Descartes, Socrates or Buddha) by means of reflecting or meditating on experiences logically. The apostle Paul indicated the world reveals God’s “invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature” (Rom. 1:20) and that conscience indicates “the requirements of the law” (Rom. 2:15).

A second possible way of obtaining knowledge is by learning from the insights or inspiration of others. Divinely inspired knowledge was claimed by Jesus (in John 14:9-11) and by Paul (in Gal. 1:11-12 & Tit. 1:1-3). Insights could be a combination of reflection and inspiration, perhaps taught by God’s indwelling Spirit, who Jesus said would “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13), and I find reasons to believe NT theism is true. I think any open-minded truthseeker who compares the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul with the founding scriptures of other religions will reach the same conclusion as I have: The NT is the most credible canon or collection of writings purporting to be a communique from God.

The NT hope for heaven is based on evidence in support of Jesus’ claim to be Messiah/Christ, which includes: the prophecy or foreshadowing of His life (in various OT scriptures, including Isa. 53 and Psa. 22, and by the sacrificial system), the purpose of His death (as explained in the NT, such as Heb. 7:18-10:18), and the probability or credibility of His resurrection (in history as recorded by the last chapters of the Gospels, Rom. 1:3-4 and 1Cor. 15:13-19).

Christianity qualified OT theism, which emphasized God’s love for some people (descendants of Abraham), with a UMI to love everyone by reflecting His love, beginning with God and continuing with one-self and one’s neighbors (whether Jew or Gentile) and even including one’s enemies (per Matt. 22:37-39 & 5:44). The best reason to hope in God is Christ. Paul calls those who have saving faith/cooperate with God’s will the spiritual or righteous children of Abraham (Rom. 3:28-30 & 4:9-16).

I emphasize logic/reason without intending to demean emotion. Both are important aspects of personality, but their relationship is analogous to that of saving faith and works: saving faith precedes godly works/fruit/love (per Eph. 2:8-10, Gal. 5:6), and right reasoning should guide one’s emotion. Right reasoning or divine logic functions in a way similar to the OT law: leading sinful souls to learn the need for God’s Gospel/Christ (Gal. 3:19-25). Biblical passages that seem to support the view that human logic is a divine gift include the following:

1. “Come now, let us reason together,” says the Lord. (Isa. 1:18a)
2. “They hated me without reason.” (John 15:25)
3. “So [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.” (Acts 17:17)
4. “We do, however, speak a message of wisdom [right reasoning] among the mature…” (1Cor. 2:6)
5. “When I was a child… I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.” (1Cor. 13:11)
6. “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” (1Pet. 3:15b)

These passages indicate that we should think and attempt to learn the best beliefs/opinions/solutions regarding issues including the arguments or accusations of atheists:

a. There is no objective truth.
b. There are no miracles or proof that God exists.
c. Christianity is blind faith, whereas atheism is scientific.
d. Evolution disproves creation as described in Genesis.
e. Jesus did not resurrect.
f. The Bible is not divinely inspired.
g. The doctrines of wrath and hell indicate that God is hateful.
h. There is no more reason to believe in the biblical God than in pagan
gods.
i. Christians are no better than other people.
j. A loving God would not allow evil to exist.
k. The NT gospel makes no sense.
l. The Trinity makes no sense.

Over, for comments by OMC or anyone...

 

[OMC]

If you agree, then I guess you must not be a tulipist as something you said on other threads indicated,
but let us pursue this discussion a little further just to be sure/clear.

As I say in the Apologetics thread, answering ultimate questions involves understanding how truth is acquired (epistemology). Some knowledge is gleaned directly from personal experiences and is available to all who seek to know the truth with an open mind (like Descartes, Socrates or Buddha) by means of reflecting or meditating on experiences logically. The apostle Paul indicated the world reveals God’s “invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature” (Rom. 1:20) and that conscience indicates “the requirements of the law” (Rom. 2:15).

A second possible way of obtaining knowledge is by learning from the insights or inspiration of others. Divinely inspired knowledge was claimed by Jesus (in John 14:9-11) and by Paul (in Gal. 1:11-12 & Tit. 1:1-3). Insights could be a combination of reflection and inspiration, perhaps taught by God’s indwelling Spirit, who Jesus said would “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13), and I find reasons to believe NT theism is true. I think any open-minded truthseeker who compares the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul with the founding scriptures of other religions will reach the same conclusion as I have: The NT is the most credible canon or collection of writings purporting to be a communique from God.

The NT hope for heaven is based on evidence in support of Jesus’ claim to be Messiah/Christ, which includes: the prophecy or foreshadowing of His life (in various OT scriptures, including Isa. 53 and Psa. 22, and by the sacrificial system), the purpose of His death (as explained in the NT, such as Heb. 7:18-10:18), and the probability or credibility of His resurrection (in history as recorded by the last chapters of the Gospels, Rom. 1:3-4 and 1Cor. 15:13-19).

Christianity qualified OT theism, which emphasized God’s love for some people (descendants of Abraham), with a UMI to love everyone by reflecting His love, beginning with God and continuing with one-self and one’s neighbors (whether Jew or Gentile) and even including one’s enemies (per Matt. 22:37-39 & 5:44). The best reason to hope in God is Christ. Paul calls those who have saving faith/cooperate with God’s will the spiritual or righteous children of Abraham (Rom. 3:28-30 & 4:9-16).

I emphasize logic/reason without intending to demean emotion. Both are important aspects of personality, but their relationship is analogous to that of saving faith and works: saving faith precedes godly works/fruit/love (per Eph. 2:8-10, Gal. 5:6), and right reasoning should guide one’s emotion. Right reasoning or divine logic functions in a way similar to the OT law: leading sinful souls to learn the need for God’s Gospel/Christ (Gal. 3:19-25). Biblical passages that seem to support the view that human logic is a divine gift include the following:

1. “Come now, let us reason together,” says the Lord. (Isa. 1:18a)
2. “They hated me without reason.” (John 15:25)
3. “So [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.” (Acts 17:17)
4. “We do, however, speak a message of wisdom [right reasoning] among the mature…” (1Cor. 2:6)
5. “When I was a child… I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.” (1Cor. 13:11)
6. “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” (1Pet. 3:15b)

These passages indicate that we should think and attempt to learn the best beliefs/opinions/solutions regarding issues including the arguments or accusations of atheists:

a. There is no objective truth.
b. There are no miracles or proof that God exists.
c. Christianity is blind faith, whereas atheism is scientific.
d. Evolution disproves creation as described in Genesis.
e. Jesus did not resurrect.
f. The Bible is not divinely inspired.
g. The doctrines of wrath and hell indicate that God is hateful.
h. There is no more reason to believe in the biblical God than in pagan
gods.
i. Christians are no better than other people.
j. A loving God would not allow evil to exist.
k. The NT gospel makes no sense.
l. The Trinity makes no sense.

Over, for comments by OMC or anyone...

your emphasis on logic as a tool for answering atheistic objections is fully consistent with the biblical pattern of how truth is known.