The Threat of Grace
Societyvs:
Thus the reason I point to the idea Christian responsibility has weak moral foundations. Following the teachings – and I mean everything Jesus taught – is simply – a choice. It has no links to nothing in terms of one’s salvation (which is something outside them altogether). Nothing they do will mean anything – since it only matters what Christ did for them. That is the type of responsibility no parent would dare teach their child. It means your actions mean very little in the large scope of life – they are taken care of ahead of time (and are not important because of someone else’s righteousness being added to you). If we started teaching children this level of responsibility – this world would go to hell in a handbasket.
It is not enough to rely on choice or ‘want’ in this matter – this is a matter of correct standards being taught to everyone so they can rightly take their place in the kingdom of God. We teach people a ‘cop-out’ – well you call this a ‘sin stained world’ – it will only get worse.
I happened to be reading Tim Keller’s The Reason For God today and… well… he responds to this problem significantly better than I do, so I will let his words speak for themselves. From page 182-183:
When many first hear the distinction between religion and the gospel (legalism and grace), they think that it just sounds too easy. “Nice deal!” they may say. “If that is Christainity, all I have to do is get a personal relationship to God and then do anything I want!” Those words however, can only be spoken on the outside of an experience of radical grace. Noone from the inside speaks like that. In fact, grace can be quite threatening.
Some years ago I met with a woman who began coming to church at Redeemer. she said that she had gone to church growing up and had never before heard a distinction drawn between the gospel and religion. She had always heard that God accepts us only if we are good enough [and don't screw up big]. She said that the new message was scary. I asked her why it was scary, and she replied:
If I was saved by my own good works then there would be a limit to what God could ask of me or put me through. I would be like a taxpayer with “rights” - I would ahve done my duty and now I would deserve a certain quality of life. But if I am a sinner saved by sheer grace - then there’s nothing he cannot ask of me.
She understood the dynamic of grace and gratitude. If when you have lost all fear of punishment you also lose all incentive to live a good, unselfish life, then the only incentive you ever had to live a decent life was fear. This woman could see immediately that the wonderful-beyond-belief teaching of salvation by sheer grace had an edge to it. She knew that if she was a sinner saved by grace, she was (if anything) more subject to the sovereign Lordship of God. She knew that if Jesus really had done all this for her, she would not be her own. She would joyfully, gratefully belong to Jesus, who provided all this for her at infinite cost to himself.
Fear is an absolutely poor motivation for obedience. The gospel is “I am accepted - therefore I obey,” not “I obey, therefore I am accepted.” Grace is infinitely more compelling than fear or threats, and infinitely more fitting of a loving God who gave himself for us. Grace can be very scary and very threatening to our egos and perceived autonomy.
Posts
What a resounding note!
And nothing but the threat of grace could destroy the human ego. For the whole of our lives we posture until we can be led into the great openness of freedom - led by the irresistible compelling grace of our Lord’s sacrifice.
O to be bound to such love without separation!
Chris, you are a true poet…
And go get that book! I told you, you would love it!
There is an aspect of grace I admire - the grace that gave me a chance to change my life in faith in God. I can admire what Tim is saying here in his writing - grace can make us push to great limits - I can admit that is true. But this grace - is it grace or mercy?
This is where I am at now - grace reads like mercy (and mercy is a form of judgment). The problem for me with grace is simple - what is the grace about exactly? Is it mercy? I mean, they got used in very similar ways/meaning.
I think grace is good - but how gracious is this grace then? We are talking about a loving God here and one that suspends grace to the human being - how far does that stretch? To eternity? What exactly is limiting God’s grace, if anything? I have to wonder - how far does that grace actually stretch?
I see us bantering about the idea of universal salvation - which some agree with and some do not. But if someone says they do not believe in universal salvation - then grace has a limit somewhere…what is that dividing line?
For me, the grace is simply God has allowed us Gentiles into the promises of the Jewish faith - and we can all approach God equally and on the same footing. That’s the grace I see Paul talking about - that all things are taken care of and this faith is open to all. I think Paul might have thought this way (concerning election and what not).
But once we get past that - then we have to be involved in the process of faith (with God and with others). We are responsible for our actions and what we do - and as people of God we acknowledge that openly. Our faith is a living one where we follow the Christ - his teachings and his actions - to try to become like our teacher. Once on that type of path - not sure how we can truly fail.
But I think salvation is something we live - so that makes me an outsider in Christian circles more or less - but I think the faith is solely about that ideal. Living a life that patterns itself after salvation - a lifestyle if you will.
That’s why I question current grace doctrines - because they do not explain themselves well (they seem vague to me). They impose limits without any real answers. Grace is unmerited favor is it not? How can we set limits to something we cannot merit anyways? That means there has to be no limit we can impose in the idea of grace. Thus, confusion with universal salvation (in my opinion). They sound a lot alike.
We may not be saved by works - but to count us out of the process altogether is to remove the reason for the salvific act…to deal with sin! Now Jesus may have ‘paid a price’ for sin - but we need to decipher what that means with Jesus’ own teachings…and this is where it gets muddy.
Grace - as Paul uses it - shows up one time in 4 gospels - and again - it’s John 1:17. Beyond that - the idea as we find in Paul is pretty much not to be heard from. And even then - it is not explained well. So we have to rely on Paul’s mission to the Gentiles and his teachings - not Jesus’ - to develop this doctrine. Even then, as I understand Paul, it’s all about inclusion - a message I find in Jesus’ own teachings. But this whole grace idea as ’unmerited favor’ tied with salvation - uhm…not in single gospel and would even question if it is in Paul’s works.
SVS,
“This is where I am at now - grace reads like mercy (and mercy is a form of judgment). The problem for me with grace is simple - what is the grace about exactly? Is it mercy? I mean, they got used in very similar ways/meaning.”
Mercy is definitely a form of judgment, and it is a form of grace. Mercy is the withholding of righteous judgment out of, or because of, grace.
“I think grace is good - but how gracious is this grace then?”
We can’t talk about grace without also talking about justice. In the same way, we can’t talk about love without talking about truth (see our blog’s tagline). Grace is open, free, and available for all who put their faith in Christ. For those who believe, there is no limit to that grace eternally (salvation). For those who do not believe, they may experience snippets or glimpses of that grace in this life (common grace). Jesus talked about this in Matthew when He said that God sends rain and sun on the just and the unjust. Those are invitations into relationship with Him through Jesus, but not everyone will accept it.
“But if someone says they do not believe in universal salvation - then grace has a limit somewhere…what is that dividing line?”
The dividing line is the cross. It is Jesus. If He is the messiah, then HE is the truth, the way, and the life. Every other religion claims that their TEACHING is the way to salvation… do this, and be saved (in one form or another, with different views of what salvation looks like). Only Christianity claims that God Himself is salvation. Salvation is not universal, but it is free.
It’s kinda like a radio station giving away free concert tickets without limit. It is open to anyone and everyone, but you have to call in to get them. You can’t just expect it to get mailed to your house if you don’t seek the giver first.
“For me, the grace is simply God has allowed us Gentiles into the promises of the Jewish faith - and we can all approach God equally and on the same footing.”
But that was accomplished long before the cross. There were non-Jewish proselytes who worshipped in synagogue for centuries before. If that is the point of Jesus life and death, then he wasted his time. Paul absolutely understood that faith in God is open to all, and in a new way, but it stems from Jesus “Great Commission” at the end of Matthew, and Paul’s personal calling to preach the good news to the gentiles. This does not mean a change in standing, but a change in mission for Paul personally, and for the Christian.
But you must also ask, “Why the change in mission? What has changed?” What has changed is that we see a tangible fulfillment in God’s promises of redemption in the person, work, and death of Christ. God Himself came in the flesh to defeat the ultimate cause of all injsutice: sin and death. And He did so out of the faith and love demonstrated throughout His relationship with Israel. Remember, from the very beginning, we see that Israel was a means to an end, not the end itself (Genesis 12, the call of Abraham).
(To be continued…)
“But I think salvation is something we live - so that makes me an outsider in Christian circles more or less - but I think the faith is solely about that ideal. Living a life that patterns itself after salvation - a lifestyle if you will.”
But why? What is your motivation? What makes your pattern or lifestyle more effective, fulfilling, etc. than (for example) the Muslim or Buddhists? What about the satanist or the humanist?
What’s the point?
“That’s why I question current grace doctrines - because they do not explain themselves well (they seem vague to me). They impose limits without any real answers. Grace is unmerited favor is it not? How can we set limits to something we cannot merit anyways?”
OK… I think I’m beginning to understand where you’re coming from. Thanks for sticking with it! Let me try an illustration.
Let’s say that a once-close friend or family member has since turned their back on you. You do everything in your power to restore that relationship, but no matter what you do, they still choose to not repair that relationship. Salvation is ultimately restored relationship with God. He has done everything in His power to restore that relationship, but He cannot force us to reciprocate. If he could force us (universal salvation or universal restored relationship), then how could it be a relationship? We’d be mere robots.
The limit of grace is our acceptance of it. It is free and unmerited, but not forced universally. If it were, it wouldn’t be grace, it’d be dictatorship.
“We may not be saved by works - but to count us out of the process altogether is to remove the reason for the salvific act…to deal with sin!”
How does grace cut us out? We are agents of God’s redemptive plan, and that is very gracious indeed! To be included in His work in fighting evil and injustice wherever we find it… what an honor and a privilege! Works are not cut out, nor are they useless. Grace changes our motivations from working for our salvation (whatever THAT standard is…) to loving God in appreciation for what He has done by loving our neighbor as ourselves. Instead of being saved by good works, we are saved for good works. I am going to make another post to fill this out theologically, so there is more to come in explaining how this is connected to grace…
“Grace - as Paul uses it - shows up one time in 4 gospels - and again - it’s John 1:17. Beyond that - the idea as we find in Paul is pretty much not to be heard from. ”
Can you fill out this paragraph some? I’m really confused… You said that his idea of grace is not in the gospels, yet affirm that both he and Jesus taught inclusivism? Can you give me some examples?
Is this kind of argument directly referenced in the Bible?
Absolutely. This was the majority of what Jesus debated about with the Pharisees. The religious leaders of his day believed that it was through obedience to the law that we earned God’s favor, but Jesus turned it on back on them, showing that it was impossible to obey the law because human nature is corrupted by sin and that God’s grace is the only way we can be reconciled with him. This is the “good news” that grace (and not our effort) does the work for us that Paul spent his life teaching across the Roman Empire. Throughout, he emphasizes that this grace is our new motivation for loving God and each other.
What specific aspects of the argument are you wanting connected? Here are a few on what was discussed off the top of my head… but that may not be what you are asking…
Justifying/Salvific Grace and Exclusive Claims of Christ:
John 3:16-18 (over-quoted, but concise)
John 3:36
Mark 16:16
Common Grace:
Matthew 5:45b
“For those who do not believe, they may experience snippets or glimpses of that grace in this life (common grace).” (Brad)
Common grace is a doctrine that is actually made up as far as I can tell. It seems to be based on the idea that Christians get a certain/full grace while all others/unbelievers get ‘snippets’ of that grace – based on the basics of a ‘grace divided’ (is the best way I can out it).
This seems to be based on a single passage from Matthew – which for all reasonable purposes – is being used out of context to support a claim on grace that really is being used to support an orderly doctrine of exclusion. I don’t have to agree with that claim of ‘common grace’ – it seems unfounded biblically (seems to be an extra-biblical idea added in). Now I may be wrong – but from where I sit in studying – it seems like that to me.
“The dividing line is the cross. It is Jesus…Only Christianity claims that God Himself is salvation. Salvation is not universal, but it is free.” (Brad)
I agree it is free – but the line of grace ends with the cross – how so? Isn’t the cross something we do not control (the actions that happened there)? Isn’t the cross the beginning of this idea of grace (from God) as we use it today in these convo’s? Wouldn’t – as you are describing grace – then begin and end with us? We can apparently choose full grace or common grace according to the division of grace. Again, this grace comes from God – how can we say we control that (or even make doctrines that limit that)?
I would also like to point out all other faith do not promote the idea of salvation as Christianity does and neither do all of them not accredit God with that process. That claim is definitely false and is shaded from a Christian perspective on the view of God we hold to – not all other faiths think like us.
“It’s kinda like a radio station giving away free concert tickets without limit. It is open to anyone and everyone, but you have to call in to get them. You can’t just expect it to get mailed to your house if you don’t seek the giver first.” (Brad)
So you admit that grace – it’s basic power more or less – are somewhat in our hands to determine? Then could we not also say ‘we control the grace of God’? If our decision is involved in that process (a work/deed/action of some sort) – then the cross is not the dividing line – our decision skills are.
“But why? What is your motivation? What makes your pattern or lifestyle more effective, fulfilling, etc. than (for example) the Muslim or Buddhists? What about the satanist or the humanist?” (Brad)
I think salvation is a lifestyle based solely on the teachings and life of Jesus. This same person that goes to the cross (for humanity) – asks us to bare that same cross. It seems his life set a pattern for the talmid (disciple) to follow. That life is one of salvation (personally and corporately) – where the idea is to become the type of disciple Jesus teaches about/lives out himself. I see Jesus clearly setting a lifestyle to follow.
What makes it fulfilling is that I think Jesus is a teacher from God – and one that I hold as closest to God in some manner (Messiah = Anointed one). What was this person anointed in? His teachings on the torah and prophets? It really matters little to me (although it seems he has authority on the teachings of the Tanakh) – he was anointed by the One God. I derive my meaning from that – and that the teachings guide me to a better life (one for me, for God, for others).
Salvation is the goal (for me) but it is not something I have received in full at any point of time as of yet. Salvation seems to be a process – a lifestyle – a walk/path. I learn more as I go and enact those ideals/teachings into my life. Basically, working on my own life – guided by my faith/the teachings – for the sake of the salvation of humanity. I am actively involved in that process – and I think – so is everyone else whether they realize that or not.
“You said that his idea of grace is not in the gospels, yet affirm that both he and Jesus taught inclusivism?” (Brad)
I think they both taught inclusivism – yet the word ‘grace’ is not the word used in the gospels (only once – it’s in John). I think the idea can be seen there but it is more directly laid out what that ‘looks like’. The sermon on the mount is a great example of many of those ideas and they get labeled definitively – mercy is mercy, meekness is meekness, or peacefulness is peacefulness. Grace, as an idea, is vaguely defined (and never defined in the gospels as Paul uses it). Instead, in the gospels, the whole way of life is taught plain and simply using terms we can look at individually.
***Brad delete my comment 8 - it’s all bunched up
SVS,
“It seems to be based on the idea that Christians get a certain/full grace while all others/unbelievers get ‘snippets’ of that grace – based on the basics of a ‘grace divided’ (is the best way I can out it).”
Yeah, I miscommunicated that. Common Grace is given to all of God’s creation. It is shared by Christians and non-Christians. It is not a “second class” type of grace, it is very universal. This is why leaders such as Ghandi, Mother Theresa, the Dhali Lama (sp?), and other leaders can all be affirmed as having done great good for the world. This is why Christians and non-Christians can agree on politics (once in a while
), as well as live and work in each others’ midst.
And there are other passages outside of Matthew that affirm the doctrine. It is absolutely biblical. I will have to get back to you on more specifics as it is a doctrine I’ve generally readily accepted, and not done much study on… mostly because it is so readily apparent in the world.
“So you admit that grace – it’s basic power more or less – are somewhat in our hands to determine? Then could we not also say ‘we control the grace of God’? If our decision is involved in that process (a work/deed/action of some sort) – then the cross is not the dividing line – our decision skills are.”
Let me quote Spurgeon in response. I’ll make a new post on it momentarily…
“I think salvation is a lifestyle based solely on the teachings and life of Jesus.”
Dude (can I call you Dude?). Jesus spent his entire ministry condemning Pharisees who defined salvation as a lifestyle based solely on the teachings and life of Jesus. Regardless of how effectively they did it, he said that “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” not “my teachings.” He is. Himself. Ironically, your claim is antithetical to Jesus’ own teachings.
Rather, Jesus’ teachings (like Torah) are descriptions of a redeemed community living in relationship with their God.
“Salvation is the goal (for me) but it is not something I have received in full at any point of time as of yet.”
How do you know if you have reached it? What if you do not? What is your motivation? Jesus never conditioned his grace, that is Pharisaical.
“I think they both taught inclusivism – yet the word ‘grace’ is not the word used in the gospels (only once – it’s in John).”
The grammar differs because the audience varies. The term itself may not be there, but the concepts absolutely are. They are embodied in other words and descriptions like love, mercy, and peace. This is illustrated by Luke. He may not use the word “grace” in the gospel he wrote, but it is everywhere in Acts (11 times actually), and it is ALWAYS used to describe the effect God had on them (6:8; 11:23) or the means by which they believed (20:24; 20:32).
“Jesus spent his entire ministry condemning Pharisees who defined salvation as a lifestyle based solely on the teachings and life of Jesus. Regardless of how effectively they did it, he said that “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” not “my teachings.” He is. Himself. Ironically, your claim is antithetical to Jesus’ own teachings.” (Brad)
My claim is antithetical to your views on what Jesus said - namely from John 14:6.
Jesus condemns Pharisee’s for hypocrisy - and for not living by the teachings of God accurately (or in true fulfillment of what they mean). Jesus’ attacks on Pharisee’s and the such are always leveled in that manner - if anything the point I am making lines up with Jesus very closely - living those teachings is going to be salvific in nature (for everyone involved).
As for the ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life’ - well that’s a subject I love dealing with. To call someone those things ‘a way, a truth, and a life’ - well…what does it mean exactly?
I think Jesus is very clear, even in that same chapter:
John 14:15
John 14:21
John 14:23
John 14:24
John 14:26
I think if we are going to discuss someone’s ‘way, truth, and life’ - then we must reference what they taught and abided by in their lifestyle. In Matthew Jesus is called teacher (rabbi) a lot - his teachings seem to be the pinnacle of understanding who he is. I am merely going by the words written in John 14 - if Jesus is the ‘way, truth, and life’ - then I will find those in his teachings (which builds the trilateral relationship I desire - with God, with others, within myself).
“How do you know if you have reached it? What if you do not? What is your motivation? Jesus never conditioned his grace, that is Pharisaical.” (Brad)
(a) I have set no condition on grace - that is God’s to give - so I cannot tell anyone they cannot partake in it
(b) The motivation is what the term salvation means. It is from the root word ’salve’ - which is about a healing. Maybe our faith is very concerned with that - in relationship with God, with others, and in the person themselves. What more motivation do you really need when you see the scope and breadth of your existence in the totality of God’s creation?
(c) Salvation is a lifestyle - not a point. It is like truth - you learn the idea…then you delve into it…experience it…then you go back to the original idea and discover you have come closer to truth in the process followng it…then it continues on. Just like how truth is something we search out - salvation is also…it is not just about the end…but also the living.
“Jesus condemns Pharisee’s for hypocrisy - and for not living by the teachings of God accurately (or in true fulfillment of what they mean).”
Then why did he uphold the faith of the destitute, the sinful, and the unclean over and above that of the Pharisees (Luke 15:7)? It seems to me that those are poor examples of righteous other-centered living, however you define it. The tax collector hardly lives out Torah (Luke 18:10-14).
It is NOT the teachings that save. It is the person and work of Christ. The teachings are the ways in which we express our gratitude to that grace.
And SVS, I have enjoyed every bit of our conversations on here. But my understanding of your interpretation of Jesus’ teachings (and the foundation of Torah on which they are based) do not reflect the authorial intent of Torah, and seem to resemble a modern twist/version of the Pharisees’ teachings during the 1st century. There is no “good news” in “You got Torah all wrong, this is how it REALLY is…” It just means they were wrong, and it got Jesus killed! How is that good news? If Jesus was the only one who got it right then his death is a tragedy, not a reason for celebration.
In Re: to your citing John…
How can you cite John to support this interpretation and ignore the most explicit claims of Jesus’ divinity in all of scripture? What about John 3:16-18? It says “whoever believes,” and “that the world might be saved through him,” not “whoever follows the teachings of.” To interpret the passages you cite outside of that context could very well lead you to those beliefs, but it is inaccurate and totally unfounded.
In Re: to a, b, and c….
(a.) so what do you do then? Follow his teachings and cross your fingers, hoping that he will give it to you? That is no way to go through life, and is in stark contrast to the certainty and affirmation that biblical authors like Paul and Peter encourage their readers with.
(b.) That is not Christianity or Judaism, but humanism with a Christian theme. Healing and redemption is a result, but the cause is God’s grace. The very foundation for the 10 Commandments (Exodus 20:3-17) is God’s grace (Exodus 20:2)!!!
(c.) Salvation is not a lifestyle, but redemption is. Salvation is the indicative (promise, truth, grace) that empowers and drives the imperative (command, teaching, law) of living redemptively. Without salvation, without the assurance of faith, without God’s grace, the ability to live redemptively is limited by our own feeble ability and self-discipline… and all too often it becomes an attempt to earn God’s blessing instead of a grateful reaction to it.
“Then why did he uphold the faith of the destitute, the sinful, and the unclean over and above that of the Pharisees (Luke 15:7)? It seems to me that those are poor examples of righteous other-centered living, however you define it. The tax collector hardly lives out Torah (Luke 18:10-14).” (Brad)
How is he upholding it higher – is it not about the measure and the need? If you were the prodigals father – which one makes you more happier to see ‘getting on their feet again’ – the one who always was on their feet or the one who threw that all away for a dangerous lifestyle?
As for the tax collector – well he is atoning for his sins – in a call of repentance. He beats his chest and admits his need for help…something the Pharisee would have done long ago and maybe now overlooks it. This is still a case of ‘hypocrisy’ in one sense – the Pharisee in the story should have also been ‘humble’ and was not.
“It is NOT the teachings that save. It is the person and work of Christ. The teachings are the ways in which we express our gratitude to that grace.” (Brad)
Since you bring up Torah and Moses/Exodus…let’s examine that in comparison to our faith.
The Exodus is the salvific act of God for Israel in Egypt. The Torah is given from the very mouth of God to Israel to help define community. You need both to have the community of God – the action and the community participation for success. When success was not there in the Prophets books – what was the reason?
Out faith has the salvific act of Jesus’ sacrifice – excellent – that is the way paved for humanity to enter into the God relationship. However, that is also going to need to something to help define community – the teachings of Jesus based on Torah and Prophets. We have those teachings to help guide us towards God and what God wants for the planet (kingdom of God is here). If relationship fails – what causes this failure?
The teachings are an expression of gratitude – I can agree there – but they are also ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ since these are the ideas Jesus uses about himself. I show in you in that same chapter that Jesus is going to be known by what he taught and said.
You then lead me to John 3. I take you to John 3:19-21 – just after the earlier part. John talks a lot about actions there don’t ya think? The term believe as you use it in concern to Jesus – is not including the fact ‘we are what we do’ (thus our beliefs are defined). If we say we believe in Jesus – and do not love our brother for example – then we have to be deceiving ourselves…our claim is not valid. Belief is much deeper than saying some confession or what have you – it’s all about our actions.
But I will concede up to the point of 1 John 3:23 – where we see belief flushed out a bit and it includes both things.
“It just means they were wrong, and it got Jesus killed! How is that good news? If Jesus was the only one who got it right then his death is a tragedy, not a reason for celebration” (Brad)
How is it good news that God killed Jesus (whom you think is God – so God killed Himself) over His own words (Torah)? The Torah – God’s words – are shamed for the sake of Jesus? Then what makes God words of any use if we can write those off? Also, it is not Jesus’ claim the Torah or Prophets were bad in any way (Matt 5:17-20) – so I am not sure why this idea the Torah is bad even truly exists. Jesus taught extensively from it and also was in a community that respected his authority because of what he could teach from those scriptures (Torah and Prophets).
Those teachings were not wrong – Jesus taught them extensively and lived according to them – what was wrong was the human heart/humanity. The people of Jesus’ time let him down and allowed him to face death – they felt he was hurting the people (like many prophets felt in Israel in times past). They had him killed for it – to save the nation from any further uprisings. He dies on behalf of the nation/for the people – so to speak. But Torah never put him there – actually I would say the opposite put him there – hypocrisy and leaving of Torah.
It should also be noted from Matthew 5:17 – that not all is fulfilled…Jesus is coming back a 2nd time for that completion process. How can anyone be so bold to wipe away the teachings of God (Torah and Prophets) when Jesus himself would not? I pay my homage to Jesus by respecting his teachings – thus my belief is in Jesus – and also in what he taught/lived. That seems proper to me – namely as someone that would claim to be Jesus’ disciple/student.
“so what do you do then? Follow his teachings and cross your fingers, hoping that he will give it to you? That is no way to go through life, and is in stark contrast to the certainty and affirmation that biblical authors like Paul and Peter encourage their readers with” (Brad)
My hope is in God plain and simple – I follow the teachings of Jesus to improve my life. Heaven is assured – we know this by the resurrection – those who follow to the cross – follow to the place after it also. Faith is about the here and now though and this is our main focus if we follow Jesus. God may not be in the here and now (as far as seeing Him) but the focus of the teachings is about what we can do here and now. What actually defines our beliefs is how we live – not just what we can think about God. My focus should not be on heaven (it is there) – it should be on here and now and how I can be a godly figure for my community. I guess we all are like the prophets in that sense – we are in communities that need some direction or help – and we can be of some service there.
“Without salvation, without the assurance of faith, without God’s grace, the ability to live redemptively is limited by our own feeble ability and self-discipline… and all too often it becomes an attempt to earn God’s blessing instead of a grateful reaction to it.” (Brad)
Redemption – were talking redemption is what you call a ‘jacked up world’. The world needs some saving – redemption is nice – but it needs some serious repair and healing before we can get into redeeming it. I don’t even know what redemption really is – I’ll need that explained so I can see what it is you are saying. I tend to think we use salvation and redemption as the same meaning personally.
I am not that concerned with Gods blessings to be honest – I know they exist – I choose to follow God and out my trust in Him – beyond that I will not go too deep into some reward system for being an ideal human. God wants us to follow the teachings – it is in them that we hear what we need to become – and out need for change. Jesus brings us to God (as Gentiles) – but the relationship is also ½ us (teachings).