'Religion versus Personal Relationship' Replaced the Gospel in Many Evangelical Churches

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
If it is calling him a member of the Dagger sect, how is that a word play?
You seem to be engaging in some anachronistic argument now for what reason I don't know. This isn't complicated. It's just simple wordplay. Jesus came into his own, and his own knew him not. They killed him. This is what "Judas Iscariot" sounds like to the Greek speaking Jews who were using these narratives.
Do you think Jesus was a literary device also?
Most definitely. His name literally means "God's salvation". He personifies God's salvation which is perfect selfless obedience to God's law.
Why don't you show one verse about God saving men's souls before they believed instead of saving them through faith?
I have already, and quite a few. Here's yet another one:
"7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."
Note that prior to salvation, one cannot be subject to God's law at all.
"8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."
This claim is not qualified. There are no exceptions. They that are in the flesh cannot please God no matter what they do.
"9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you."
And that doesn't come about through belief or faith as faith is a work, and works will never save anyone. Note also the condition, e.g. "if the Spirit of God dwell in you".
"Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."
They must receive the Spirit of Christ first.
"10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousnes."
Note that the body is dead regardless of whether Christ is in you, but when Christ is in you, there can be no sin as there is no sin in Christ. Christ will not lead anyone to sin.
I quoted I Corinthians 15:1-13 and Romans 10:9-10.
Didn't I respond to them? Yep. I addressed both of them.
Paul says this in Acts 16 "“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved...."
Notice what it says in the next verse: " And they spake unto him the word of the Lord," That is what precedes belief. He can't believe on Christ without knowing who Christ is in the first place. The whole scene is a metaphor for the gospel. Paul has been imprisoned. The guard is a freeman, and yet he suddenly becomes aware of the fact that he is under a death penalty while Paul is the one who is actually free. That sudden awareness is what has been given to him in order that he may seek salvation. That is the gift of repentance which allows him to then hear the word, and be saved.
It is right in line with Paul's point that the law points to Christ. Believe in God's salvation and you will be saved. Those who must rely upon Christ to cover their sins are believers. They just haven't received the gospel. They are not yet able to manifest it without their own will and effort. Christ points out that it is the easiest thing in the world to do(e.g. "my yoke is easy, my burden light").
Where does He say, "God will save you before you believe" or "God will save you whether you believe or not?" I cannot find this in the Bible.
You don't choose Christ, he chooses you. "Flesh has not revealed this, but my father in heaven". "no man can please God" "No man is righteous". "No man comes to me unless the father draw him". Repentance is a gift, and only those who receive that gift can repent. Belief is a consequence of salvation.
Paul says we are saved through faith, not that the faith comes later.
I'm not saying the faith comes later either. The faith is Christ's faith implanted in the believer which then allows them to hear and believe the gospel message. Paul says we are saved through the faith of Christ, not our own faith. Faith is a work. He even points this out by saying, "NOT of works lest anyone boast".
The verses you referred to do not support that idea that salvation comes first.
Right. One must be under condemnation prior to being saved, and the damned are incapable of saving themselves. You keep forgetting that fact. The damned cannot repent in the first place. They have to be convicted by the spirit. They have to be pricked to the core of their being and see that there is absolutely nothing in them that warrants salvation. There is nothing that can enable them to be pleasing to God. Zilch, nada, the big goose egg. After they've been convicted, they are given the gift of repentance which allows them to believe and manifest God's will.
This is a different topic.
It proves my point.
Paul says faith is a gift of God, but he says that we are saved through faith, not before we believe.
One canot believe in the first place without that same saving faith. No one can beleive without faith, and that faith is the faith OF Christ. It is his faith inplanted, and dwelling within the beleiver.
the issue I addressed was not the Father drawing people, but the idea that people are saved before they believe.
No one has forgotten your position.
I would not think believing Christ died on a different shaped instrument is the issue.
Nor would I, but then there is no effective difference in their position and yours as you are also arguing that what one knows is what is important.
The Bible says to love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.
Yep, and focusing on one to the exclusion of the others, or assuming that an understanding is of primary importance isn't biblical. There is such a thing as faith seeking understanding that allows for a lack of understanding.
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
If understanding in preaching the Gospel were unimportant, then Peter could have just preached in tongues in a language the crowd did not understand instead of preaching a comprehensible sermon.
Sure, and they would have still been saved. One's understanding can affirm what has arleady happened, but it can't be fundamental. Again it is not the intellect, but Christ is the mediator between God and humanity.
Hearing the Gospel and believing it typically works through hearing with the ears physically. God's grace works on the mind as well.
Sure, but again this is beside the point. The mind is not what allows one to hear the gospel message. The mind is darkened until it is given the gospel. The mind does not englighten or magnify the gospel.
These people knew, intellectually, that Jesus existed.
They recognized God's salvation, but there is nothing within the mind itself that allows it to recognize God's salvation. That has to be revealed to the mind, and that only happens as a gift from the father.
I do not know if the Syrophoenician woman received eternal salvation or not.
Christ points to the faith dwelling within her. The legalists of Christ's day were offended by Christ's claim to forgive sins, but even they could see that the crippled walking revaled Christ's power to heal. Do you really believe she wasn't forgiven?
Since the premise of your argument is against the engaging of the intellect, maybe that is the idea.
It isn't against engaging the intellect. It is pointing out that an intellectual appreciation isn't anywhere sufficient for salvation, and more to the point, it has to be the heart as well which is affirmed by the intellect rather than mediated by the intellect.
The Ethiopian, in some manuscripts, confesses, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." He had that idea in his ___mind___ and believed it.
Again, you're conflating the mind's involvement as a contingency for salvation. it isn't. The mind is reflective of the reality, but salvation can never be contingent upon one's understanding. This is to place one's intellect as the mediator of salvation.
Paul write about the Gentiles who walked in the vanity of their mind having their understanding darkened, but he wrote that the Ephesian saints were to be "renewed in the spirit of your mind."
Sure, but again that renewal is spiritual, and salvation isn't contingent upon the mind's understanding. Not everyone is gifted with a superior intellect, and one isn't necessary for salvation.
He wrote let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus....
Exactly. It's the mind of Christ. It has nothing to do with our understanding.
We are to love God with our mind. The mind is not outside of the working of God or the salvation process.
Sure, but again it isn't contingent in the salvation process either.
"through faith, and that NOT of yourselves". It isn't your faith, but the faith of Christ; Christ's faith implanted in the new creature.
You opposed that idea earlier, arguing that salvation comes before faith.
You're ignoring the point altogether. It isn't your faith. You do not place your faith into Christ. Christ's faith is implanted in you. You do not exercise your faith in Christ's ability. Christ exercises his faith in, with, and through you.
Does salvation come through faith or before it?
No one has any saving faith until it is implanted into them, and that is done according to God's timetable. God saves them through his salvation which then manifests an abundance of fruit one of which is belief. They see and believe, but they will never see unless God reveals it to them first.
And we aren't talking about learning how the combustion engine works, studying years of theology, or even memorizing the Bible. The Gospel by which Paul says we are saved is simple.
I agree, but you're the one who is suggesting that learning is an integral feature of salvation.
If they do not understand with the mind they don't have revelation. Without revelation our minds cannot understand Christ, but the mind is involved.
You're still not addressing my point. The mind is not the mediator. Pointing out that the mind is involved doesn't address the fact that being involved isn't being committed, and that only comes with a new heart, mind, etc. You are thinking about the gospel rather than admitting that it has to be lived, and that takes commitment. When one eats bacon and eggs, it is the chicken who is involved, but the pig is committed. Christ isn't looking for someone who understands. He's looking for someone who walks away from their life without a thought.
More importantly, he need do nothing more than articulate the command, and it will be done. When he says, "Follow me", you get up and follow because that's all you can do. Jesus never tells the rich man to follow him because the rich man isn't authorized. He's seeking self justification, and self denial doesn't allow for the self to begin with. There is no one to believe the gospel. There is only Christ. In other words, the body follows the instructions of the head which is Christ.
We have prophets who have revelation from God which they never understood, and yet they are given these revelations anyways. Peter sees Christ walking on water, and steps out in faith, but his understanding is in a coma. The stewards fill up jugs of water without ever understanding why, and yet they do it anyways. Christ instructs his disciple to retreive the tax they must pay from the mouth of a fish. Do you know why? Do you understand why it has to be from the mouth of a fish? Do you think it matters if someone doesn't understand? Did their lack of understanding prevent them from obediently complying with Christ's instructions?
The person who does that just might have let 'this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.'
Yep
 

A_Man

Active Member
Nov 8, 2019
125
39
28
51
Atlanta area
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Sure, and they would have still been saved. One's understanding can affirm what has arleady happened, but it can't be fundamental. Again it is not the intellect, but Christ is the mediator between God and humanity.

Still saved if the people had not understood what Peter was preaching? What Bible are you rading. You've got your own ideas. People believe the Gospel by hearing it (usually) preached and it is God who gives the ears to hear. They don't believe the Gospel by not hearing and not understanding.

Sure, but again this is beside the point. The mind is not what allows one to hear the gospel message. The mind is darkened until it is given the gospel. The mind does not englighten or magnify the gospel.

The mind is involved in understanding and believing. The thing is, you use words, but I suspect what you mean is not well-reflected by the words you say.

They recognized God's salvation, but there is nothing within the mind itself that allows it to recognize God's salvation. That has to be revealed to the mind, and that only happens as a gift from the father.

That's how I see it. But you have been saying a lot of other stuff-- saved before believing, the mind having no part of it. If God allows the mind to understand then the mind has a part in it.

Christ points to the faith dwelling within her. The legalists of Christ's day were offended by Christ's claim to forgive sins, but even they could see that the crippled walking revaled Christ's power to heal. Do you really believe she wasn't forgiven?

Do I believe the SyroPhonecian woman was not forgiven? I would not say either way. As I recall, she was asking Jesus to deliver her daughter from demonization. I would not venture to guess that everyone Jesus healed physically was eternally saved from sin. It would be great if they were, and I would imagine many of them were. I wonder if Bartimeaus name gets mentioned, and not the other blind man mentioned in another gospel that names neither of them, because he was a member of the church. But that is just speculation/wondering on my part. I dont' know.

It isn't against engaging the intellect. It is pointing out that an intellectual appreciation isn't anywhere sufficient for salvation, and more to the point, it has to be the heart as well which is affirmed by the intellect rather than mediated by the intellect.

Now you are changing your tune. Before it was that the mind had no part in it, and being saved before believing, right? Even in the beginning of your post, you were talking about the people still being saved even if they had not understood what Peter was preaching.

Again, you're conflating the mind's involvement as a contingency for salvation. it isn't. The mind is reflective of the reality, but salvation can never be contingent upon one's understanding. This is to place one's intellect as the mediator of salvation.

Sorry, this sounds like double-talk to me. and you are using some words in non-standard ways-- contingency?. If the mind is involved in salvation because God reveals truth to the mind-- which seemed to be what you were saying before-- then why wouldn't salvation come through understanding of the Gospel-- which also involves the understanding being enlightened? You are using 'mediator' in a different way from the 'one mediator between God and man.'

Sure, but again that renewal is spiritual, and salvation isn't contingent upon the mind's understanding. Not everyone is gifted with a superior intellect, and one isn't necessary for salvation.

I am not saying that anyone has to have a great intellect to be a Christian. You are arguing against a strawman on that issue and several others. I do not agree when you say that the mind has nothing to do that. You seem to be going back and forth on this idea. I do not agree that people get saved before they believe. That is not consistent with the wording of the New Testament, and your comments on that are about God giving people faith. That's not the same thing as saying they are saved before they believe.

You're ignoring the point altogether. It isn't your faith. You do not place your faith into Christ. Christ's faith is implanted in you. You do not exercise your faith in Christ's ability. Christ exercises his faith in, with, and through you.

This kind of stuff, along with some over your previous posts, veers off into disagreeing with the wording of the Bible. Faith is a gift of God, but yes we believe. We put our trust in Him. You seem to be reading contradictions into ideas where none exist.

I agree, but you're the one who is suggesting that learning is an integral feature of salvation.

Romans 10 says,
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

You are making this very complicated, all this theorizing about the mind not being the mediator. A preacher preaches the gospel. Others hear the message and believe it. The mind is clearly involved in both hearing and believing.

There is also the issue of some people being spiritual deaf and not being able to percieve what God is saying, whose understanding is darkened. Those people do not believe. Their minds will not accept the Gospel.

You're still not addressing my point. The mind is not the mediator. Pointing out that the mind is involved doesn't address the fact that being involved isn't being committed, and that only comes with a new heart, mind, etc. You are thinking about the gospel rather than admitting that it has to be lived, and that takes commitment. When one eats bacon and eggs, it is the chicken who is involved, but the pig is committed. Christ isn't looking for someone who understands. He's looking for someone who walks away from their life without a thought.

I feel like you are making assumptions and throwing a lot of mixed metaphors at me, here. If I believe the mind is involved in hearing and believing the Gospel, that does not mean I do not believe in being committed.

I am just thinking if there is actually someone in a church teaching some of the things you write here, that could be terribly confusing to an new believer or seeker-- that people get saved before they believe the gospel, and that their mind has nothing to do with their being saved, and that if their mind had to believe it would be a mediator. I don't find anything in the Bible about that line of reasoning, and much to contradict it.

More importantly, he need do nothing more than articulate the command, and it will be done. When he says, "Follow me", you get up and follow because that's all you can do. Jesus never tells the rich man to follow him because the rich man isn't authorized.

Jesus told the rich young ruler to follow him, and he went away sorrowful for he had many possessions.


He's seeking self justification, and self denial doesn't allow for the self to begin with. There is no one to believe the gospel. There is only Christ. In other words, the body follows the instructions of the head which is Christ.
We have prophets who have revelation from God which they never understood, and yet they are given these revelations anyways. Peter sees Christ walking on water, and steps out in faith, but his understanding is in a coma. The stewards fill up jugs of water without ever understanding why, and yet they do it anyways. Christ instructs his disciple to retreive the tax they must pay from the mouth of a fish. Do you know why? Do you understand why it has to be from the mouth of a fish? Do you think it matters if someone doesn't understand? Did their lack of understanding prevent them from obediently complying with Christ's instructions?

If Peter's mind wasn't functioning at all, he would not have been able to perceive that Jesus was walking on water, to speak to him, or understand Jesus when he said 'come.' If the servants' minds were not functioning, they would not have understood to fill the jugs with water.
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
They don't believe the Gospel by not hearing and not understanding.
You're engaging in a Strawman argument. You're position is that one must have an accurate understanding of the gospel message. I am pointing out that it is a lived experience, and can only come from God. It isn't anything that we do, but the consequence of God's grace, through the faith of Christ alive in, with, and through the new creation. God creates the believer. God creates a new covenant which insures obedience, not by an intellectual appreciation, not by will or effort, but by promise, by the power of Christ's spirit. It is what the intellect understands, not the fact that it is understood.
The mind is involved in understanding and believing.
Sure, but again I already addressed this point. It's really not much of a point to begin with except insofar as it lends itself to confusing the issue which is the only reason I'm even bothering with it in the first place. The mind is reflective, but fallen humanity is incapable of reflecting anything except their own desperately wicked and deceitful heart. What fallen humanity's carnal mind perceives as repentance is an abomination to God (Luke 16:15; Romans 8:7,8).
The thing is, you use words, but I suspect what you mean is not well-reflected by the words you say.
The problem is more one of not paying attention to what I'm actually posting.
If God allows the mind to understand then the mind has a part in it.
Again, I have already pointed out that it cannot be the mediator. That's my point. Take it or leave it, but continually pointing out we have the ability to comprehend things isn't much of a point to begin with.

"It isn't against engaging the intellect. It is pointing out that an intellectual appreciation isn't anywhere sufficient for salvation, and more to the point, it has to be the heart as well which is affirmed by the intellect rather than mediated by the intellect."
Now you are changing your tune. Before it was that the mind had no part in it, and being saved before believing, right?
I'm not changing my tune. I'm pointing out that your claim that the gospel must be understood isn't really saying much of anything other than that we have the capacity to understand. This isn't saying much of anything. However, to then claim that it must be understood is another matter, one which I take seriously because it suggests that those who don't understand the gospel cannot be saved. Again, I've given examples showing why this can't be the case. The tax collector has not been taught anything. He's been commanded to follow, and that's what he does. The thief on the cross simply asks that Christ remember him when he enters into his kingdom. Christ reveals that he will enter into the messianic kingdom with him. The sheep recognize the shepherd. That's all that is necessary.
Even in the beginning of your post, you were talking about the people still being saved even if they had not understood what Peter was preaching.
Yep. Even when people are told that they have found the messiah, they all have their own preconceived ideas of what that means. Christ comes along and points out that it isn't about their preconceived ideas at all. What they recognize is not a list of doctrines, or even commandments to follow. What they see is God's law personified in Christ.
The law instructs the children of Israel to bind God's law "between thine eyes as a frontlet and upon thine hands" etc. This is pointing out that the law is the only thing on their minds, and everything that they do is a manifestation of God's commandments in action. Christ says the same thing when he says that he only does what he sees the father doing, and only says what is given to him to say from the father.
They see this reality. It is unbelievable!!! They can't understand how this is possible, but the only thing they can do is acquiesce or walk away. Jesus says that he teaches in parables because if people understood what he was talking about then they would all be saved. He doesn't do it that way though because that's not necessary or part of God's plan of salvation. People were getting saved anyways.
Sorry, this sounds like double-talk to me. and you are using some words in non-standard ways-- contingency?. If the mind is involved in salvation because God reveals truth to the mind-- which seemed to be what you were saying before-- then why wouldn't salvation come through understanding of the Gospel-- which also involves the understanding being enlightened?
False equivalency, and non sequitur.. You're assuming that just because truth enlightens the mind, that salvation comes through understanding the gospel. Just because the mind is involved or the gospel is understood, it doesn't then follow that "salvation come through understanding the Gospel". See what you're doing?
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
You are using 'mediator' in a different way from the 'one mediator between God and man.'
The mind of Christ is not the mind of fallen humanity. Unless one is given the mind of Christ, they're damned. Satan has a complete and perfect understanding of the gospel message, and it will do him no good whatsoever. There can be no mediator other than Christ. I am not using the term 'mediator' in a different way at all.
I am not saying that anyone has to have a great intellect to be a Christian.
To be saved, you're explicitly stating that it comes through one's understanding.
I do not agree that people get saved before they believe.
You're repeating yourself. You're not advancing the discussion by doing this. I haven't forgotten your position.
That is not consistent with the wording of the New Testament,
Begging the Question.
and your comments on that are about God giving people faith. That's not the same thing as saying they are saved before they believe.
It most certainly is, and I supplied you with scripture to support that fact for your edification.
You seem to be reading contradictions into ideas where none exist.
You seem to be trolling.
The mind is clearly involved in both hearing and believing.
True, but this it does not then follow that "salvation come through understanding of the Gospel". That is not only a blatant non sequitur, it's not biblical. Paul doesn't say, "by grace through understanding, and that not of yourselves,...etc."
There is also the issue of some people being spiritual deaf and not being able to perceive what God is saying, whose understanding is darkened. Those people do not believe. Their minds will not accept the Gospel.[/QUOTE
Quite true! Again, it is only when the truth is revealed that their darkened minds may be enlightened. Your making my points for me.
I feel like you are making assumptions and throwing a lot of mixed metaphors at me, here.
Thanks for sharing your feelings, but they're not advancing your position in the slightest.
If I believe the mind is involved in hearing and believing the Gospel, that does not mean I do not believe in being committed.
It might as well be when you're claiming "salvation come through understanding of the Gospel".

Jesus told the rich young ruler to follow him,
I stand corrected. He also points out that if one is to be whole or perfected, they will sell everything, and give the proceeds to the poor. The tax collector immediately gets up and walks away from everything. The poor need only come in and take it. The tax collector sees eternal life personified standing right in front of him. It's what we call a "no-brainer". He doesn't have to think about it at all.
The rich young ruler understands that his possessions are still more valuable to him than eternal life. This is why he walks away sad while professing Christians are completely oblivious to the fact that they're choosing their material possessions over eternal life. They haven't begun to comprehend the gospel message. What they have understood is a lie, a deception.

Re: "He's seeking self justification, and self denial doesn't allow for the self to begin with. There is no one to believe the gospel. There is only Christ. In other words, the body follows the instructions of the head which is Christ.
We have prophets who have revelation from God which they never understood, and yet they are given these revelations anyways. Peter sees Christ walking on water, and steps out in faith, but his understanding is in a coma. The stewards fill up jugs of water without ever understanding why, and yet they do it anyways. Christ instructs his disciple to retrieve the tax they must pay from the mouth of a fish. Do you know why? Do you understand why it has to be from the mouth of a fish? Do you think it matters if someone doesn't understand? Did their lack of understanding prevent them from obediently complying with Christ's instructions?"
<crickets chirping>

If Peter's mind wasn't functioning at all, he would not have been able to perceive that Jesus was walking on water, to speak to him, or understand Jesus when he said 'come.'
I'm not suggesting that Peter doesn't understand the instructions that are given to him. I'm pointing out that he doesn't comprehend the ramifications of following those commands. This is what the author is pointing out. The reader sees a man who doesn't understand how it is that Christ is walking on water, and also has no reason to think that he can do the same, yet he steps out with understanding? NOPE. He steps out with the faith that is being supplied by Christ himself.
If the servants' minds were not functioning, they would not have understood to fill the jugs with water.
Again, it is not their understanding that is the issue here. It is the fact that they are responding to Christ's instructions. Their obedience does not come through their understanding. It comes by faith.
 

A_Man

Active Member
Nov 8, 2019
125
39
28
51
Atlanta area
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The mind of Christ is not the mind of fallen humanity. Unless one is given the mind of Christ, they're damned. Satan has a complete and perfect understanding of the gospel message, and it will do him no good whatsoever. There can be no mediator other than Christ. I am not using the term 'mediator' in a different way at all.


Then why don't you interpret the 'But we have the mind of Christ' verse to apply in conversion then? You already have people being saved before they believe in your belief system.

To be saved, you're explicitly stating that it comes through one's understanding.

That is because I take 'believe' and it's Greek equivalents to mean 'believe' and not something else. The Ethiopian believed that Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus asked a man He was about to heal 'Do you believe that I am able to do this?' Paul wrote of believing in your heart that God raised Him from the dead.

Notice the logically coherent ideas here. Believe means believe, and there is a rational component here. 'Believe' isn't just a word out there floating in the air by itself. You are stringing sentences together when you use the word believe, too. Your mind is involved. If you hear 'raised Him from the dead' and understand that, your mind is involved.

The objection that the mind is the 'Mediator' if the mind is involved in believing seems to me like some pretty confused thinking or a strange bit of sophistry at best. Paul already tells us that the understanding of unbelieving is darkened. The Jews have a veil that keeps them from believing, also. One aspect of our conversion has to do with what happens to our minds to allow us to believe.

You have shared verses, but how do any of these support the idea that salvation comes before we believe? That is inconsistent with the wording of so many passages. Take a look at this one from Ephesians 1

11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, (ESV, emphasis mine)

It does not follow that if Paul teaches that we are saved by grace through faith, and that the faith is a gift of God, that salvation of our souls happens before we believe. We are saved through the faith so we need the faith to be saved. So we get the faith and then are saved (or at the same time we get it.)

You're repeating yourself. You're not advancing the discussion by doing this. I haven't forgotten your position.

Begging the Question.

It most certainly is, and I supplied you with scripture to support that fact for your edification.
You seem to be trolling.

Some of your ideas seem so irrational (which is consistent with being against the mind, I suppose), it almost seems like trolling, but I don't get that vibe from the rest of the content of your posts.

True, but this it does not then follow that "salvation come through understanding of the Gospel". That is not only a blatant non sequitur, it's not biblical. Paul doesn't say, "by grace through understanding, and that not of yourselves,...etc."

There is a 'rationale' component to belief. If you believe that Jesus rose from the dead--- there is an idea there, a concept, a truth-- that something happened. Our minds understand that Jesus rose from the dead.

Would it make sense for us to say that someone believes that Jesus rose from the dead, but then we ask him and he says, "Raised from the dead? What does that mean? What are you talking about?"

If Jesus said, "Do you believe me that I am able to do this?" and other person replied, the other individual's mind was engaged-- understanding those words and the concepts behind them.

Why would Paul bother preaching at all or why would he say "We persuade men" if the mind is not involved.

There are those who believe that it is through the Logos that we are all able to have thoughts and understand anything. John does say the light shines on every man that comes into the world. God does enable us to understand the truths of the Gospel.



[/QUOTE]
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
why don't you interpret the 'But we have the mind of Christ' verse to apply in conversion then?
I do apply it to conversion. The mind of Christ is a gift given in order to understand the gospel. The carnal mind is enmity against God, and cannot understand the gospel to begin with. It cannot convert. It is condemned already.
You already have people being saved before they believe in your belief system.
If they're not saved, they cannot believe in the first place. They're dead in their sins, and the dead cannot believe the gospel until they are dragged to Christ, and given the ears to hear it.
I take 'believe' and it's Greek equivalents to mean 'believe' and not something else.
Whatever.
The Ethiopian believed that Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus asked a man He was about to heal 'Do you believe that I am able to do this?' Paul wrote of believing in your heart that God raised Him from the dead.
Yep, and they all had to be given a new heart by the father in order to do this in the first place. We cannnot regenerate our own hearts to hear the gospel. If that were the case, we wouldn't need Christ.
Notice the logically coherent ideas here. Believe means believe, and there is a rational component here.
No one is denying the rational component. I am pointing out that the mind of Christ must be revealed before one can understand the gospel. The mind does not enlighten itself.
'Believe' isn't just a word out there floating in the air by itself.
Whatever.
You are stringing sentences together when you use the word believe, too. Your mind is involved.
Again, I'm not suggesting that the mind isn't involved, I'm simply pointing out that it is a consequence of salvation, not the means.
If you hear 'raised Him from the dead' and understand that, your mind is involved.
And it can mean any of a number of things, none of which may be true. See the problem yet? When the messenger speaks to Zacharias, he doesn't just not understand the message, he disbelieves it. When the messenger speaks to Mary, she doesn't understand it at all, but she acquiesces to it anyways. This is all she can do. She has no choice.
Zacharias is struck dumb until his son is born. Not only does he not understand, it doesn't matter. God's will is accomplished through him regardless of whether he understands it or not. He will learn to believe what he sees, not what he understands.
The objection that the mind is the 'Mediator' if the mind is involved in believing seems to me like some pretty confused thinking or a strange bit of sophistry at best.
Again, your feelings are noted. For what's worth, thanks for sharing. You still need to address the distinction between "salvation come through understanding of the Gospel" verses enlightened understanding as the result of salvation. Your articulation places one's understanding as the means of salvation rather than a consequence of it.

Paul already tells us that the understanding of unbelieving is darkened.
Yep, and the darkened mind is incapable of understanding the gospel which is why Christ himself must enlighten one's understanding. The enlightenment comes through Christ, not one's understanding.

The Jews have a veil that keeps them from believing, also.
Yep, and God intentionally placed that veil over them until the gentiles were saved. The only thing holding back their ability to see and understand the gospel is the gentile world who believes that they can save themselves by their own understanding.

One aspect of our conversion has to do with what happens to our minds to allow us to believe.
Yep, and what happens is Christ enlightening the mind. It is through Christ, not through the mind.
You have shared verses, but how do any of these support the idea that salvation comes before we believe?
They are not supporting ideas. They are pointing out the reality. Even your posts are stuck in your own ideas. Ideas can't save anyone.
That is inconsistent with the wording of so many passages. Take a look at this one from Ephesians 1
11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, (ESV, emphasis mine)
Yep, and none of that supports your theory that "salvation come through understanding of the Gospel". One's understanding is irrelevant to an inheritance. Do you see anywhere in any of the documents dealing with your inheritance that you must understand it to receive it? How about predestined? Does one's understanding thwart God's predestined will? No, of course not. One's understanding is irrelevant because God simply draws them to Christ who then enlightens their understanding. Again, it is Christ who mediates this process, salvation comes through Christ manifesting the kingdom, not "salvation come through understanding of the Gospel". It happens whether one understands it or not. Again, I've presented one example after another.
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
It does not follow that if Paul teaches that we are saved by grace through faith, and that the faith is a gift of God, that salvation of our souls happens before we believe.
I never said that Paul's teachings cause salvation. Paul's teachings point out that the damned cannot understand, repent, or believe in the first place. It is impossible. If it weren't impossible, then the gospel wouldn't be anything worth calling good in the first place. There is no other way to salvation except through Christ.
Practically no one understands what is going on. This is a pervasive theme throughout the gospel narratives. They are constantly asking idiotic questions, making foolish claims, and requests. Jesus repeatedly asks them how they cannot understand what he's talking about. They respond without understanding. They believe without understanding. They pray that their disbelief be changed into belief. They want what they don't understand. They believe and obey even though it makes absolutely no sense to them whatsoever.
We are saved through the faith so we need the faith to be saved.
Yep We are saved through Christ. It is Christ's faith that saves us. It is Christ's faith that illuminates the mind and gives it the ability to respond and understand the gospel message.
So we get the faith and then are saved (or at the same time we get it.)
Yep.
There is a 'rationale' component to belief.
Yes, but it is not "salvation come through understanding of the Gospel". The intellect must reflect the truth. It doesn't mediate it. Salvation is through Christ, not one's understanding.
If you believe that Jesus rose from the dead--- there is an idea there, a concept, a truth-- that something happened.
The idea of Jesus rising from the dead is not the truth. It is the idea, concept, thoughts, imaginations, etc. Again, you're mediating the gospel through the intellect instead of through Christ. Our ideas are not the reality. They are a reflection of ourselves which can't save anyone. Our best ideas can only result in our own damnation. They must reflect Christ, not our understanding. Our understanding can't stand under Christ. Christ is fundamental to our understanding, not the other way around.
Our minds understand that Jesus rose from the dead.
Our minds understand ideas, and these ideas are not the reality. They can never mediate reality. When the mind is illumined, we see the reality of Christ's teachings which is to see Christ alive in our neighbor.

Would it make sense for us to say that someone believes that Jesus rose from the dead, but then we ask him and he says, "Raised from the dead? What does that mean? What are you talking about?"
It means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Some people beleive that Jesus' physical body was reanimated, and walked out of a tomb. Others believe that Christ's teaching is what points to the reality, and the gospel narratives are an illustration of that reality. What difference does it make if someone rises from the dead, and people ignore his teachings? Luke makes this exact claim in chapter 16, verse 31 of his gospel. Christ's resurrection is meaningless without his teaching, and practically the whole world has ignored his teaching, most notably Christianity itself. They have become no different than the rich man damned because he understood the gospel, but saw no point in sharing it.
If Jesus said, "Do you believe me that I am able to do this?" and other person replied, the other individual's mind was engaged-- understanding those words and the concepts behind them.
And those concepts are worthless without the illumination of Christ; the revelation of God.
Why would Paul bother preaching at all or why would he say "We persuade men" if the mind is not involved.
The mind needn't be involved. What is necessary is praxis. Under the old covenant, Israel was tasked with carrying out God's will. They relied upon their will and effort. Those who were able to carry out God's will could understand what they were doing. They could understand the benefits to obedience, and yet they still failed. The entire Old Testament is a potent testament to the futility of understanding.
However, it also points out that one needs to carry out the command to understand it. Christians disregard many of God's commandments, and have condemned themselves to never understanding their purpose, as well as never being able to receive the blessings associated with those commandments. Those who do, receive those blessings. This doesn't save them. Only the faith of Christ can save them.
There are those who believe that it is through the Logos that we are all able to have thoughts and understand anything. John does say the light shines on every man that comes into the world. God does enable us to understand the truths of the Gospel.
Yep, but again this is not the same thing as saying "salvation come through understanding of the Gospel".
 

DeiVindicem

Member
Nov 13, 2019
127
4
18
30
Dallas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
How about actually presenting the Gospel? The full and true Gospel. As though you were a preacher of the Gospel yourself?
2 John 1:9
Whosoever transgresseth,
and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.
He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ,
he hath both the Father
and the Son.

The doctrine of Christ is the only way the only truth and the only life
that will save you from being in eternal damnation in the lake of fire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: farouk

A_Man

Active Member
Nov 8, 2019
125
39
28
51
Atlanta area
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
They respond without understanding. They believe without understanding. They pray that their disbelief be changed into belief. They want what they don't understand. They believe and obey even though it makes absolutely no sense to them whatsoever.

Is 'they' here the apostles? If the apostles did not understand anything Jesus was saying with their mind, then they would not have been confused. If Peter had not understood Jesus' words about being crucified, then he would not have taken him aside to try to correct Him.

If the Syrphoenician woman had no understanding of the fact that Jesus cast out demons, then she would not have asked for it. She would not have given her clever, yet humble response if she were a vegetable and her mind were not engaged at all. Are we in agreement on that?

Yep We are saved through Christ. It is Christ's faith that saves us. It is Christ's faith that illuminates the mind and gives it the ability to respond and understand the gospel message.
Yep.

So you are changing your stance on the issue.

Yes, but it is not "salvation come through understanding of the Gospel".

That is part of it. If someone preached the gospel to an unbeliever in Swahili, and he does not understand Swahili, the unbeliever is not going to percieve what is being said with his mind at all. He has not 'heard' in a sense because his mind cannot grasp the foreign language. He needs to hear to believe.

Trying to make me out to be saying that all that is needed is to agree to a list of doctrinal statements about Christ is a straw man argument. But understanding the message of the Gospel is necessary. It is part of believing. To believe you have to believe someone or something, not just have some kind of generic 'faith' like they talk about in a Hollywood movie.


The intellect must reflect the truth. It doesn't mediate it. Salvation is through Christ, not one's understanding.


As I suspect is the problem with our conversation, I probably do not know what you mean by your terms. You probably have definitions a little different from the normal meaning of words. The Bible speaks of understanding being enlightened. Paul wrote about edify others with his mind in I Corinthians 14. In Romans 8, he wrtes that to be carnally minded is death but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. The Spirit of God can enlighten the mind, or the understanding can be darkened. The Bible does not raise the issue of the mind as a mediator. I think you are creating a theological problem where none should exit with that line of reasoning.


The idea of Jesus rising from the dead is not the truth. It is the idea, concept, thoughts, imaginations, etc. Again, you're mediating the gospel through the intellect instead of through Christ. Our ideas are not the reality. They are a reflection of ourselves which can't save anyone. Our best ideas can only result in our own damnation. They must reflect Christ, not our understanding. Our understanding can't stand under Christ. Christ is fundamental to our understanding, not the other way around.

I think there is a reason that the apostles did not write the way you write above. You seem to be making things way too complicated. If you were to try to evangelize simple, uneducated villagers with that type of talk, you would probably just confuse them.

Someone preaches the Gospel. Others hear and believe. God works and opens understanding and transform hearts. We do not need to philosophize into areas that are not revealed into theories that would make salvation nearly impossible to receive.


Our minds understand ideas, and these ideas are not the reality.

I do not see the prophets, Jesus, or the apostles saying these things. This seems like extra-biblical philosophy.

We can perceive reality because their is a reality to perceive and God enables us to perceive it in our minds.

It means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Some people believe that Jesus' physical body was reanimated, and walked out of a tomb. Others believe that Christ's teaching is what points to the reality, and the gospel narratives are an illustration of that reality. What difference does it make if someone rises from the dead, and people ignore his teachings?

The resurrection of Christ is important even if some ignore His teachings. What good does it do to claim to believe Jesus' teachings, but not believe His teaching that He would rise from the dead actually happened? Do you believe it did?
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Is 'they' here the apostles? If the apostles did not understand anything Jesus was saying with their mind, then they would not have been confused. If Peter had not understood Jesus' words about being crucified, then he would not have taken him aside to try to correct Him.

If the Syrphoenician woman had no understanding of the fact that Jesus cast out demons, then she would not have asked for it. She would not have given her clever, yet humble response if she were a vegetable and her mind were not engaged at all. Are we in agreement on that?



So you are changing your stance on the issue.



That is part of it. If someone preached the gospel to an unbeliever in Swahili, and he does not understand Swahili, the unbeliever is not going to percieve what is being said with his mind at all. He has not 'heard' in a sense because his mind cannot grasp the foreign language. He needs to hear to believe.

Trying to make me out to be saying that all that is needed is to agree to a list of doctrinal statements about Christ is a straw man argument. But understanding the message of the Gospel is necessary. It is part of believing. To believe you have to believe someone or something, not just have some kind of generic 'faith' like they talk about in a Hollywood movie.





As I suspect is the problem with our conversation, I probably do not know what you mean by your terms. You probably have definitions a little different from the normal meaning of words. The Bible speaks of understanding being enlightened. Paul wrote about edify others with his mind in I Corinthians 14. In Romans 8, he wrtes that to be carnally minded is death but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. The Spirit of God can enlighten the mind, or the understanding can be darkened. The Bible does not raise the issue of the mind as a mediator. I think you are creating a theological problem where none should exit with that line of reasoning.




I think there is a reason that the apostles did not write the way you write above. You seem to be making things way too complicated. If you were to try to evangelize simple, uneducated villagers with that type of talk, you would probably just confuse them.

Someone preaches the Gospel. Others hear and believe. God works and opens understanding and transform hearts. We do not need to philosophize into areas that are not revealed into theories that would make salvation nearly impossible to receive.




I do not see the prophets, Jesus, or the apostles saying these things. This seems like extra-biblical philosophy.

We can perceive reality because their is a reality to perceive and God enables us to perceive it in our minds.



The resurrection of Christ is important even if some ignore His teachings. What good does it do to claim to believe Jesus' teachings, but not believe His teaching that He would rise from the dead actually happened? Do you believe it did?

I have not changed my position in the slightest, nor am I using words differently than their accepted and agreed upon definitions. A drowning man takes hold of a life preserver even if he doesn't know that it's purpose is to save his life. He doesn't need to know that the person throwing it is a Christian, and that that same Christian believes that Christ suffered, died, and rose from the dead. What he knows is that the person who has just saved his life did it without knowing anything about him. The saved person also knows after the fact that he wants what that person who saved his life has. He doesn't have to understand why. He knows it in his heart.

It is a scientifically observable and repeatable fact that when someone carries out acts of charity, not only are those who receive these acts lifted up, but the person carrying them out as well as anyone who witnesses them as well. It is also a fact that those who witnesses this are not always aware or even understand that they have been benefited by it in the first place. You don't have to agree or even believe any of this for it to be true. You don't have to understand it. People who suffer from things like PTSD, can be healed by believing that they live in a better world than their tattered nerves tell them. When they see people lifting others up, they begin to believe. They don't understand how it's possible, but they don't hav to either. They just have to believe what they see.

A quite well documented study of octogenarians who spent a week or so in a lodge with nothing but items from 50 years earlier showed that their body began to conform to what their senses told them. Their bodies began to become younger because their senses told them that they were living 50 years in the past. They had no way to understand what was going on. Some who walked in with the aid of a walker were walking without one a week later. The before and after pictures all told the same story; they were a good ten to twenty years younger in just a week. Christ says, "I make all things new again" and not one Christian in the world knows exactly how that happens. They can all rattle off their doctrines and dogmatic assumptions like a well trained parrot, but other than that, they have no clue. More importantly, they don't need one. They need only hear the good news, and respond to it.

You aren't advancing your position. You're just running around in circles, and suggesting that I am changing my position, or redefining the meaning of words, etc. I'm not.
 

A_Man

Active Member
Nov 8, 2019
125
39
28
51
Atlanta area
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I have not changed my position in the slightest, nor am I using words differently than their accepted and agreed upon definitions.

Your use of 'contingency' instead of contingent seems a bit odd to me. So does calling the mind a 'mediator' instead of using a verb. Usually 'mediator' is person, though in the social sciences it can be a measurable variable. But I might find definitions down at the bottom somewhere if I used a big enough dictionary.

There is one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus. For those of us who are 'man' and not Christ Jesus benefitting from the mediation, our minds are a part of us. So it is okay for the minds of use who are benefitting from the mediation to be enlightened.

This passage from Isaiah, which makes appearance in various New Testament passages, shows us the problem with the minds of those who do not believe:

Isaiah 6

9 And He said, “Go, and tell this people:
‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
10 “Make the heart of this people dull,
And their ears heavy,
And shut their eyes;
Lest they see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart,
And return and be healed.”

This is what kept them from believing. The saints have the veil lifted from our minds. Our minds are enlightened to perceive the truth.

Do you have any passages of scripture wrestling with the issue of the mind being the mediator?

I am not sure if you describe yourself as Calvinist, but some of your ideas seem Calvinist. It seems to me that some people from philosophies that are variants of Calvinism are so intent on carefully preserving wording to be in line with the thinking of their line of Calvinism that they seek to correct those who use wording and terminology that is in line with the scriptures.

I am not seeing in the scripture warning against the idea that belief comes through the mind. Rather, I see unbelievers with darkened mind and the saints being enlightened when they encounter the truth.

But of course the mind is involved. If the mind is not involved in the most basic way that carnal men experience, then it cannot perceive the individual standing there preaching or understand that the flow of phonetic sounds make up words. If the mind is not enlightened, then it either does not understand the preaching of the gospel and accept the word. There is no need for a doctrine that says that the mind is not involved, but the heart is. Word studies on mind and heart do not neatly turn into the categories we often hear about in church. Some passages use words for intestines.

A drowning man takes hold of a life preserver even if he doesn't know that it's purpose is to save his life. He doesn't need to know that the person throwing it is a Christian, and that that same Christian believes that Christ suffered, died, and rose from the dead. What he knows is that the person who has just saved his life did it without knowing anything about him. The saved person also knows after the fact that he wants what that person who saved his life has. He doesn't have to understand why. He knows it in his heart.

Why don't we bring this back to the Bible. Where does the Bible teach that people can be saved by hearing preaching, and only later, after they are saved, find out that they are being saved through the Messiah, the Son of God who was crucified and resurrected?

There are promises in John regarding believing in Jesus, that Jesus makes to the crowd. Some of the looser translations will translate passages along the lines of believing that Jesus is Who He claims to be. Jesus is the Christ, and there are some Biblical things Christ was supposed to do, and did. And He wanted the disciples to proclaim this to the nations.

Notice what the Lord said to the disciples before sending them to the nations.
Luke 24
46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And you are witnesses of these things. 49 Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.” (NKJV)
We see here the same key 'points of the message' that the apostles preached in Acts, that show up again in I Corinthians 15:1-3. Notice the resurrection on the third day. Christ died for our sins, Paul said. Jesus said that the Christ would suffer, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name.

If an individual does not believe that Christ rose, then he should not be able to receive any assurance of salvation from reading Romans 10:9-10 or I Corinthians 15:1-3. If we see promises of salvation in scripture for those who believe such things, then should we not preach them?

There is also the issue of what Paul describes as the Gospel in I Corinthians 15:1-3 and that fact that he says in Galatians that if any man preach another Gospel, let him be accursed.

It is a scientifically observable and repeatable fact that when someone carries out acts of charity, not only are those who receive these acts lifted up, but the person carrying them out as well as anyone who witnesses them as well. It is also a fact that those who witnesses this are not always aware or even understand that they have been benefited by it in the first place. You don't have to agree or even believe any of this for it to be true. You don't have to understand it. People who suffer from things like PTSD, can be healed by believing that they live in a better world than their tattered nerves tell them. When they see people lifting others up, they begin to believe. They don't understand how it's possible, but they don't hav to either. They just have to believe what they see.

A quite well documented study of octogenarians who spent a week or so in a lodge with nothing but items from 50 years earlier showed that their body began to conform to what their senses told them. Their bodies began to become younger because their senses told them that they were living 50 years in the past. They had no way to understand what was going on. Some who walked in with the aid of a walker were walking without one a week later. The before and after pictures all told the same story; they were a good ten to twenty years younger in just a week.

That sounds interesting, and if you have the links to the studies or names, years, and authors I can plug into Google Scholar, I might be interested in having a look at them. But we are talking about eternal salvation, here, not health improvements. Carnal people may experience some benefits from positive thinking, changes in environment, etc. But that sort of thing will not give them a free pass at the day of judgment.
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Your use of 'contingency' instead of contingent seems a bit odd to me.
The medium is the message.
So does calling the mind a 'mediator' instead of using a verb.
The mediator is the medium, and the medium is the message. It is "the Way", "the Word", the Metaphor, the Symbol, the copula, the icon, the means, the representative, the medium, the mediator, the persona, the interface, etc.
Usually 'mediator' is person, though in the social sciences it can be a measurable variable. But I might find definitions down at the bottom somewhere if I used a big enough dictionary.
The person is Christ Jesus who explicitly points out that self denial/self sacrifice is fundamental to seeing the father. He says that if you see him, you have seen the father because he has emptied himself of his own identity. There is only the way. As soon as anyone steps out into the way, their identity is lost in the way itself(e.g. "not me, but Christ in me"). It is the fullness of God who dwells within the temple, the body, the persona, but the persona must be removed to see God. Look into the tomb, and you see nothing. You see emptiness because self sacrifice has that as one of it's prime effects. The father is emptied into the son who is emptied into creation, and enters into creation to empty himself through self sacrifice.
We look out into the cosmos and we see scattered dots of light amidst incomprehensibly vast emptiness. When we look into the realm of subatomic particles we see incomprehensibly vast emptiness. This shouts the glory of God at us in a way that is beyond our ability to comprehend.
There is one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus. For those of us who are 'man' and not Christ Jesus benefitting from the mediation,
There is no benefit for those not in Christ Jesus.
... our minds are a part of us.
And that part is useless in discovering the kingdom. "The kingdom does not come by observation".
So it is okay for the minds of use who are benefitting from the mediation to be enlightened.
Not when the mind is the mediator.
This passage from Isaiah, which makes appearance in various New Testament passages, shows us the problem with the minds of those who do not believe:
Isaiah 6
9 And He said, “Go, and tell this people:
‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
10 “Make the heart of this people dull,
And their ears heavy,
And shut their eyes;
Lest they see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart,
And return and be healed.”
This is what kept them from believing.
Read it again until you note who is doing what, and the fact that it isn't the mind that is mediating this process at all. "make their heart dull" is a blatant instruction. It is a command. Who is the mediator?????
The saints have the veil lifted from our minds. Our minds are enlightened to perceive the truth.
Sure, but this doesn't make the mind the mediator. You're presenting a Non Sequitur. It simply does not follow.
Do you have any passages of scripture wrestling with the issue of the mind being the mediator?
You've already presented plenty.
I am not sure...It seems to me...I am not seeing
These are not only not arguments, they spotlight the problem with your position. Even when one understands that they do not know or see, it is of no use. Paul puts it this way: "that which I will I do not, and that which I don't want that I do". Not only is the understanding of no use, the will and effort are useless as well.
If the mind is not involved in the most basic way that carnal men experience, then it cannot perceive the individual standing there preaching or understand that the flow of phonetic sounds make up words.
The mind can perceive perfectly, and still be as dull as finger nails cutting granite. Again, I pointed out the example of the pastor who could articulate the gospel perfectly, and yet even after hearing himself preach it for over 15 years, he still hadn't received it. One of my friends is a pastor, and routinely points out that he is exactly the type of person he preaches to. He admits that he needs to hear the gospel as much as anyone else. It is a sadly rare, and striking admission, and an honest one as well.
Where does the Bible teach that people can be saved by hearing preaching,
"faith comes by hearing"
...and only later, after they are saved, find out that they are being saved through the Messiah, the Son of God who was crucified and resurrected?
I quoted Romans 8 for your edification. Read chapters 6,7,and 8 to get a better idea of the fact that it is impossible to repent before one has received the gospel and given a new heart to repent, and be saved. Paul builds an air tight case in Romans that is irrefutable.
See also Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 11:19;36:26; Hebrews 8:9,10 where the texts explicitly point out that God will give them a new heart for one reason and one reason alone; to keep his commandments. They are created to keep the commmandments. That is how they keep them.
Fish are created to swim. That is how they are able to swim. This isn't complicated. They are born into it. They are not taught. Those who are not born into it must be taught. The newborn infant does not need to be taught how to breast feed. It it literally inborn in them. Those who are born into the new covenant are essentially no different than an automaton. It is second nature. They never need to think about it.
Even the damned can have enough sense to know that they don't need to understand how or why some things are evil. Do you remember when you were not saved? Do you remember how you felt about sodomy or necrophilia? Were those things that you understood were wrong, but had some insatiable urge to do anyways? Most would admit that they had no desire to entertain that idea ever. They don't need to understand that getting one's dinner from the toilet is a bad idea. They don't need to understand that to know it's idiotic or crazy or demented. Some things are considered 'common sense'.
Today, we live in a world where practically no on has any common sense anymore. We believe that we need to understand why it is foolish to engage in sodomy. We have to have a defense for those who think this is a great idea. Paul points out that God just simply gave up on them. They have no common sense. This isn't something someone with common sense has to understand. It's self evident. The truth is always, and everywhere self evident.
If an individual does not believe that Christ rose, then he should not be able to receive any assurance of salvation from reading Romans 10:9-10 or I Corinthians 15:1-3.
The problem is that you are working under certain assumptions as to what this means. You have your own ideas of what it means, and they may not match the assumptions of others. Only God knows their hearts, and only God can provide them with an accurate understanding. Ultimately, that understanding may not be articulate to begin with. Again, this is beside the point because we needn't understand to begin with as the only real proof of understanding is in the fruit produced.
So while one so-called Christian argues with another on just what the texts actually mean, the actual saved believer is living the gospel message in, with, and through Christ. This is the assurance of salvation, not spouting the accepted version or consensus of Paul's doctrine.
If we see promises of salvation in scripture for those who believe such things, then should we not preach them?
You're preaching to the choir if they're already living in assurance. Those who are, proclaim the gospel through the life they live in, with, and through Christ.
There is also the issue of what Paul describes as the Gospel in I Corinthians 15:1-3 and that fact that he says in Galatians that if any man preach another Gospel, let him be accursed.
And proclaiming a gospel one refuses to live is another false gospel. Proclaiming that one must understand salvation to recieve it is a false gospel. They need only receive it to respond to it.
But we are talking about eternal salvation, here, not health improvements.
There is no better improvement to one's health than eternal salvation.
Carnal people may experience some benefits from positive thinking, changes in environment, etc. But that sort of thing will not give them a free pass at the day of judgment.
Carnal people can't hear the gospel, nor can they repent. This is your false assumption. They have to be given the ears to hear it in the first place. They have to be given the new heart to keep God's commandments. That is the only way they can walk out in faith. They can walk on water, they can move mountains, they can do all things in Christ. They see it happening and believe. Their understanding, while no doubt quite accurate; is derivative, and therefore secondary, and can never mediate salvation. The understanding is a consequence of salvation.
 

A_Man

Active Member
Nov 8, 2019
125
39
28
51
Atlanta area
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The mediator is the medium, and the medium is the message. It is "the Way", "the Word", the Metaphor, the Symbol, the copula, the icon, the means, the representative, the medium, the mediator, the persona, the interface, etc.
Your comment does not do much to establish communication. Are all these thesaurus entries for mediator? If by 'mediator' you have been meaning 'interface'-- that could make sense? Icon? Persona--- have you been talking about the aspect of a person's character or personality that one seeks to project or that others perceive. These words have different meanings. This isn't helping.
There is no benefit for those not in Christ Jesus.
If Christ is the Savior of the world especially them that believe, unbelievers might get some benefit of Christ being the Mediator. I am not omniscient, so I cannot say for sure. But I had believers in mind... and those who are coming to faith at the instant they come to faith. Those people have minds that move from being darkened or even depraved to be enlightened.
If the mind is not involved, then they do not percieve the words and know that the message is about a man named Jesus. If their minds are not enlightened then the preaching of the cross is foolishness.

You say you have quoted scriptures to support your concerns. I haven't seen anything in any scripture you have posted that tells us that the mind is not involved in salvation.

I am not starting from an assumption that if the heart/intestines are involved that the mind is not. I have heard preachers say it has to go however many inches from the mind to the heart, but I don't read that in the Bible. In some cases it seems to be implied that 'hear' means to hear with understanding and/or obedience. I'm thinking of the passage from Isaiah 28 that Paul quotes in I Corinthians 11. And yet for all that, they would not hear the Lord. They could probably hear that someone was speaking Aramaic in the captivity or speaking in tongues in the church, but not 'hear the Lord' in another sense. In this case in a more literal sense because they did not understand the words being spoken.

And that part is useless in discovering the kingdom. "The kingdom does not come by observation".
Would you say that being renewed in the spirit of your mind has nothing to do with the kingdom? What about the renewing of your mind? Does that have nothing to do with the kingdom? Why would you equate the mind with observation/
Not when the mind is the mediator.
Mind as mediator is not an issue explored in the scriptures. Those of us who benefit from Christ's mediation have minds. The mind is not a separate entity from the self. It is part of the self.
Read it again until you note who is doing what, and the fact that it isn't the mind that is mediating this process at all. "make their heart dull" is a blatant instruction. It is a command. Who is the mediator?????
The translators translate the Hebrew as a command. This is from Matthew 13
And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: ‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive;

Let us not get hung up on whether to render it in English as a statement or a command. Jesus is the Mediator between God and man. Man has a mind, heart, spirit, soul.
Sure, but this doesn't make the mind the mediator. You're presenting a Non Sequitur. It simply does not follow.
It's ironic that you are using terms like non sequitor, but arguing for an irrational or 'arational' understanding of 'believe.' Typically, there is a rational aspect of 'believe.' We can find less 'spiritual' cases of it in the Bible, the demons believe there is one God and tremble. They have some intellectual assent to the facts. There is more to the Christian faith to that, but you seem to want to strip saving faith of that component of the meaning of the word. The word 'faith' that is, or the word 'believe.'

Take the statement of Christ about saying to the mountain to be cast into the sea. He believes in his heart and does not doubt, and has what he says. However one interprets that, there is a 'rational' component to it. Presumably, the individual knows what a mountain is. His mind is involved in forming the word mountain and retaining the concept. He knows what casting is. He knows what the sea is. His mind is involved. He speaks and believes what he says will occur. There is a lot of 'mind' and rational concepts going on here. There is also a spiritual component to understanding-- the mind being enlightened to accept and understand truth. But that does not mean the mind is uninvolved, that suddenly the individual in my scenario or parable here becomes a vegetable, unable to understand words or comprehend meaning-- that he no longer knows what a mountain is.

The Gospel is preached and people believe. It all looks very mundane. One person speaks, and another hears and believes. In order to believe, he has to have some understanding in his mind of what the words he hears means. He hears that Christ died on the cross and knows what 'died' means and does think the speaker is talking about dipping cloth in colored liquied. He hears and understands the words that Christ rose from the dead. He knows what those words mean. Believers and unbelievers can understand these mundane things with their minds. The unbeliever, whose mind is darkened, rejects the truth. The other believes.

The apostles preached the Gospel, too. Preaching that there will be free apples in the market on the first day of the month wouldn't save people.
These are not only not arguments, they spotlight the problem with your position. Even when one understands that they do not know or see, it is of no use. Paul puts it this way: "that which I will I do not, and that which I don't want that I do". Not only is the understanding of no use, the will and effort are useless as well.
Are you using a verse about Paul's will because you have none that show that understanding and believing are intertwined concepts?
The mind can perceive perfectly, and still be as dull as finger nails cutting granite. Again, I pointed out the example of the pastor who could articulate the gospel perfectly, and yet even after hearing himself preach it for over 15 years, he still hadn't received it. One of my friends is a pastor, and routinely points out that he is exactly the type of person he preaches to. He admits that he needs to hear the gospel as much as anyone else. It is a sadly rare, and striking admission, and an honest one as well.
I don't know this pastor, but the mind has to be enlightened, too. His regular mundane natural mind understood and grasped certain facts about the Gospel. The mind has to be enlightened by the Spirit to percieve spiritual truth. I don't see any merit to arguing that the mind has no role in faith or that it does not work with the heart.
I quoted Romans 8 for your edification. Read chapters 6,7,and 8 to get a better idea of the fact that it is impossible to repent before one has received the gospel and given a new heart to repent, and be saved. Paul builds an air tight case in Romans that is irrefutable.
See also Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 11:19;36:26; Hebrews 8:9,10 where the texts explicitly point out that God will give them a new heart for one reason and one reason alone; to keep his commandments. They are created to keep the commmandments. That is how they keep them.
The translation I am looking at mentions the laws being written in their minds and their hearts, in a poetic coplet. I am not getting the sense 'If heart, then not mind" and I wonder if that is a preconception you bring into the passage. This is consistent with the idea of the heart and mind working together. Again not a case of 'If heart then not mind."
 

A_Man

Active Member
Nov 8, 2019
125
39
28
51
Atlanta area
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Even the damned can have enough sense to know that they don't need to understand how or why some things are evil. Do you remember when you were not saved? Do you remember how you felt about sodomy or necrophilia? Were those things that you understood were wrong, but had some insatiable urge to do anyways? Most would admit that they had no desire to entertain that idea ever. They don't need to understand that getting one's dinner from the toilet is a bad idea. They don't need to understand that to know it's idiotic or crazy or demented. Some things are considered 'common sense'.

Today, we live in a world where practically no on has any common sense anymore. We believe that we need to understand why it is foolish to engage in sodomy. We have to have a defense for those who think this is a great idea. Paul points out that God just simply gave up on them. They have no common sense. This isn't something someone with common sense has to understand. It's self evident. The truth is always, and everywhere self evident.
We live in a world where where TV, movies, politicians, and educators are encouraging people into sexual wickedness, and the natural understanding that some things are wrong is labeled as 'phobia'. I hope necrophilia isn't added to their list of things to promote.
The problem is that you are working under certain assumptions as to what this means. You have your own ideas of what it means, and they may not match the assumptions of others. Only God knows their hearts, and only God can provide them with an accurate understanding. Ultimately, that understanding may not be articulate to begin with. Again, this is beside the point because we needn't understand to begin with as the only real proof of understanding is in the fruit produced.

So while one so-called Christian argues with another on just what the texts actually mean, the actual saved believer is living the gospel message in, with, and through Christ. This is the assurance of salvation, not spouting the accepted version or consensus of Paul's doctrine.
We have to have fellowship with one another, too. Paul warned about men who taught the resurrection had already occurred, and explained to Timothy that vessels of honor should purge themselves from vessels of dishonor.
Proclaiming that one must understand salvation to recieve it is a false gospel. They need only receive it to respond to it.
That would not be what I would say to introduce someone to the Gospel. I would tell them the gospel as the scripture presents it. I take it that you do not consider that to be very important.

Do you think one might as well preach stories about Muhammad or Buddah? Does the content of the message have anything to do with whether listeners are saved, in your estimation? Or is it just something mystical that has nothing to do with the content?
Carnal people can't hear the gospel, nor can they repent. This is your false assumption.

First of all, as you have in the past, you are making assumptions about what I assume. But to your point, the people in the Corinthian church were carnal, but they had heard the gospel and believed, so again your proclamations do not always line up with scripture. I believe being able to repent and believe comes by God's grace. God converts people as they hear the Gospel and respond in faith. This is through the grace of God. Paul says God has chosen the 'foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.' The message that is preached is important. It is not the case that the message preached has nothing to do with the people being saved. These are the means God has chosen. It is important that people hear the true Gospel and believe the true Gospel.

And in regard to your quote, don't get so caught up in defending your version of Calvinism or whatever you call it that you contradict scripture.
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
Why would people who are already Christians expect the Gospel to be preached to them? That is what they, themselves, are supposed to be taking to unsaved people in their sphere of life outside the walls of the church.
yeh, dont we have a laying again the foundation i think it is?

i love the way you expressed it, over "preaching," which is to me a horrible xlation of "proclaim," ty willie
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
We live in a world where where TV, movies, politicians, and educators are encouraging people into sexual wickedness, and the natural understanding that some things are wrong is labeled as 'phobia'. I hope necrophilia isn't added to their list of things to promote.

We have to have fellowship with one another, too. Paul warned about men who taught the resurrection had already occurred, and explained to Timothy that vessels of honor should purge themselves from vessels of dishonor.

That would not be what I would say to introduce someone to the Gospel. I would tell them the gospel as the scripture presents it. I take it that you do not consider that to be very important.

Do you think one might as well preach stories about Muhammad or Buddah? Does the content of the message have anything to do with whether listeners are saved, in your estimation? Or is it just something mystical that has nothing to do with the content?


First of all, as you have in the past, you are making assumptions about what I assume. But to your point, the people in the Corinthian church were carnal, but they had heard the gospel and believed, so again your proclamations do not always line up with scripture. I believe being able to repent and believe comes by God's grace. God converts people as they hear the Gospel and respond in faith. This is through the grace of God. Paul says God has chosen the 'foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.' The message that is preached is important. It is not the case that the message preached has nothing to do with the people being saved. These are the means God has chosen. It is important that people hear the true Gospel and believe the true Gospel.

And in regard to your quote, don't get so caught up in defending your version of Calvinism or whatever you call it that you contradict scripture.
hey, any chance i could persuade you to include a quote banner in at least your first snip, so we could follow along easier? ty

you may not be aware, but there is a secret-squirrel trackback button in every quote banner, just like the one in this post, just to the right of "A_Man said:"
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
That last statement is odd. I think I have met primitive Baptists who say that, but I don't see that kind of thinking in the Bible. By faith we are saved through faith. We have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. What did John say of one who does not believe that Jesus is the Son of GOd.
i have to agree with his last statement, and note that our scribes xlate pistis into "belief" rather than "have faith" much more often than seems right? There are five roots to "belief" and only one for "have faith," yeh?

anyway, you make some good points imo; of course we naturally only snip that which we want to contest. Welcome, too! :)

there is not judgement for beliefs that i am able to find, how bout you?
 

A_Man

Active Member
Nov 8, 2019
125
39
28
51
Atlanta area
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
hey, any chance i could persuade you to include a quote banner in at least your first snip, so we could follow along easier? ty

you may not be aware, but there is a secret-squirrel trackback button in every quote banner, just like the one in this post, just to the right of "A_Man said:"
I made a message too long and cut it in half and posted it, so I did not include the quoted by part. I am not sure what you mean by squirrel tracks though.