Kid dies

[RoadRunner79]

---

That’s an interesting view.  I don’t see the teachings about heaven as being deserved at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

Romans 10:8-9, NASB

I don't give a shit about "teaching" if it's not what people believed in their hearts.  The simple truth is that believers then, as now, commonly believed themselves saved, despite the finer points of theology.  Your "teaching" meant diddly to the common man.  Take the following sample from a random Christian website for example:

I'm Glad I'm Saved Because ...
Bill Brinkworth

Getting saved is one of the greatest experiences one can ever have. There are many good things that come along with having God’s promise of heaven. I am so glad that I am saved:

*Because I am going to heaven. All through the Bible there are many verses telling its readers how they can know for sure that when they die they will go to heaven. All they need to do is trust that Christ’s finished work on the cross is payment for all their sins.

Is there or is there not a performance criterion for salvation?  Will the enemies of Christ be saved?  Who do you think that leaves to be saved.  Your apologetics 101 argument that salvation comes only through grace is a dodge for the obvious, Christians consider themselves likely to be saved because of their faith in the life and the resurrection.  If not, then what is the point in believing?  It's an us versus them polarization, plain and simple, despite your tap dancing.  That's why we have ignorant shitheads like Godscreated lecturing us on this site about the proper way to live; he's convinced he's got his.  Maybe if Christians actually believed the teaching and lived in doubt, you'd have a point; but they don't.  The "teaching" on heaven and hell developed in the period just prior to the life of Christ.  How do you know that salvation through grace is what was being taught then?  I imagine then as now, what was "taught" was the promise of salvation.  That's the engine which drives apocalypticism.  Your complaint about later "teaching" is just so much irrelevant noise compared to that practical fact.

See for example, the following from Isaiah:

10 In that day the root of Jesse, who shall stand as a signal for the peoples—of him shall the nations inquire, and his resting place shall be glorious.

11 In that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant that remains of his people, from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Cush,[a] from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea.

12
He will raise a signal for the nations
   and will assemble the banished of Israel,
and gather the dispersed of Judah
   from the four corners of the earth.
13
The jealousy of Ephraim shall depart,
   and those who harass Judah shall be cut off;
Ephraim shall not be jealous of Judah,
   and Judah shall not harass Ephraim.
14
But they shall swoop down on the shoulder of the Philistines in the west,
   and together they shall plunder the people of the east.
They shall put out their hand against Edom and Moab,
   and the Ammonites shall obey them.
15
And the Lord will utterly destroy[b]
   the tongue of the Sea of Egypt,
and will wave his hand over the River[c]
   with his scorching breath,[d]
and strike it into seven channels,
   and he will lead people across in sandals.
16
And there will be a highway from Assyria
   for the remnant that remains of his people,
as there was for Israel
   when they came up from the land of Egypt.

Isaiah 11:10-16, NASB

Just who do you think Isaiah is talking about here?

---

It is normally credited to Augustine for saying "Never judge a philosophy by it's abuse".  I suppose that I differ from you, because I'm not concerned more with the foundations, and what is true, rather than the distortion. Here I would think that it is quicker to ask, what is the basis for that doctrine, rather than trying to figure out if it is sound, which even if it is sound, doesn't make it legit.  

I think that it is interesting, in your reference of Romans here.   That might have been something that I would have picked to support the opposite.  For your random website, I don't think that it demonstrates your point very well, you may want to apply some intelligent design to your process.  I'm also not sure where you are getting with the Isaiah passage (though I didn't look it up for context). 

I don't disagree, that a works based or performance based system has not been or is not currently taught by some.  I am against these as well (and don't really care if they don't make sense to you).   I'm currently reading about Martin Luther, I was previously familiar with some of the issues about indulgences, but learning more about the extent of the problem, as well as other issues of that time, is eye opening.   However I have read the New Testament, and I have read a number of the early Church writings. I don't see this performance based manipulation being taught or employed.  Now there is some debate, if belief, faith and such are a work.   Something that we are doing.   I tend to fall on the side that it is not; and I think it is a stretch to try to force it into a performance and deserving based system which you seem to be arguing against.   The carefully chosen phrase used (by those who think very much about these things) is "by grace, through faith".  This is what I see in the scriptures and the early writings.   It is pretty much the opposite of what I would do, if the purpose was as you say.    I don't even doubt that you can proof text something which tells us to do good works, or that sounds like it is works based.   However when you look at the whole, I am doubtful you would get that message.