Kid dies

[Angrboda]

---

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:


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:

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.

Are you implying that I claimed that heaven was reserved for those who are justified by their works, because I made no such statement. Just what exactly is your objection to my original statement? It appears that you read in more than was actually stated. You seem to have misunderstood both my original statement and my reply, making your comments not so much wrong as simply not germane. Why don't you clarify what you meant by your original objection.