The Salvation Paradox

[Kenny]

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that there's an inherent paradox within the concept of Salvation.

What if true, lasting, and complete salvation can only occur individually by the individual's own efforts? I think this is true, because all of us are individuals with our own individual talents, flaws, affinities, and aversions. It makes sense that each of us would need our own salvation to be specific to our own trials, triumphs, challenges, and successes in our own individual life stories. What works for me, what saves me, will very likely be completely different than what saves other people. It's a natural consequence of being an individual in a diverse ecosystem.

But what if your premise is wrong. What if salvation is a gift?

Further, if someone else saves me, and somehow does the work for me? If they somehow are able to fashion a particular key for the particular door labeled "salvation" in my heart and mind? That is not saving me. I'm still burdened with the same faults, the same aversions are impeding me. All that's been accomplished is adding a new obstacle in the form of a savior. Without the savior, I'm still stuck under my own burden whatever that burden may be.

Again… what is your foundational approach is wrong. What if salvation included authority and power to destroy the yoke of burden that holds onto you?

Because of this, salvation is an inherent paradox? Salvation entails a savior. Salvation entails effortless advancement? Salvation requires a savior? Am I wrong? If not, in the act of being saved ( salvation ) the individual is, at best, trading one burden for another. They are reliant on the savior. And that reliance is itself a burden. If so, salvation is a neverending cycle of burdens which can never be completed.

Tldr? Salvation does not exist.

Obviously to construct a position without other viewpoints would make it easy to come to the conclusion that you constructed from the beginning but, in our view of the Messiah, you hold a position that doesn’t line up with our view.

Our view being that it is a gift and power and authority is delegated to destroy the yoke of bondage that held us captive.

That being said, there may be some areas you can effect salvation by your own efforts like working two jobs to get out of debt.

 

[osgart]

It takes truth, and actual events to save someone from themselves. Sometimes consequences, and external forces can be the life changing events a person needs. It might be very rare that a person will have the impetus to save themselves entirely on their own.

Arrogance is dangerous, and blinding. Then when arrogant people prosper without any contrary adversity and when nothing stands in their way they'll meet certain doom, but not necessarily in this life. One person's salvation might be another one's doom. They might go through their entire lives and never encounter anything true.

Salvation requires a worthy destination and an impending fate to be saved from. If all we have is this life, then a lot of people will only care for prosperity, and defense of their own lives, and nothing beyond that.

If there is a God I can't imagine a wicked person having any say in their own salvation. That would be to their merit if they had any say.

So to come out of arrogance, and hatred into a life of charity and empathy requires a genuine, heartfelt total desire to totally submit to those things. That desire would come from forces outside the person's ability and previous desire.

Salvation must be the total desire for it. I don't see that happening without life changing external events.

 

[dybmh]

But what if your premise is wrong. What if salvation is a gift?

I could be wrong.

Who gave the gift?

 

[Kenny]

I could be wrong.

Who gave the gift?

God gives it. At least in my way of thining

 

[dybmh]

God gives it

What guarantees God will never oppress? That's the paradox.

 

[Kenny]

What guarantees God will never oppress? That's the paradox.

A good question. For me, this is where Jesus splits the hairs on that question. He is the ultimate expression of the will of God and he never oppressed.

 

[dybmh]

He is the ultimate expression of the will of God and he never oppressed.

I appreciate the religious faith. Sincerely. But this is a philosophical question. Faith renders the question moot.

Perhaps, if you'd like to try moving the conversation forward while including faith, would you be open to making a list of the qualities of the Savior you have in mind which are producing the faith? Then we can discuss those qualities to see if the faith produced from those qualities relieves or greatly reduces the burden of doubt: "will I be betrayed by my own Savior?"

 

[YoursTrue]

But what if your premise is wrong. What if salvation is a gift?

That is true, Kenny, we cannot earn salvation.

 

[dybmh]

That is true, Kenny, we cannot earn salvation.

Right. The paradox is introduced if the savior is imperfect, and/or corrupted, shifting from being a savior to an oppressor / tyrant. My question to Kenny is, how does an individual know for certain that their savior will always and forever be altruistic?

 

[YoursTrue]

Right. The paradox is introduced if the savior is imperfect, and/or corrupted, shifting from being a savior to an oppressor / tyrant. My question to Kenny is, how does an individual know for certain that their savior will always and forever be altruistic?

OK, you didn't ask the question of me but there is also a time of destruction and judgment. So what does that mean? That while many look to a better world under the guidance of Jesus Christ, the same one is described as coming with vengeance. Part of that vengeance must be to "save" or protect the righteous and that would be to remove the wicked.

 

[Koldo]

I feel like it was popularized by Christianity, but the knight in shining armor is a common archetype.



Yes. Using the Abrahamic construct, salvation is needed to be saved from God's wrath. Agreed. So, we need another God to save us from the first God. The point I;m trying to make is that this is a never ending cycle. What happens when God #2 gets angry? I've lost favor with my savior. Now God#1 returns and starts spanking me. Repeatedly and with extreme malice.

There is no God #2. It is the same god in Christianity. But your question still remains though: What if God has a change of mind and starts spanking you? There is zilch you can do. But I don't see why this would be relevant to treat something as a salvation. It is like asking: What if the surgeon decides to kill you rather than save your life? But since he saved you, rather than killed you, why wouldn't that be a salvation?

See what I mean? It's a never ending cycle. If I am relying on God #2, instead of myself, I'm still saddled with the same burden. There was no salvation. It's an illusion. It's a paradox. Salvation is self-defeating. Right?

If I had learned to save myself from God #1? If I had done the work? Put in the time? Then when I escape from God #1, I can be confident I can always escape from God #1 whenever I choose. That can't happen if a knight in shining armor comes to sweep me off my feet and then charges out of the dungeon. That's the difference between salvation and accomplishment, or achievement? That's the difference between salvation and graduation? Maybe that's a good word for what would preferable to salvation. Graduation?

Why would you presume that you can always escape God? That makes no sense if you are talking about a god that is both powerful and that can get angry and spank you.

Let's up the ante?

If I continue with this train of thought, I'm considering: what happens if God #2 kills God #1? Originally I needed saving from God #1. Now I don't. OK. Maybe that seems like a good thing? I disagree. The same burden exists... or worse. Here's why.

I am still not able to save myself if God #2 gets angry. Maybe I will never need to save myself. Maybe I will. I still have a burden. I still have the same burden. I have been threatened and potentially traumatized. God #1's wrath is awful. I'm not sure how I could convince myself rationally that God #2 would never become hostile in the same way or worse. As they say, here in America, "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know." And when it comes to wrath, there really isn't much difference between a God and a devil. Right? If so, the burden of potential wrath from God #2 is still highly significant and cannot be ignored rationally. If God #2 saves me from God #1, I'm still saddled with the same burden. Same form. Same function. And the magnitude could be worse. Salvation is a self-defeating paradox.

That's my reasoning using the Abrahamic construct. Thoughts? Clearer now?

If you spend your entire life presuming that God could have a change of mind, it will be a burden. But what if you don't do that? Where is the burden then?

 

[Kenny]

I appreciate the religious faith. Sincerely. But this is a philosophical question. Faith renders the question moot.

Perhaps, if you'd like to try moving the conversation forward while including faith, would you be open to making a list of the qualities of the Savior you have in mind which are producing the faith? Then we can discuss those qualities to see if the faith produced from those qualities relieves or greatly reduces the burden of doubt: "will I be betrayed by my own Savior?"

Ok…

But I need a foundation or a starting point.

I would first ask, on what basis do I hold that he would be an oppressor at some point. Or, in other words, he has never been an oppressor, why would I even begin to think he might be at some time having the title of “Savior”?

 

[metis]

At least in my way of thining

Yes, you do look follicly challenged.

 

[metis]

That is true, Kenny, we cannot earn salvation.

Then our behavior doesn't matter? What about Jesus' Parable of the Sheep & Goats [Matthew 25]?

 

[YoursTrue]

Then our behavior doesn't matter? What about Jesus' Parable of the Sheep & Goats [Matthew 25]?

Of course our behavior matters. But simply by our behavior we cannot earn salvation. Without getting too deep into this now, metis, now, because questions have arisen in some comments that I am refraining from replying to now. Jude 1:20,21: "But you, beloved, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, 21keep yourselves in the love of God as you await the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you eternal life."

 

[YoursTrue]

Right. The paradox is introduced if the savior is imperfect, and/or corrupted, shifting from being a savior to an oppressor / tyrant. My question to Kenny is, how does an individual know for certain that their savior will always and forever be altruistic?

Part of it would depend on (1) our faith and (2) faith can lead to works, or behavior. Here's an interesting point to think about:
"Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
Romans 12:19 English Standard Version

 

[YoursTrue]

Ok…

But I need a foundation or a starting point.

I would first ask, on what basis do I hold that he would be an oppressor at some point. Or, in other words, he has never been an oppressor, why would I even begin to think he might be at some time having the title of “Savior”?

I would like to comment that Jesus was often criticizing his opponents on religious grounds, Naturally they didn't like that, especially since these religious leaders were supposed to be teaching the law. And because he also knew the scriptures, had come from heaven where he was with the Father, he knew he would be persecuted. He did not teach his disciples to get even. Even Pontius Pilate did not think he should have been killed, but gave in to the crowd calling for Jesus death. Here is something that can help solidify that point: (of course there's more...)
“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you build tombs for the prophets your ancestors killed, and you decorate the monuments of the godly people your ancestors destroyed."

 

[Kenny]

I would like to comment that Jesus was often criticizing his opponents on religious grounds, Naturally they didn't like that, especially since these religious leaders were supposed to be teaching the law. And because he also knew the scriptures, had come from heaven where he was with the Father, he knew he would be persecuted. He did not teach his disciples to get even. Even Pontius Pilate did not think he should have been killed, but gave in to the crowd calling for Jesus death. Here is something that can help solidify that point: (of course there's more...)
“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you build tombs for the prophets your ancestors killed, and you decorate the monuments of the godly people your ancestors destroyed."

We could come to a conclusion that it was religious people that oppress but that Jesus came to remove oppression.

 

[YoursTrue]

We could come to a conclusion that it was religious people that oppress but that Jesus came to remove oppression.

Makes sense to me. Despite obstacles, even death for those who follow Jesus, he promises everlasting life. A gift.

 

[metis]

Of course our behavior matters. But simply by our behavior we cannot earn salvation.

But according to the Parable of the Sheep & Goats, both matter, and it's not the only verse that says that.