I'll have to read that through again Cavalier, as in order to post a reply, the original message is no longer visible (another quirk of this ridiculous B'net set-up)

My initial thoughts were that yes, we have a choice with what we do with our lives here on earth, but there will be consequences.

Should we decide to prematurely end our physical existence, then it is possible that the very reason we were here has not been accomplished and either that opportunity will be completely lost to us, to our detriment, or we may have to come back and go through it all again.

I guess if you believe that the only reason someone was chosen by God was to go to heaven, then you have a point. But that is not the case.

May 6, 2009 -- 9:20AM, Cavalier wrote:

Why wouldn't it be? Heaven > Earth infinitely so. Thus human behaviour is of no consequence to God, especially if sin is meaningless, and human life is to be given over for eternal life in Heaven.

I disagree, where in the bible do you find it stated that eternal life is going to be in heaven???

As I read it, at the end, we will spend eternity on the new earth. (Revelation 21)

Sin is not meaningless, sin measures where one is with God.  We know if we have a relationship with God if we have a desire not to sin.  Just because someone made some mental decision to agree with a proposition about what God has given them through Jesus, does not mean that they know God.

Like Paul says in Romans 7, he does the very things he does not want to do, and does not do the very things he should do.  That is an expression of a struggle with sin.  That is an expression of a relationship with God.  It is all about an honest desire to serve God, if that is not there, then how can someone claim to know God.  Jesus said, you will know them by their fruits, well that obviously applies to us all.  Fruit/works do not save, they just inform us that we are saved.

That is the way both Luther and Calvin framed the issue.

Well yes, you'd spend eternal life on the "new Earth" which will be Heaven v. 2, really.

I also agree with you regarding sin (well to some extent - I side with St. James and Catholicism in faith + works as necessary for salvation). However, those who advocate Eternal Security do not agree. As Martin Luther made clear, no sin can bereave us of salvation. What is not won by us cannot be lost, as some say. As such, there is no reason not to sin, nor indeed even a reason to live, because once we're saved (by faith alone, I.E. the magical formula of 'Jesus, I am a sinner! Save me!') we're better off dead (literally - eternal life and bliss).

I am not sure how you are using the word heaven. 

"And I saw the holy city – the new Jerusalem – descending out of heaven from God,  made ready like a bride adorned for her husband."

The city which is then described in the next two chapters descends out of heaven which in my mind means it rests on earth.  Now unless God pushes the elevator button back "up" the city which we will eternally reside would be on earth, and heaven will still be another place.

Personally, the whole issue of faith + works as necessary for salvation in the Catholic context does not mean the same for a Protestant.  As a Protestant I define those words differently than an Catholic, so it will be fruitless to discuss them because we would be discussing different issues.

So let me rephrase it, my living for God + my knowing God results only from the grace of God.  That being, for me the terminus of the equation is not salvation, but God.  This was Luther's and Calvin's point.

I agree with Paul, "nothing can separate us from the love of God."  Both my living for God and my knowing God is a gift.  Everyone on earth sins.  So everyone on earth requires the grace of God.  In my mind to start playing games about how much sin makes one not a believer is something for the throne of God, not the keyboards of computers.

As Luther said, I show my life with God by my living for God.  And if there is no evidence of a life with God, that being, someone not living for God, then that person is, as John says, self-deceived. So your whole point about "a reason not to sin" is built on a false premise.  Because if someone who has a life with God also have a living for God as part of the grace that God imparts.  The two always go together, that was James point.

I think you are laboring under several misconceptions about what evangelicals believe.

You seem to be making a connection that if one believes in eternal security that ones life on earth does not matter.  I say it is the opposite.  I say, without believing in eternal security I thnk it would be hard, if you are honest to do anything on this earth that is purely for the glory of God.    I do what I do out of gratitude of God's grace. Without having the assurance of a eternal relationship it is impossible, if you are honest, to live for God without in the back of your mind having a self-serving purpose.  It is hard enough to have the right motives for the things that we do as it is. Evangelicals are motivated by grace, you seem to be caught up into viewing the earth as a proving ground.  If earth is a proving grounds, then what is the purpose of the cross?

The state of those in New Jerusalem will be "as the angels" I.E. heavenly. The conditions of no pain, no suffering, eternal bliss, connection with God, et cetera, all represent an eternity of bliss. If not in Heaven (which I think a small point) then in the perfection of resurrection of which few would deny is Heavenly in all meaningful senses.

 I think you are making unwarranted assumptions on the meaning of heaven and heavenly.  Nowhere are we told in the bible that we will spend an eternity in heaven.  We are told we will spend an eternity with God.  Revelation appears to place that eternity on earth.  If you want to refer to that future existence as heavenly, if that floats your boat…fine.  But it seems your use of the word heaven is an emphasis is on state, and mine is on place.

 So you suggest that he who loves GOd will want to live for God? But what is more life than eternal life? Moreover, the very concept of the World, as irredeemable beyond destruction, seems useless before God which will provide a world fitting for the believer to live ad eterniam. Leaving us once again with the vast unimportance of life on Earth v. the amazing life in the hereafter.

I would say, as James and Johns first epistle, that the person who is in relationship with God, lives for God.

As for your understanding of eternal life, eternal life is what someone who has a relationship with God has now.  Actually it is both now and future, both concepts are found in scripture.  Just read the well known passage of John 3:16.  We have eternal life, not will have.  Jesus said the Kingdom of God is not in the future but is here now, in our midst.  We have abundant life now.  I think that is a vast importance to our lives now.  It makes earthly existence paramount.  The scriptures are clear, we were created for good works.  As both Luther and Calvin emphasized, salvation is not the escape from earth to heaven, but salvation is by grace but includes the working out of our salvation (Ephesians 2 and Philippians 2), it begins now and continues into glory.

Moreover, we once again find that the sin of suicide would not separate us from God, as salvation would not be lost. So why not give into weakness to take the shortcut to God? God won't be mad. Your sin is all ready paid.

I think you are creating a straw man here.  You fail to grasp the evangelical understanding that salvation is a lot more that an escape to heaven.  Actually that is a Gnostic idea, not Christian. 

So you believe the earthly existence is for what purpose?  It seems you are saying that our current existence is to work ourselves to heaven.  I say, our current existence is to glorify God.  That is why previously I said your equation of faith + work = salvation has as its terminus the self.  I offered the alternative, the Reform and Lutheran view, living for God + know God = by God's grace, thus the terminus is God, not the self.  BIG DIFFERENCE.