What Does It Mean To Get Saved?

[prisonchaplain]

It dawns on me that the whole "works vs. faith" string on salvation arises out of different understandings about what it means to be saved. For evangelicals, salvation means our sins have been forgiven, and we will spend eternity with God. The opposite is to die in our sins, and be consigned to an eternity in hell.

Salvation then, means escaping hell and judgment for sins. It is a gift from God, a mercy extended.

LDS seem to mean much more when they speak of salvation. Salvation means entry into the Celestial Kingdom--eternity with the Heavenly Father. Furthermore, it means graduating from this existence, and joining a track of progression to godhood. As such, mere forgiveness of sins, is no ticket. Rather, conversion is the beginning of a journey--one that will require much "work."

Have I captured the difference?

[Traveler]

Part of the problem is the terminology. For example taking upon one's self the name of G-d. To me this means that one acts for G-d as he would if he was here. Or in other words to pretend you are G-d to do what he would do. I do not understand what EV's think they are doing when they say they are taking upon them, G-d's name. It almost appears to be meaningless. Sort of, something the scriptures say you should do so they say they do it - but it really does not mean anything associated with G-dlyness.

As to the concept of being saved. It is my understanding that being saved is the saving of man from the "Fall". It is important to be saved from our own sins but that involves our repentance and therefore is not the free gift. The free gift is being saved from the fall. Therefore, since all have fallen, all need to be saved from the fall - even little children that are innocent and never sinned but may have passed from this life through death. All are fallen and must be saved from the fall.

To be able to live everlasting with G-d is a blessing for those that seek through covenants and obedience the ability to enjoy divine everlasting life.

The Traveler

[Guest ApostleKnight]

As usual PC, you've pinpointed the core of the issue with unerring accuracy. I agree with your distinction.

[LionHeart]

Except salvation doesn't necessarily mean admittance into the Celestial Kingdom. Salavtion would be, as Traveler said, saved from the fall. From there, we would enter into whatever kingdom we were worthy of. This is known as our 'exaltation'

L.H.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Depends on the context. Consider these two verses:

D&C 6:13 "If thou wilt do good, yea, and hold out faithful to the end, thou shalt be saved in the kingdom of God, which is the greatest of all the gifts of God; for there is no gift greater than the gift of salvation."

D&C 14:7 "And, if you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God."

Syllogism time:

1) Salvation is the greatest gift of God;

2) Eternal life is the greatest gift of God; therefore...

3) Salvation and eternal life are the same thing.

This distinction is why I use the terms interchangeably. In the D&C at least, they refer to the same state of glory hereafter.

[sgallan]

As such, mere forgiveness of sins, is no ticket.

Even though I have been a non-believer for pretty much my entire life, I was once "saved" as a young teen, and therefore - if per chance there is a evangelical God - have my ticket.

[prisonchaplain]

Sorry, Sgallan. Arminian evangelicals would say you lost your ticket. Calvinists would say you never really got it. :-)

[sgallan]

Sorry, Sgallan. Arminian evangelicals would say you lost your ticket. Calvinists would say you never really got it. :-)

Well using the evangelicals POV, that would also be a form of work. One must "continue" to have faith. "Continue" is a verb. ;-) So the evangelicals believe in work as well..... just less of it. :)

[prisonchaplain]

[Well using the evangelicals POV, that would also be a form of work. One must "continue" to have faith. "Continue" is a verb. ;-) So the evangelicals believe in work as well..... just less of it. :)

Nice try. If I reach and take hold of the gift you've given me, it's still a gift. I still didn't earn it. Years later, if I continue to use and treasure the gift, it still remains a gift. On the other hand, if I give/throw it away, it's gone.

[Dr T]

P.C.,

No being "rational" allowed!

[sgallan]

That is you. I am not you. I am surprised you cannot see this.

[lds_mormon]

Sorry, Sgallan. Arminian evangelicals would say you lost your ticket. Calvinists would say you never really got it. :-)

Then how does their doctrine of "Once saved always saved," work if you can lose salvation?

Well using the evangelicals POV, that would also be a form of work. One must "continue" to have faith. "Continue" is a verb. ;-) So the evangelicals believe in work as well..... just less of it.

You know what's funny, Evangelists do believe in doing good works as well, they just don't want to admit it. I've had many debates with them over the subject, and they admit that you can't act however you please, that you don't have a free to sin card.

It really does boil down to a difference in terminology. They say that we can not earn our salvation. There is nothing we can do on our own to earn God's good graces. And that's basically what we, as Latter Day Saints believe as well. We can't earn salvation, we must have faith. But in order to make our faith complete, we must have works. Like the book of James say, "Faith without Works is Dead."

So just doing a lot of good deeds alone may not gain us salvation (in the celestial kingdom), for it is by faith that we are saved, but without the works, our faith can not be made complete.

[sharyll]

Hi,

My understanding of the Evangelical Christian perspective about being saved is you are saved when you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Then the process of working out your salvation is called sanctification and that is where the "working" part comes in. I think that there is a seperation from salvation and sanctification. That is what I have been taught and believe. I also see where LDS has a similiar stance just that there are not two terms for it. That is my perspective and as a searcher into LDS I know I may be wrong on my interpretations.

Sharyl

quote name='lds_mormon' date='Oct 4 2006, 11:14 AM' post='112184']

Sorry, Sgallan. Arminian evangelicals would say you lost your ticket. Calvinists would say you never really got it. :-)

Then how does their doctrine of "Once saved always saved," work if you can lose salvation?

Well using the evangelicals POV, that would also be a form of work. One must "continue" to have faith. "Continue" is a verb. ;-) So the evangelicals believe in work as well..... just less of it.

You know what's funny, Evangelists do believe in doing good works as well, they just don't want to admit it. I've had many debates with them over the subject, and they admit that you can't act however you please, that you don't have a free to sin card.

It really does boil down to a difference in terminology. They say that we can not earn our salvation. There is nothing we can do on our own to earn God's good graces. And that's basically what we, as Latter Day Saints believe as well. We can't earn salvation, we must have faith. But in order to make our faith complete, we must have works. Like the book of James say, "Faith without Works is Dead."

So just doing a lot of good deeds alone may not gain us salvation (in the celestial kingdom), for it is by faith that we are saved, but without the works, our faith can not be made complete.

[prisonchaplain]

Then how does their doctrine of "Once saved always saved," work if you can lose salvation?

I like the easy questions. :-) Arminians do not believe in "once saved always saved." Calvinists (who do believe it) would say that the one who supposedly falls away never really converted.

You know what's funny, Evangelists do believe in doing good works as well, they just don't want to admit it. I've had many debates with them over the subject, and they admit that you can't act however you please, that you don't have a free to sin card.

We work out of gratitude for our salvation, and love for our Savior. If you think about it, the evangelical POV is a humble one--there is nothing I can possibly due to merit salvation. I simply call on the Father's mercy. He responds because of the sacrifice of his Son. What I am accepting when I take "salvation" is new life. That new life will lead to good works. But the good works are also due to God's spirit in me, not merely my own will power. So, God gets all the glory and gratitude.

It really does boil down to a difference in terminology. They say that we can not earn our salvation. There is nothing we can do on our own to earn God's good graces. And that's basically what we, as Latter Day Saints believe as well. We can't earn salvation, we must have faith. But in order to make our faith complete, we must have works. Like the book of James say, "Faith without Works is Dead."

It may seem minor, but I would tweek the conclusion. Faith that does not produce works was never faith to begin with. In other words, it's dead because it never took. But, true faith--childlike belief--will result in a new life that produces works. God gets all the glory for this product.

So just doing a lot of good deeds alone may not gain us salvation (in the celestial kingdom), for it is by faith that we are saved, but without the works, our faith can not be made complete.

But it's not faith & works--it's faith that produces works.

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

[Well using the evangelicals POV, that would also be a form of work. One must "continue" to have faith. "Continue" is a verb. ;-) So the evangelicals believe in work as well..... just less of it. :)

Nice try. If I reach and take hold of the gift you've given me, it's still a gift. I still didn't earn it. Years later, if I continue to use and treasure the gift, it still remains a gift. On the other hand, if I give/throw it away, it's gone.

I have a question about this gift concept. If you have to reach and take hold to qualify for the gift then it is not a free gift but must be earned by reaching and taking hold. Though it may not have the value of the gift still it implies earning the gift even though it is not earning the full value of the gift. Those that do not earn the gift and qualify cannot have the gift. The problem is that as soon as there is anything to differentiate who gets and who does not get a gift then we must agree that the gift is not 100% completely free but must be obtained by some means of qualification and therefore some earning.

I have no problem with the concept of qualifying and earning. Unless someone insist there is no qualifying and earning then in their next breath they define a qualification for earning.

The Traveler

[LionHeart]

But it's not faith & works--it's faith that produces works.

True, but it also works the other way. We start out by planting the seed of faith; which brings about works. Said works then begin to build on that faith; thus beginning a continuing cycle.

L.H.

[prisonchaplain]

I have a question about this gift concept. If you have to reach and take hold to qualify for the gift then it is not a free gift but must be earned by reaching and taking hold. Though it may not have the value of the gift still it implies earning the gift even though it is not earning the full value of the gift. Those that do not earn the gift and qualify cannot have the gift. The problem is that as soon as there is anything to differentiate who gets and who does not get a gift then we must agree that the gift is not 100% completely free but must be obtained by some means of qualification and therefore some earning.

This train of thought is odd to me. You never have to accept a gift. Nobody thinks of taking a gift as a work or deed. Gifts are often turned down--and that takes more "effort" than just taking it.

Ahh...but why turn down the gift? What if someone were to give you a time share? Hey, it's a great gift. They usually cost $9 -30K. But, if you take the gift, there are yearly maintenance fees, and there is a dedication to vacationing that's required for it to make sense. So, gifts usually require change. Perhaps the gift of a pet might be an even better example.

Now, as much as the "taking a gift = effort = work" argument frustrates me as not 'real world,' I admit that other Christians have argued this--John Calvin, in particular. Thus, he argues for predestination. There is no work--God has pre-ordained he would be saved and who would not. Salvation is truly a free gift, because the recipient is unable to resist it.

Again, I don't buy that line. The Holy Spirit is gentle, and does not force himself on the unwilling.

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

I have a question about this gift concept. If you have to reach and take hold to qualify for the gift then it is not a free gift but must be earned by reaching and taking hold. Though it may not have the value of the gift still it implies earning the gift even though it is not earning the full value of the gift. Those that do not earn the gift and qualify cannot have the gift. The problem is that as soon as there is anything to differentiate who gets and who does not get a gift then we must agree that the gift is not 100% completely free but must be obtained by some means of qualification and therefore some earning.

This train of thought is odd to me. You never have to accept a gift. Nobody thinks of taking a gift as a work or deed. Gifts are often turned down--and that takes more "effort" than just taking it.

Ahh...but why turn down the gift? What if someone were to give you a time share? Hey, it's a great gift. They usually cost $9 -30K. But, if you take the gift, there are yearly maintenance fees, and there is a dedication to vacationing that's required for it to make sense. So, gifts usually require change. Perhaps the gift of a pet might be an even better example.

Now, as much as the "taking a gift = effort = work" argument frustrates me as not 'real world,' I admit that other Christians have argued this--John Calvin, in particular. Thus, he argues for predestination. There is no work--God has pre-ordained he would be saved and who would not. Salvation is truly a free gift, because the recipient is unable to resist it.

Again, I don't buy that line. The Holy Spirit is gentle, and does not force himself on the unwilling.

The question is - is man invested in salvation? Is anything required? My line of thinking is that if anything is required of the individual in order to separate those that get from those that do not get; then we know for sure, without any question, that man is invested. Now we can go on and argue over what man does to invest but the question of human investment cannot be argued and thus salvation is not a "free" gift because it involves a human investment.

Now if a gift is worth $20,000,000 and a persons only pays 2 cents worth of investment in order to receive the gift; one may argue they did not earn the gift where other's may argue that any investment is a type of earning. The point I want to make is that any investment is a good work and should be recognized as good works required for salvation. We may have questions about which good works are required and which are not. But to say nothing (no good work) is required and no good work will make any difference then place something as a requirement is a flaw of logic that will cause misunderstanding and unnecessary arguments between peoples that should be in agreement.

Let me give another example - lets say that G-d gives someone a free gift to be able to live an additional year. This gift could be given and the receiver never even know or accept the gift. They may not do anything to even acknowledge the gift. They may even waist the gift but it does not matter, the gift is free. But if the gift of an additional year of life requires that they recognize the gift or reach out and accept the gift to make it valid or anything to validate the gift then it is not a free gift but is a gift based on conditions.

The question of salvation is simple. Is salvation conditional? The answer is either yes or no. If we establish that salvation is conditional then we can begin to discuss the condition(s). If the answer is that salvation is not conditional then there is no point to discuss any conditions. But when someone says salvation is not conditional then proceeds to define any condition we can only draw one conclusion - that person does not know of what they speak.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

The question is - is man invested in salvation? Is anything required? My line of thinking is that if anything is required of the individual in order to separate those that get from those that do not get; then we know for sure, without any question, that man is invested. Now we can go on and argue over what man does to invest but the question of human investment cannot be argued and thus salvation is not a "free" gift because it involves a human investment.

By your definition, there is no such thing as a free gift. You've defined the willingness to receive as a work (or an investment).

In contrast, I imagine my Savior, badly beaten, profusely bleeding, slowly suffocating--bearing my sins. How dare I respond, "Okay, Jesus--you did your part, now I'll do mine." Rather, in tears, I shamefully call upon the Father's mercy to forgive my sins, and cleanse me of all unrighteousness, because of the shed blood of Christ.

I suppose that makes me invested in salvation, by your definition. But I will not claim any merit. I can only respond, "Thank you Lord. Now fill me with your Spirit, and empower me to live a life of gratitude."

[pushka]

Hmmm, I'm trying to get my head around this issue without sounding silly or anything.

I think, IMO, that the gift of salvation is free to all, as pointed out in Traveler's last post...regardless of whether or not you know of it. I assume the only way that you can know of the gift is if you are introduced to the Bible. So that means that Jesus's Atonement has saved us all from Original Sin (Adam and Eve) even if we're not aware of it, but does that guarantee us a place in Heaven?

I can't really explain the rest!! I suppose I would be inclined to agree with PC that if you read the Bible and accepted the fact that Jesus had already saved you, you would automatically try to alter your behaviour by following the Commandments, but that this would not earn you any thing more from your Salvation, than what you earned through Jesus's Atonement...

Sorry, it has ended up sounding silly and confused!! Just like me..lol :)

[Traveler]

By your definition, there is no such thing as a free gift. You've defined the willingness to receive as a work (or an investment).

There is such a thing as a free gift - it is a gift that has no investment requirements. Besides the gift of life I gave in a previous post I will list some more free gifts. The sun that shines and the rain the falls is a free gift for it shines and falls on the wicked and the righteous. You do not have to recognize it or accept it - it is a true free gift that requires no investment.

In contrast, I imagine my Savior, badly beaten, profusely bleeding, slowly suffocating--bearing my sins. How dare I respond, "Okay, Jesus--you did your part, now I'll do mine." Rather, in tears, I shamefully call upon the Father's mercy to forgive my sins, and cleanse me of all unrighteousness, because of the shed blood of Christ.

I suppose that makes me invested in salvation, by your definition. But I will not claim any merit. I can only respond, "Thank you Lord. Now fill me with your Spirit, and empower me to live a life of gratitude."

Your words confuse me and seem to me to contradict what is in your heart. Do you really believe that to: "call upon the Father's mercy to forgive my sins, and cleanse me of all unrighteousness, because of the shed blood of Christ." - Has no merit? If there is merit and such a thing is good - is G-d not pleased that you would claim that you have done such a good thing in claiming and proclaim it? If there is no merit or if it is not good - why do you announce it and bring it up? If there is merit in it - why do you say there is no merit worth any claim?

Please understand that I am not criticising - I am doing my best to make sure I really understand what you really mean to say.

The Traveler

Hmmm, I'm trying to get my head around this issue without sounding silly or anything.

I think, IMO, that the gift of salvation is free to all, as pointed out in Traveler's last post...regardless of whether or not you know of it. I assume the only way that you can know of the gift is if you are introduced to the Bible. So that means that Jesus's Atonement has saved us all from Original Sin (Adam and Eve) even if we're not aware of it, but does that guarantee us a place in Heaven?

I can't really explain the rest!! I suppose I would be inclined to agree with PC that if you read the Bible and accepted the fact that Jesus had already saved you, you would automatically try to alter your behaviour by following the Commandments, but that this would not earn you any thing more from your Salvation, than what you earned through Jesus's Atonement...

Sorry, it has ended up sounding silly and confused!! Just like me..lol :)

Thanks for your response - I think you do understand the point I am trying to make

The Traveler

[Red]

Traveler:

Yes, calling on God has merit solely in the fact that God decreed this as the only way to be "saved." Only through our faith in the work of Jesus, by the mercy of God can we be given Eternal Life.

But in another sense, there is no merit whatsoever in our calling on God to save us from His wrath, which we so completely deserve. Imagine you cheated on your wife and beat your children. Would you be going above and beyond the call of duty to ask her forgiveness? No! calling on God to refrain from smiting you, or asking your wife to not press charges is hardly "meritorious." Not that you have done any of that to your wife but this is an example of what we do to God everyday, in many ways.

But what God did for us is just like this: imagine your wife sent herself to jail in your stead. All she asks of you is to love her in return (the only condition to be met is faith). Now if you repent, (turn away from your old ways) deciding that you love her, she has the power to not prosecute you, and she won't. But if you give her the finger and leave, thinking she did a real stupid thing by thowing herself in prison like that, then the long arm of the Law will have its way with you.

Do you (and puska also) see how this works? Jesus, against whom we sin daily, has purchased forgiveness for the whole world--every single person who ever has or will live. But they must accept the gift of reconciliation/Eternal Life that God holds out in front of our faces. It is a sad reality that everyone who goes to hell is actually "forgiven" but they have not turned to God. They gave Him the finger, so God had no choice but to condemn them.

-Red

One a side note (or in conclusion?): here is why "calling on God" (repenting, believing, etc.) is not a work: does it burn any calories?

[Traveler]

Traveler:

Yes, calling on God has merit solely in the fact that God decreed this as the only way to be "saved." Only through our faith in the work of Jesus, by the mercy of God can we be given Eternal Life.

But in another sense, there is no merit whatsoever in our calling on God to save us from His wrath, which we so completely deserve. Imagine you cheated on your wife and beat your children. Would you be going above and beyond the call of duty to ask her forgiveness? No! calling on God to refrain from smiting you, or asking your wife to not press charges is hardly "meritorious." Not that you have done any of that to your wife but this is an example of what we do to God everyday, in many ways.

But what God did for us is just like this: imagine your wife sent herself to jail in your stead. All she asks of you is to love her in return (the only condition to be met is faith). Now if you repent, (turn away from your old ways) deciding that you love her, she has the power to not prosecute you, and she won't. But if you give her the finger and leave, thinking she did a real stupid thing by thowing herself in prison like that, then the long arm of the Law will have its way with you.

Do you (and puska also) see how this works? Jesus, against whom we sin daily, has purchased forgiveness for the whole world--every single person who ever has or will live. But they must accept the gift of reconciliation/Eternal Life that God holds out in front of our faces. It is a sad reality that everyone who goes to hell is actually "forgiven" but they have not turned to God. They gave Him the finger, so God had no choice but to condemn them.

-Red

One a side note (or in conclusion?): here is why "calling on God" (repenting, believing, etc.) is not a work: does it burn any calories?

Red: I am trying to get beyond "double speak". This is not a thread about what not to do but if there really is something we must do. I am not even yet trying to define what it is we must do but only if there is something required of man as a must do or if it is all in the saving grace of Jesus. I do not think my questions are difficult or that my logic requires an advance degree is double speak. It is simple. Is salvation free or does it require investment by man? Is the Blood of Christ given with or without conditions? You say conditions but then you turn around and contradict yourself saying his blood was "freely" given and I do not understand for the life of me why. Does this mean that you believe salvation is not free? You cannot say something is un-conditional is one breath and then say there really are conditions but they are not real conditions because it does not require any effort but then you have to make an effort to .... This double speak and miss use of words makes no sense to me and leaves the impression you do not understand what you are trying to explain.

What kind of love is only given on conditions? Do not say G-d's love is un-conditional then start piling conditions on his love. Do not say salvation is a free gift then say what has to be "DONE" to receive it.

I agree with almost half of what is being said. It is the contradictory stuff that I cannot swallow. I agree that we must be invested in salvation from our sins. I agree if man is to live with G-d man must by his effort repent and sacrifice his will and accept G-d's will. It appears to me that to conform to the will of G-d has merit and is an accomplishment that even G-d himself will say "Well done thou good and faithful servant". You do not believe that G-d will utter such a thing? Does he not see any merit in our repentance? If your effort is so small that it does not burn any calories than I do not believe you really believe in G-d or have any kind of experience in behaving like a Christian. An honest plea for forgiveness ought to require some effort and burn a little bitty calorie?

It is beginning to look like I will never know if there is real disagreement in what we believe or just in double speak and terms changing meaning mid sentence.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

There is such a thing as a free gift - it is a gift that has no investment requirements. Besides the gift of life I gave in a previous post I will list some more free gifts. The sun that shines and the rain the falls is a free gift for it shines and falls on the wicked and the righteous. You do not have to recognize it or accept it - it is a true free gift that requires no investment.

Life: it can be rejected. We call that suicide. Additionally, it can be frittered away by unhealthy lifestyle.

Sun: I think of Howard Hughes, living out his last years a recluse, curtains pulled.

Rain: Really, this is true of all weather--we complain when it's hot, cold, wet, dry.

I understand that we gain benefits from some things we absolutely ignore. Yet, I still contend that merely receiving a gift hardly means having earned it.

Your words confuse me and seem to me to contradict what is in your heart. Do you really believe that to: "call upon the Father's mercy to forgive my sins, and cleanse me of all unrighteousness, because of the shed blood of Christ." - Has no merit?

Is God pleased that I repent? Of course! But, again, no, I've not bartered with God. I've not traded with Him. I've embraced an extravagant and unfathomable gift--a precious mercy.

If there is merit and such a thing is good - is G-d not pleased that you would claim that you have done such a good thing in claiming and proclaim it? If there is no merit or if it is not good - why do you announce it and bring it up? If there is merit in it - why do you say there is no merit worth any claim?

Repentence is our means of accepting God's gift. He's giving us new life. We embrace it by discarding the old. If you would be free from sin, letting go of the sin is no labor, anymore than being freed of cancer would be considered a sacrifice.

Please understand that I am not criticising - I am doing my best to make sure I really understand what you really mean to say.

You're long past me questioning your motives, Traveler. I usually have to digest your words to arrive at your underlying thoughts--but the journey is always worthwhile.

[Traveler]

Life: it can be rejected. We call that suicide. Additionally, it can be frittered away by unhealthy lifestyle.

I understand what you are trying to say here but it is a little out of what we are talking about. Life occurs if we accept the gift or not. In fact from your example it takes effort, investment and work to dispose of it. There is no effort, investment and work to obtain it. It is a free gift.

Sun: I think of Howard Hughes, living out his last years a recluse, curtains pulled.

If the sun quit shining all life on this planet would end in around 8 seconds. Just because you do not stand in it does not mean there is no gift in the shining of the sun. In fact this is my point. It is a free gift wether it is accepted or not.

Rain: Really, this is true of all weather--we complain when it's hot, cold, wet, dry.

Since it is a free gift we can complain, we can be thankful - it makes no difference at all in the rain or who benefits from it.

I understand that we gain benefits from some things we absolutely ignore. Yet, I still contend that merely receiving a gift hardly means having earned it.

This use of “earned”, I do not understand at all. If you contribute in any way you have earned something. If it is something designated of you then you earned your part. If a gift is given based on any condition and you meet that condition you have earned your part in the gift. Now you may depend on someone earning much more than you for the gift to be available but the fact that you contributed and met the conditions is the very understanding I have of earning something or anything. If there is a contract and you meet the conditions of that contract - then according to law not only have you earned the benefits of the contract but you have a right to the benefits. You can demand in the law that the contract be fulfilled.

IS SALVATION A CONTRACT G-D MAKES WITH MAN?

Is God pleased that I repent? Of course! But, again, no, I've not bartered with God. I've not traded with Him. I've embraced an extravagant and unfathomable gift--a precious mercy.

Repentence is our means of accepting God's gift. He's giving us new life. We embrace it by discarding the old. If you would be free from sin, letting go of the sin is no labor, anymore than being freed of cancer would be considered a sacrifice.

Is not repentance then a kind of barter or trade with G-d? Do we not offer something (our sins) in return for his forgiveness and grace? Again this appears to be exactly what a sinner does in honestly seeking mercy and forgiveness. It seems to me that not only do we barter and trade for the gift of forgiveness but that the L-rd gets “cheated” big time every single time in every deal of mercy he makes.

You're long past me questioning your motives, Traveler. I usually have to digest your words to arrive at your underlying thoughts--but the journey is always worthwhile.

I think I travel a worthwhile path as well.

The Traveler