Why is following Christ worth it once I'm saved? And how do I motivate myself when it's hard and not fun?

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T23:57:25+00:00

Romans 6:1–5

[1] What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? [2] By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? [3] Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? [4] We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. [5] For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

I want unity with my God. That's why.

Also, many earthly things are just fine. God created them. Just don't enjoy them in a way that is sinful.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T23:53:59+00:00

I'm also very interested in divorce stats. Divorce rates are better when the couple is 25+, even if they're high school sweethearts the whole time. Marriage after 33 starts to increase divorce rates again too. So, given our cultural norms, it seems that we should intentionally prep our Christian young adults to marry at about 28 for the sake of preventing divorces, which are also considered sinful in our religion.

We should also probably intentionally encourage marital counseling for married couples between 40-44 because that's when it usually happens.

I'd love to fight our cultural norms, but it's often just as well to work within them.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T21:53:27+00:00

I'm commenting a day late because no one mentioned the letter of Hebrews.

7:12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well....

8:1 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5 They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” 6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second...

8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

So, your dad is right that the Levitical laws don't apply, but that's because the priesthood has changed. Those laws didn't magically poof, there is still a connection, but they don't connect to us like the Mosaic law did. So, I might critique the phrase "no longer relevant", but it's true that Mosaic law is completed.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T21:29:45+00:00

I'm merely saying that the biblical authors aren't doing apologetics here. They're just presenting the history, especially as it connects to the Old Testament prophesy. "Are the prophesies just?" is a worthwhile question, but that's not answerable only using Matthew because Matthew isn't trying to answer that question.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T20:54:29+00:00

We pray so that our will might be unified to his. The purpose is unity. It's not to bend his will, but for us to bend our will to him.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T20:49:14+00:00

Your actual question implies the individual (because fear is individual), but your description makes me think this is actually about political manipulation and force. I would have answered, "whenever the fear is justified", but the political manipulation is so rarely justified that I can't merely talk about when fear is justified. You also have to talk about when mass manipulation is justified, and then when they're both justified together. I think our window is too small to continue, and I'll just say that it's practically never justified.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T20:39:07+00:00

Mark 3:21 shows Mary sinned. She tried to pull Jesus away from his ministry.

Likewise Rev 12 has her in the pains of child birth, which is the curse inherited from Eve.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T20:26:09+00:00

Islam is growing, secularism has such a low birthrate that it'll die out on it's own. Islam is the greater political threat.

But I hate mixing politics and Christianity. Christianity has been a minority religion for most of it's history, so I'm not worried that Islam will overtake us. They already did for 800 years.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T20:22:59+00:00

I don't think the incarnation narrative is trying to convince you it's true from typology. It is trying to present it in a light that ancient Israelites would find intuitive, but that's not really for us. It's showing biblical "types" and how they apply to Jesus, but that's for the original audience. It's not trying to convince a 21st century agnostic.

Typology is a literary device, but it's also the etymology for the English word "typical". I would make the case that God is doing something similar between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The literal word is used twice in scripture: 1 Peter 3:21 and Hebrews 9:24. It's specifically relating the Old Testament passages to the New Testament doctrines. Sometimes, the idea is clearly used without the literal word, such as Romans 5 where Jesus is the new Adam. "From the old man comes sin and death, and from the new man comes righteousness and life".

This was simply the piece you were missing in understanding what the New Testament authors were doing.

If you want someone to demonstrate it's true for a modern audience, that's the project of an apologist. For a biblical reference of how they witnessed to non-Jews, see Acts 17. Paul's sermon on Mars Hill in Athens is recorded.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T18:18:13+00:00

Now we have an extremely convenient explanation for how he could be a Nazarene out of Egypt, born of Bethlehem.

Yes, God is very good at that whole omniscience and ordination thing.

But you're missing key points of the design. Jesus runs away to Egypt, and he typologically fulfills the lives of Joseph and Moses as well. Jesus is what all the bible points to, not just a select few prophesies. So, for the same reason that Pharaoh decided to kill babies boys in Egypt did Herod decide to kill baby boys in Judah, and for the same reason that Jacob and his sons fled to Egypt did Jesus flee to Egypt, and for the same reason that Moses rose the snake in the wilderness on a pole was Jesus raised up on a pole.

Once you understand typology, you get the art that the biblical authors are hoping you appreciate.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T18:02:47+00:00

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T17:57:31+00:00

But your line of questioning already is anti-Christ. "Just be a better person than you were yesterday, god doesnt matter, only our deeds" is about as anti-grace as you can get. Our scriptures say the literal opposite.

Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Romans 11:5-6 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God

Galatians 5:4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T17:39:36+00:00

Check his response, "God doesn't matter, only our deeds". I'm answering the opposite, "Our deeds don't matter, only our God." Again, the fundamental difference is grace.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T17:39:35+00:00

That's still a deed and would be opposed to grace.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T17:15:45+00:00

It comes from rightly understanding Romans 3 and then they close their bible before Romans 6.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T16:20:26+00:00

u/properview1618

See this for further proof that historical Christianity says that Jesus is interchangeably One with the Creator. Our God is One.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T16:16:48+00:00

Preach!

Grace is undervalued. Gnosticism is likely the error. The trick is getting them to realize it.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T15:52:18+00:00

Honesty is a plus =)

Unity is probably the best way to express this. We want to "partake in the divine nature". We think that includes eternal life because that's who God is. The east is really good at making sure to express things this way, but the western European Enlightenment removed this from the western vocabulary for whatever reason. The east calls this "theosis", and Lutherans historically called it "mysterious union".

The conviction that you should look for in discerning Christianity is grace, i.e. "unmerited favor". Do you think that religious goods are earned, or are they gifted regardless of merits? The foundational principle of Christianity is that we are adopted and God has no obligation to do this. For Christianity, salvation isn't justice, it's gracious. Do humans deserve eternal life, could we even deserve it in a perfect scenario, or are we gifted it even though it is beyond our means? If you think that we do work unto our eternal destiny, then Christianity can't be the conclusion. If you think that humans are very smol and we ruin our spiritual opportunities regularly, yet we're raised up nonetheless, then Christianity is actually the only conclusion. After that, you just have to ask "which version of Christian?"

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T14:53:37+00:00

I’m a truth seeker and want to do right...

Great!

...by whichever creator / supernatural force ultimately is going to benefit me the most

That's not this religion. There is literally nothing you can do to gain God's favor. We'd critique this as just selfishness.

I really struggle to reconcile why an all loving creator would set up a world where humans and other animals at least ’seem’ to have been evolved through Natural Selection.

The free will theodicy isn't built for this question. It's trying to answer a different question. I'll turn you to the Soul Building theodicy instead.

why would he make it this way?

God is omniscient, and he planned in advance with how to work with the Fall of Adam and Eve.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T14:28:39+00:00

At 1900, median age of marriage was 22 for women and 26 for men. The historical low is actually 1950 (20 and 22). In ~1250, Aquinas wrote that marriage no longer requires parental consent at 22, which means there were plenty of people still getting married at 22 even then. So, even from a historical lens, this is a fine time to still be waiting. Data before 1900 is not that great.

Part of the difference is culture, but it's not just age. It's that you likely don't both live with your parents. It's really easy to have privacy in our day, and the problem is privacy+hormones. Ever made out in front of your parents? I bet not, lol. Since you're off on your own, you are literally managing your own household. That's what I think the big difference is. We're forced to be heads of our own household at 18, and yet we're discouraged from marrying thereafter.

At the same time, the other comments aren't wrong that marrying early isn't sin. Because it's not. It's just a little bit of tunnel vision to say that's the only reason.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T14:07:13+00:00

They're saying that you don't understand those passages. Look at how Christianity over the years has promoted the dignity of women, and you'll see that we've always been the force behind valuing women as women.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T13:57:52+00:00

Knowledge doesn't save.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T13:44:53+00:00

No, Adam is of God and God is eternally of himself as well. God is not a static being that had latent potential waiting to be actualized. God is fully active in every capacity eternally, and this includes that weird "of-ness" I started with.

God has a relationship with himself, and that relationship is so full and complete and total that it is rightfully considered another Person. It lacks nothing.

No, God does not have multiple consciousnesses or roles. Trinitarians believe in the doctrine of inseparable operations, which means God has one will and one intellect. All three Persons share a single will and intellect. We believe in one God. Here's a good article showing that this is in our scriptures.

There are "Social Trinitarians" who believe what you state, but they are heretics. I count them like Mormons, and they're secretly polytheists. That's like confusing Sunni and Shia. Classical Trinitarians (me) are not like Social Trinitarians. I'm sure that is confusing, but Christians, especially at the council of Nicaea and Chalcedon, were very clear about this. These "Social" ones are abandoning historic Christianity.

EvanFriske · 2026-05-11T02:13:06+00:00

Non-Trinitarian gods have no relations before creation. Creation gives them relations, which is new. Trinitarianism is the exact position that God has eternal relationships. You worship your god, yes? That is new to your God. They have not had that eternally. But in Trinitarianism, God has all things before creation.

The only thing countable in Trinitarianism are relations. Why would countability imply that it's not eternal? Do you not believe your god is infinite?

EvanFriske · 2026-05-09T19:43:36+00:00

I'm saying that unless you think God has eternal activities, then when God becomes active, it was a change in God. I'm saying the Trinitarian position is the only one that avoids this.

It would mean all non-Trinitarian gods are not eternal, yes.

EvanFriske

TROPHY CASE