Right Behavior Inherits Eternal Life

This thread is to examine the importance of right behavior in inheriting eternal life versus the faith-only doctrine. I don’t feel that the faith-only doctrine is completely supported Biblically.By right behavior, I mean doing what is legally and ethically right on a daily basis. I am not talking about “works” which I consider to be visible benevolent actions done for the purpose of impressing others, benefiting yourself or earning points with God.The word “works” is used interchangeably within the NT between the two ideas I gave above. Please differentiate between the two in this discussion.Many passages state we are saved by faith. But none say we are saved by faith only.Some passages show that faith alone won’t save. Others show that faith without obedience will not save. When asked by the rich man about what to do to inherit eternal life, Jesus does not mention faith.In his final comments in Revelations, Jesus also does not mention faith as being primary or solitary to inheriting eternal life. Jesus is very specific about the type of people who will be outside the city.As we have seen in various threads, it is very easy to exchange verses back and forth supporting each side.My goal with this thread is to share and learn. To really look at what the authors are writing and examine, if together, they truly support the faith-only doctrine or if obedience and good behavior are also required.Bible Study please.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

It's a difficult one PurpleDawn. As are most "what is the bible saying" threads. For the reason you give: everybody can extract verses to support their own case.If I look at where I think the doctrine of "salvation by faith alone" and "you cannot loose your salvation" is most completely explained from A-Z (Romans) then I have to read the whole thing with reference to what it has said already to draw that doctrine out. It can't be shown in a verse or two. Even Romans can be made to state two different ideas if singular verses extracted hither and thitherMaybe in this thread, context and overview of the purpose of the passage will be included to support each view.God bless with it whatever happens...

quote:

---

Many passages state we are saved by faith.

---

Faith is an action word. You are doing something when you practice it. Practice is an action word, it means you are doing something when you practice. When you practice the flute, you are not sitting there, looking at it.
Action, activity, requires effort or work. Therefore, faith without works is impossible, it is dead, it is not faith.
Faith is an action word the way love is.
Faith in God requires intimacy with him. Works without that intimacy is a waste of time.

The word "pistis" which is translated as faith in the NT is not a verb. The verb root of pistis is not translated as faith.It is possible to have a flute without practicing it, it is possible to have faith without practicing it.A flute without the action of a person playing it is dead, faith without the actions of a person demonstrating its principles is dead.I understand what you were trying to say, but I don't see the NT authors supporting faith to be an action word like love.

---

Nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission. -Eleanor Roosevelt-

quote:

---

I understand what you were trying to say, but I don't see the NT authors supporting faith to be an action word like love.

---

Your assertion is remarkable in that faith is an action word in any other setting but not scripture.
That leaves the guy who does not follow abstract reasoning very well in the mist, fog, and at the mercy of those who would interpret scripture FOR him.
I should like to suggest that you did NOT understand what I was trying to say and leave off any effort.
You are doing something when you have faith.
You are doing something when you have sex.
Action words, nary a moment alluding to verbs.

I can have love for someone and I am able to show I love someone in deed. If I have love for someone then acts of love are indicative consequence of it (I can't express love through deeds if I don't love. I may carry out a similar act but it is not love doing it - it is something else). Loving deeds are a derivitive of the love. Love that doesn't express itself in deeds is not love. It is a sham. It is dead.Faith without works is dead. Faith with no works is not faith. As love without deeds of love is not love.The verse is telling us, not that it is faith + works that results in salvation but that works is a natural consequence of saving faith. If there is no works, it is because there is no faith and no salvation. Faith itself does the saving not the works

But logically that's incorrect, because if works are exclusively a natural consequence of saving faith, why do people who have no faith, do the works?Be careful; the bible says woe unto them that have good for evil and evil for good. So I suggest nobody of strict biblical doctrine, suggests these aren't really good works.----It seems to me Purpledawn, that Christ's actions on the cross, and his resurrection, is what saves the world. As to whether this means you need to have faith in him is debateable.Since there are many who don't have faith, yet do good works, perhaps it is Jesus's actions on the cross that saves them.This would negate the religious claim that states one must place full belief in him, or they're dead meat. A ludicrous religious meme. It seems more reasonable, to look at the Gospels, if we are to "get" what Christ was about. In this way, we atleast have four documents.Neverhtheless, it's unclear as to what gets people into heaven for sure, as everyone seems to have an opinion, and we all have our interpretations. Since a person's life is a unique fourth dimensional event, I suspect it's a waste of time to tell anyone where there going, but rather concentrate on what Christ's actions were. Good works + not judging people. Thus this is what I shall concentrate on, and if an atheist also does this, I have no reason to believe he won't have the same reward.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-14-2005 12:22 PM

Is that Jesus though?
If Jesus said this; YET Jesus forgave a prostitute. "Neither do I condemn you".This is the problem with the New Testament letters and Revelation. They are all post-Jesus. If we buy into the logic of the exclusively innerant bible, Jesus was risen. His actual actions were what are supposedly written in the Gospels, in which Christ told his Apostles to preach.Can we take the apostles post-Jesus words as an authority on who goes to hell?If we are honest, we should concentrate on those who are consistent. Jesus is consistent, yet if this quote from Revelation is from Jesus's mouth, then one could state he is inconsistent.I suggest the words of Revelation are not infact Jesus's words. As a believer, I can make this suggestion as I am free from dogma, and fear of consequences.The problem is treating the bible like it's inerrant. Which produces an absolute. What are absolutes? Stumblingblocks.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-14-2005 12:40 PM

Hi Mike...
Whilst I didn't mention good works arising exclusively from faith, it does raise a point. Who says a faithless person can do good works?. Whilst somebody without faith giving money to the poor can be thought of as doing 'good works' they do so in the eyes of their fellow man. Is that the same thing as 'good works' when described in the bible. If a person who is hostile to God (or as the KJV puts it: an enemy) of God), how can their works be considered 'good' by him? Maybe there is some passage somewhere which shows they are? The passages that spring to mind seem to associate good works with righteous people, people of faith etc I don't get you? Which passage is this?

Remember that it is not Jesus' words were reading but words attributed to him by Matt/Mark/Luke/John. The only way we can presume these to be his actual words is if we presume God ensuring that this would be so. If so, there is no particular problem with Acts or the Epistles or Revelation. We can go on that it is all God-breathed or none of it is. I can't see how we can subjectively pick and chose.

My question is: What is "faith"?Is it a vague belief that Jesus was the Son of God and that He died for our sins? Or is it a commitment to the message He brought?As I see it, anybody who truly has faith in the message will live ethically and will do "good works". Anybody who professes a "belief" but doesn't walk the walk does not have true faith.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

A quick note before I go read the rest of the thread:Some twenty years ago I was completely shocked to read the claim that the earth had never heard of salvation by faith alone until Martin Luther wrote it in his margin next to Rom 3:28. Surely, I thought, the Bible uses those words somewhere.It does. One time. James 2:24. "So we see that man is justified by works, and not by faith only."The only occurrence of the words faith alone or faith only in the Bible is a denial of it. That should tell us something, don't you think?

Exactly. IMO the idea that faith is equivalent to "belief" is one of the great flaws of evangelical Christianity.

quote:

---

Your assertion is remarkable in that faith is an action word in any other setting but not scripture.

---

Faith is not an action word in any other setting. Faith, sex, and baby are all nouns.When you have sex, you experience the action of sexual intercourse.
Then you have a baby, you experience the action of child birth.Both of these are very specific actions that when you see them you know what the people or person is doing.Which definition do you feel defines having faith?What is the action that is associated with having faith?

---

Nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission. -Eleanor Roosevelt-