Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,820 Year: 3,077/9,624 Month: 922/1,588 Week: 105/223 Day: 3/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why must we believe *before* we die?
Legend
Member (Idle past 5007 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 211 of 302 (249076)
10-05-2005 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by iano
10-05-2005 9:39 AM


Re: Religion and destruction of self-reliance
Legend writes:
- The only criteria for sending individuals to heaven or hell is whether the person gave food, drink or clothing to the destitute, and welcomed strangers and visited the sick and people in prison. (Matthew 25:31-46).
iano writes:
What is there about this passage that indicates works = salvation that differentiates it from works being a consequence of being saved.
..???... this passage describes the exact criteria to be used at the Final Judgment when Jesus separates all the people of the world into two groups: those who will enter heaven and those who will spend eternity in hell. These criteria are all behaviour-based, not faith-based! how do you see it as a 'consequence of being saved' ??
iano writes:
Note the reaction of people who had believed in Acts 4:31-32. Filled with the holy spirit > believed > generosity followed. When God moves in people change.
Irrelevant, the context here is Matthew not Acts.
iano writes:
How to be saved in Luke 10:27: "love God with all your heart, soul, mind" and "love your neighbour as yourself". Absolutely correct. Two key words "all" and "as". Now, hands up anyone who can say they've done this. Assuming there are none so foolish, then we are back to "Try to love God/Neighbour..." which Jesus didn't say. He tells us what is required for salvation - he didn't say it was possible to do it by ourselves.
you're quoting Paul again! Jesus doesn't say that we cannot do this - you (and Paul) say so! Look at the context: Jesus is asked by a lawyer what he needs to do to gain eternal life. And Jesus tells him! Why would he tell him to do something that cannot be done ?! He also confirms this in the next verse : "And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live." It's quite simple: Jesus says that if you love God and your fellow-man you will gain eternal life. (blimey, I sound like Jar!)
Legend writes:
The Son of Man will reward each of us according to our works (Matthew 16:27)
iano writes:
Jesus is talking about his second coming here - not salvation.
..???.. can you tell me what's supposed to happen at the second coming ?!
Legend writes:
A man who loves God and their neighbour is close to salvation (Mark 12:32-34)
iano writes:
And he is. But close to salvation is not saved. What's the thing that seals the deal as it were. More love just means closer. Closer and closer...
I agree that close to salvation is not saved, but this passage is another suggestion that works do make a difference. If faith alone was enough, then this passage would be null and void.
Legend writes:
Because of his kindness and generosity, Zacchaeus has been saved (Luke 19:8-9)
iano writes:
Verse 9: Salvation had come indeed - but Jesus gives no indication in his words that it was Zachs action that did it. On the contrary...
iano writes:
Verse 10: "For the Son of Man is come to seek and save the lost" Jesus is the one who does the saving - not man or his actions
Again, look at the context here! (and no it's not Acts). In response to what does Jesus proclaim Zacchaeus saved ?
In response to the following statement by Zacchaeus : "And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord, Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor, and if I have wrongfully exacted aught of any man, I restore fourfold". When Zacc demonsrated his fairness, justice and kindness, Jesus proclaims him saved.
Not only that but I also think that Mosaic Law required someone who had stolen to restore the amount plus 50%. In that sense, you can say that Zacc was saved by obeying the law!
iano writes:
Verse 10: "For the Son of Man is come to seek and save the lost" Jesus is the one who does the saving - not man or his actions
and what criteria does he use to do the saving ? (hint: Matthew 25:31-46, Matthew 16:27, Luke 10:27)

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by iano, posted 10-05-2005 9:39 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by iano, posted 10-05-2005 10:40 AM Legend has replied
 Message 214 by iano, posted 10-05-2005 11:00 AM Legend has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 212 of 302 (249078)
10-05-2005 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-05-2005 10:17 AM


Re: How to get to heaven
iano writesSome believe (Roman Catholicism) of salvation involving works (trying).
Ex nihilo writes:
No. That's actually not what we believe.
I can't say that I disagree with a thing you said here. Except maybe the 'no works' involved in salvation. I don't know which country you live in but in Ireland the teaching indicates that works are involved:
- not committing a mortal sin
- following the teachings of the RC church
- being baptised into the church
As a RC friend put it. In his view, Christ opened to way up to heaven. It is up to the Catholic to climb the stairs and enter heaven. I said "involved works" rather than only works (faith + works = salvation as I have heard it put). Would that be accurate? Can the actions you take loose you your salvation. Like, if you renounced your faith, became an athiest, persecuted the RC church and murdered people etc would you still be saved and go to heaven?

"Jesus wept" John 11:35. It's the shortest verse in the Bible. What caused him to weep? Anothers death....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-05-2005 10:17 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-05-2005 11:54 AM iano has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 213 of 302 (249082)
10-05-2005 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Legend
10-05-2005 10:35 AM


Re: Religion and destruction of self-reliance
Legend writes:
you're quoting Paul again!
Your quoting Luke!
(p.s. There is no record of him hearing/seeing the Lord. He also happened to be a travelling companion of Paul. Whats the problem quoting Paul?)

"Jesus wept" John 11:35. It's the shortest verse in the Bible. What caused him to weep? Anothers death....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Legend, posted 10-05-2005 10:35 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Legend, posted 10-05-2005 12:40 PM iano has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 214 of 302 (249091)
10-05-2005 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Legend
10-05-2005 10:35 AM


Re: Religion and destruction of self-reliance
In response to what does Jesus proclaim Zacchaeus saved ?
You tell me. You've decided that Jesus is responding to Zachs words immediately prior to Jesus proclamation. But are not taking into account anything else in the account. On what basis do ignore everything bar this one statement of Zachs? Consider John 3:2-3
Nicodemus: "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him"
Jesus: "Verily, verily I say unto thee. Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Jesus does not respond to the only thing Nicodemus has said to him*. On what basis must Jesus respond to the thing that is said to him in the verse prior to his response? From this (and other examples - Jesus did this quite regularily) - patently none. Context means context. If the works = salvation case was made, then this bit would back up your argument. But the case isn't made by this statment of Zachs.
Edited typos
Edited: Nicodemus was Pharisee, a member of the Sanhedrin - the ruling council. He was a respected member of the very stock that would put Jesus to death. Nicodemus comes to him under the cover of darkness. "We know..." when they patently didn't, covers what his actual motivation was "I know..."
Jesus looks at Nicodemus' motivation. Though hiding, evading Nicodemus is attracted to Jesus. It's Nicodemus' motivation Jesus see's. Nicodemus' heart. And that is what Jesus speaks to. It's what he speaks to in all of us. Our heart inside - not the front outside.
This message has been edited by iano, 05-Oct-2005 04:04 PM
This message has been edited by iano, 05-Oct-2005 04:36 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Legend, posted 10-05-2005 10:35 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Legend, posted 10-05-2005 1:00 PM iano has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 215 of 302 (249100)
10-05-2005 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by iano
10-05-2005 10:37 AM


Re: How to get to heaven
iano writes:
- not committing a mortal sin
- following the teachings of the RC church
- being baptised into the church
I see what your saying here. On the surface these things all appear to be strictly works orientated. However, Catholic doctrine teaches that these "visible signs" are basically various types of "evidences" of the Holy Spirit being active in the individual -- points of contact (or even direct encounters) with God so to speak.
iano writes:
As a RC friend put it. In his view, Christ opened to way up to heaven. It is up to the Catholic to climb the stairs and enter heaven.
Yes, and this is what I was refering to before when I said that some fellow Catholics do not actually explain this part very well. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not condeming him. But the example he gave you was an over-simplification to the point of being somewhat in error.
iano writes:
I said "involved works" rather than only works (faith + works = salvation as I have heard it put). Would that be accurate?
So long as the Holy Spirit is not removed from the equation (and given proper credit as the original source of the work), your description above is fine.
Like I said before, the case of Arian debates with the Catholic church is a good example of just how far Catholicism will go in admitting what man can accomplish spiritually on his own.
iano writes:
Can the actions you take loose you your salvation.
Most certainly possible -- yes. But, the persons "works" are not earning their salvation. They're losing it based on their works. In other words, we can do nothing to "earn" our salvation -- but we can do plenty to shipwreck it.
As a former Lutheran, I've given much thought about this matter. I do recall how Luther's thoughts focussed on his beliefs that the church was fixated primarilly on their relationship with a very angry God -- and to this extent many in the Catholic church now do agree with him.
However, in analyzing these things, Luther, for example, would note how people might say more prayers, or fast more strictly, or even whip themselves more mercillessly. Eventually at some point the believer might attain a certain "knowledge" that God regarded them favorably in some way. Luther tried all these methods yet none of them worked for him. Consequently, the harder he tried to please God, the more he realized that he was depending not on God, but on his own efforts.
Now this is very important because this "realization" essentially forms the basis of the protestant reformation.
It was from this point on that Luther began to question some of the more Catholic thoughts he was trained to have. However, in doing this, he essentially concluded that his own actions were solely an attempt to justify his salvation before God. This may not have been the case.
Although I seriously doubt that God was prompting Luther to actually whip himself, it still remains a very potent "realization" to instead conclude that the Holy Spirt was at work in Luther when he was saying more prayers or fasting more strictly.
The difference may be subtle. However, I think there are major theological consequences to Luther's idea of saying that doing "good works" are potentially bad for people. It is rare -- but sometimes when I listen to certain protestants speak, one would almost conclude that they are saying that doing "good works" is a potential evil. I don't agree with that.
I admit that we cannot "earn" our way into heaven by our "good works". But I also stress that if something is considered a "good work" in God's eyes, it is because the Holy Spirit is active in them.
iano writes:
Like, if you renounced your faith, became an athiest, persecuted the RC church and murdered people etc would you still be saved and go to heaven?
These are fairly subjective questions. For example, when my own Catholic faith was persecuting non-Catholics during the Middle Ages, I'm fairly sure that God understood why the people took a grudge against Catholicism and left the church. If, however, the person totally went ballistic and started a war against Catholics, then he might have some explaining to do (just like my fellow Catholics would have explaining to do for killing non-Catholics and "heretics" and...you get the picture...). Although no one but God can say for sure, I'm fairly confident that ex-Catholics (such as Stalin) will not find themselves in the warm fuzzies of the Most High.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by iano, posted 10-05-2005 10:37 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by iano, posted 10-06-2005 8:33 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Legend
Member (Idle past 5007 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 216 of 302 (249107)
10-05-2005 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by iano
10-05-2005 10:40 AM


Re: Religion and destruction of self-reliance
iano writes:
Your quoting Luke!
(p.s. There is no record of him hearing/seeing the Lord. He also happened to be a travelling companion of Paul. Whats the problem quoting Paul?)
the problem is that the point of contention here is that the Synoptics contradict Paul. You can't use Paul to show that Matt, Luke and Mark meant something else to what they said - when that's the whole argument in the first place! The context of Matt is Matt, not Paul! According to Luke, Jesus told the lawyer that loving God and his neighbour will get him saved. You're saying that Jesus meant something else, not because the text suggests so but only so you can shoehorn it into Paul's teachings!
I've shown you three books of the Bible (Matt, Mark & Luke) where each one and all portray Jesus teaching that salvation is based on behaviour. Whether they saw or heard him is irrelevant here. What they say is clear: it's what you do that saves you.
Now it's your turn to show me where and how Paul backs up Matt, Mark & Luke on the matter of salvation .
Show me where scripture is backing up scripture!

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by iano, posted 10-05-2005 10:40 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by iano, posted 10-05-2005 1:27 PM Legend has replied
 Message 220 by iano, posted 10-05-2005 1:41 PM Legend has replied

Legend
Member (Idle past 5007 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 217 of 302 (249109)
10-05-2005 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by iano
10-05-2005 11:00 AM


Re: Religion and destruction of self-reliance
Legend writes:
In response to what does Jesus proclaim Zacchaeus saved ?
iano writes:
You tell me.
I already did! In response to Zacchaeus 's statement that he's given his money to the poor and restored all injustices he's done to his fellow men.
iano writes:
You've decided that Jesus is responding to Zachs words immediately prior to Jesus proclamation.
That's what the text says : "And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord, Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor, and if I have wrongfully exacted aught of any man, I restore fourfold. And Jesus said unto him, To-day is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham." (emphasis is mine)
Event 1: Zaccaheus declares his good deeds Event 2: Jesus proclaims him saved.
iano writes:
But are not taking into account anything else in the account. On what basis do ignore everything bar this one statement of Zachs?
I'm not ignoring the rest of the account, it's just that the rest of the account is just a prelude and doesn't answer the question 'why was Zacchaeus saved ? ' Verse 8 does.
iano writes:
Consider John 3:2-3
No, I won't. The context of Luke is Luke, not John!

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by iano, posted 10-05-2005 11:00 AM iano has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 218 of 302 (249111)
10-05-2005 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by iano
10-05-2005 4:39 AM


Re: How to get to heaven
By all means show how you figure the goats are the followers
Let's look again at Matthew:25.
31: When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34: Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
So Jesus splits folk up into two groups, one side righteous sheep, the otherside non-righteous goats.
He explains to the sheep just why they have been selected. But what is their reaction? They are shocked. They say "Wait, we never did any of this for you. Somethings wrong here."
Now if they had been believers, followers of Jesus, they would not have reacted like that. Jesus ministry is filled with just the kind of preaching that he is discussing here. Throughout his life we see example after example of Jesus helping others. The Sheep know though that they never did anything FOR Jesus.
He then goes on to address the goats.
41: Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
And what is their reaction?
They too are shocked. Now an Atheist would not be shocked to be told that he never did anything for Jesus. Nor would a Buddhist, nor would a Hindu. Nor would an Agnostic or Jew or Rastafarian or Satanist or Pagan. They know that they never did anything for Jesus.
The only people that would be shocked would be believers, followers of Jesus, Christians. They would be surprised by the charges, they would protest and say, "When did we see YOU hungry and not feed you?"
No, the message is that belief is not the key. GOD knows your heart by your actions, not your profession.
This thread is already getting towards the witching hour but someday if you wish I will also be happy to discuss the Theological basis of TRY as the criteria.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by iano, posted 10-05-2005 4:39 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by iano, posted 10-05-2005 1:59 PM jar has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 219 of 302 (249114)
10-05-2005 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Legend
10-05-2005 12:40 PM


Re: Religion and destruction of self-reliance
legend writes:
the problem is that the point of contention here is that the Synoptics contradict Paul. You can't use Paul to show that Matt, Luke and Mark meant something else to what they said - when that's the whole argument in the first place!
No, but you can use them to show there is no contradiction with Paul. Lets say for a moment that you accept Paul teaches salvation by faith not works. Now we look at the Gospels to see what they say contradicts.
Jesus told the lawyer that loving God and his neighbour will get him saved.
Jesus said "with all your heart, soul and mind" And I asked who has done this - with all their heart, soul and mind. Without skipping to the assertion (not contained at all within the text you present) that this means doing your best - answer the demand of Jesus. Have you done this with all your heart, soul and mind available to you. I suggest you haven't. I suggest you know that there have been plenty of times in your life that you have chosen to do precisely the opposite. You have not thus, followed Jesus command which brings salvation. Me neither. No one has.
This line verse does not make your case.
I've shown you three books of the Bible (Matt, Mark & Luke) where each one and all portray Jesus teaching that salvation is based on behaviour
They portray Jesus teaching that if you behave perfectly you will get to heaven:
- rich man did 'everything'. Jesus says be perfect and "give up riches". Man can't do perfect on his own
- "let your righteousness exceed that of the Pharisees". How could people exceed the very highest standard of righteousness by which anyone could measure themselves? Man can't exceed the unexceedable on his own
- "all your heart, soul and mind". I didn't see anyone raise their hands and say they do this. Man patently can't do this - on his own.
Jesus showed that the standard is too high for man on his own - they need him to reach it for them. "Come to me...." Jesus says. Paul shows that the standard is to high - for man. They need Jesus to do it for them. Wheres the contradiction?

"Jesus wept" John 11:35. It's the shortest verse in the Bible. What caused him to weep? Anothers death....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Legend, posted 10-05-2005 12:40 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Legend, posted 10-05-2005 7:04 PM iano has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 220 of 302 (249117)
10-05-2005 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Legend
10-05-2005 12:40 PM


Re: Religion and destruction of self-reliance
Legend writes:
You can't use Paul to show that Matt, Luke and Mark meant something else to what they said
It is curious that the author of Acts, Luke, who records Pauls missionary journies and accompanied him too didn't mention that Paul was coming up with a completely different Gospel to the one he wrote about in his own Gospel? Is he not in a better position to know than anyone else? Why does he record Pauls heresy without a murmur. Why does he put himself in danger (because Acts records frequent trouble whenever the gospel was preached) spreading a Gospel he knew to be false.
Either Luke wrote his gospel before Pauls missionary journies giving the above problem. Or he wrote them afterwards in which case he didn't take the opportunity to correct Pauls heresy.
You may come up with an elaborate theory but the most obvious answer is the answer that lies to hand: Luke had no problem with 'Pauls gospel'. Also recorded in Acts is the reaction of the church at large when false teachings begin to creep in. The heresy? Legalism...doing stuff...works..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Legend, posted 10-05-2005 12:40 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Faith, posted 10-05-2005 2:19 PM iano has replied
 Message 225 by Legend, posted 10-05-2005 7:22 PM iano has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 221 of 302 (249127)
10-05-2005 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by jar
10-05-2005 1:08 PM


Re: How to get to heaven
Jars bible writes:
46: And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal
Jar...there's an awful lot of speculative 'if's' and would be's in your post. This would be okay to elaborate on a point the passage made. But the point isn't made.
Last verse. Righteous go to eternal life. There are only one group called righteous in the passage. The sheep, the ones on the right. There is no talk of a switch of righteousness in the passage. Speculation that this switch could take place for reasons you give is not shown here.
It ain't witching hour yet but yeah I'd have to take this up with you again...heresy hunter that I am

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by jar, posted 10-05-2005 1:08 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by jar, posted 10-05-2005 2:02 PM iano has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 222 of 302 (249129)
10-05-2005 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by iano
10-05-2005 1:59 PM


Re: How to get to heaven
Right. But what makes you think Christians are the Righteous?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by iano, posted 10-05-2005 1:59 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by iano, posted 10-06-2005 5:16 AM jar has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 223 of 302 (249134)
10-05-2005 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by iano
10-05-2005 1:41 PM


Re: Religion and destruction of self-reliance
It is curious that the author of Acts, Luke, who records Pauls missionary journies and accompanied him too didn't mention that Paul was coming up with a completely different Gospel to the one he wrote about in his own Gospel? Is he not in a better position to know than anyone else? Why does he record Pauls heresy without a murmur. Why does he put himself in danger (because Acts records frequent trouble whenever the gospel was preached) spreading a Gospel he knew to be false.
Hey GOOD POINT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by iano, posted 10-05-2005 1:41 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by iano, posted 10-06-2005 7:54 AM Faith has not replied

Legend
Member (Idle past 5007 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 224 of 302 (249226)
10-05-2005 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by iano
10-05-2005 1:27 PM


Re: Religion and destruction of self-reliance
Legend writes:
Jesus told the lawyer that loving God and his neighbour will get him saved.
iano writes:
Jesus said "with all your heart, soul and mind" And I asked who has done this - with all their heart, soul and mind. Without skipping to the assertion (not contained at all within the text you present) that this means doing your best - answer the demand of Jesus.
Can you show me where in Matthew, Mark or Luke Jesus says, or clearly implies, that no man can do all works necessary for salvation, or that perfection is needed ?
Let's assume -for argument's sake- that this is the case in the passage above, as you mention. The obvious question then is : why does Jesus when directly asked doesn't tell the man that he cannot be saved by what he does ??!!
Is he lying to the man ? Or simply teasing him ?!
Ofcourse all the other questions still remain:
- Why does Jesus say that the Son of Man will repay each man according to his conduct (Mat 16:27) ?
- Why does Jesus say that on judgement day, the saved are separated from the unsaved on the basis of the works that they did (Mathew 25:31-46) ?
- why does Jesus tell the rich man to obey the commandments and sell his posessions in order to gain salvation (Matthew 19:16-17) ?
- why does Jesus want us to be like the good Samaritan ? tell me do you think the Good Samaritan would have got saved or not?
And the answer is that Jesus in the Synoptics teaches clearly and simply that good behaviour will gain you access to heaven. Jesus never said or even implied that noone can do all works necessary for salvation. Paul does. Your argument about 'all your heart' implying the unachievable is but mental gymnastics to justify your pre-supposition that Paul cannot be wrong.
iano writes:
They portray Jesus teaching that if you behave perfectly you will get to heaven:
- rich man did 'everything'. Jesus says be perfect and "give up riches". Man can't do perfect on his own
Well, Jesus does say that only God is perfect: "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is , God" (Matthew 19:17)
But guess what?! perfection is not required to be saved : "but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19:17)
Jesus says perfection is optional : "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven" (Matthew 19:21)
so, there goes your argument.
iano writes:
"let your righteousness exceed that of the Pharisees". How could people exceed the very highest standard of righteousness by which anyone could measure themselves? Man can't exceed the unexceedable on his own
since when did the Pharisees had the very highest standard of righteousness ????! Jesus castigates the Pharisees, he thinks they are hypocrites. In Matthew he advises people to "do as they [Pharisees ] say, not as they do". So the righteousness of the Pharisees is not an unexceedable standard, as you claim.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by iano, posted 10-05-2005 1:27 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by iano, posted 10-06-2005 7:31 AM Legend has replied

Legend
Member (Idle past 5007 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 225 of 302 (249233)
10-05-2005 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by iano
10-05-2005 1:41 PM


Re: Religion and destruction of self-reliance
even assuming that:
1) the author of Luke is the author of Acts
and
2) he was the travelling companion of Paul
the fact remains that Luke's gospel is not an original work but a re-writing of Mark and/or Matthew.
If you're copying someone else's work , there's only so much you can change. There are actually a couple of hints in Luke where the author tries to introduce some novel ideas that don't exist in the other two gospels (e.g. Luke 7:44-50), and ends up kind of contradicting himself!
Maybe the intent of Luke was to bring the story into line with the developing Pauline Christian theology, which had begun to emphasize faith over works.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by iano, posted 10-05-2005 1:41 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by iano, posted 10-06-2005 7:47 AM Legend has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024