Why must we believe *before* we die?

Just to clarify. You appear to be agreeing that it is the sheep who are righteous and they are the ones to go to heaven? If not and you still pose it to be the goats then on what basis?This message has been edited by iano, 06-Oct-2005 10:20 AM

---

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

"Love God will all your heart soul and mind". That is the command. I don't have to show this is impossible. It is self-evident. What Jesus is doing here is shown by what Paul describes at the end of Romans 7 in his "oh wretched man.." piece. Jesus tells man what he needs to achieve eg: "love God with all your heart. Why does he leave it to man to figure out that he can't do this? One obvious reason springs to mind. The best way for somebody to be convinced of something is to figure it out for themselves. Only when man has figured out:a) the standard is perfection
b) he falls far short of the standard
c) falling short means hell/separation from a holy Godmay he possibly...d) admit his need for a saviour and cry out to God for mercy and thus
e) achieve what God wants for man: man being position in his rightful place before God - man dependent on God As stated, this passage is not a "how to be saved" passage ( unless you can show otherwise). Works matter and they will have reward/punishment. Just not in the context of salvation - which is what we are discussing. I think we've been over this. I say "works as consequence of being saved". You say "saved as a consequence of works". Stalemate as far as this passage goes. It could be either for want of further supporting evidence. "If thou wilt be perfect" then.... What does the rich man do. Fails at perfection - just like all of us. Jesus knows covetness is this mans sticking point and goes straight to it. The rich man is not prepared to put Jesus first - he is not prepared to love God with all his heart.. If he had been talking to me he would have applied his sermon on the mount teaching and asked "have you ever looked at a woman lustfully" and I would have walked away too. Then it would have been "It is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a lustful man to get heaven"It is worthy to note at the end of the passage the disciples reaction to the situation "Who then can be saved?!" They weren't rich. Most aren't rich. Why say "who can be saved" if the sense they were getting out of it just applied to the rich only giving up their richesJesus reaction? "With men this (camels getting through eyes of needles) is impossible but with God all things are possible" Matthew 25:26Which ties in nicely with Romans 3:21 "But now a righteousness from God...(as opposed to from man) is revealed..." It is impossible for man to get righteousness. God makes getting to heaven possible by providing the righteousness we need himself. Jesus' righteousness given to us..by faith. By all means show where good behaviour is shown to suffice rather than perfect. You say clearly. "All your heart..." for example doesn't show anything half measures or the best you can. Forget Pauls assertion of perfect if you want. But show less than perfect is sufficient in connection with salvation. Where are these clear verses - in conection with salvation. It doesn't matter what Jesus thinks of the Pharisees - he is giving instruction to others. He knows THEY think the Pharisees are the most righteous of all and he tells THEM that THEY must exceed what in THEIR minds is the highest righteousness. Look at it from THEIR perspective. What would THEY have thought given that instruction if not - "Crikey!!"?Edited: typoThis message has been edited by iano, 06-Oct-2005 02:55 PM

---

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

How do you KNOW the author of any book is the author of any book?. This line of reasoning just kicks the ball into touch. Luke is commonly accepted as the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts. It is commonly accepted that Mark wasn't a disciple of Christ and was no eyewitness to events. His is not an original work - it is a re-writing of accounts given by eyemitnesses.I don't know where your taking this Legend. Pauls writings dismissed, Lukes dismissed but then also Marks. You don't include John in your list of acceptable books it seems. Whose writings are acceptable to be examined? Works has not been established yet IF it is then this won't be a maybe it would be a certainty. Works first okay?This message has been edited by iano, 06-Oct-2005 12:48 PM

---

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

I wish I wonder will I bump into Legend one day in heaven. If so, he'll look at me a bit sheepishly when he remembers this tack. But better sheepishly than goatishly heh?!!

---

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

Sorry not to get into a longer talk on this Mr Ex. You sound like you know your stuff and remind me of what clear, unemotional debate should be like. My trouble here is there's not far to go to end of thread and it's become a what-does-the-bible-say-about works. To go into ex-biblical RC doctrine strays even further off topic than things already areBy all means a biblical case for "damnation by works".

---

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

And an excellent piece to read. I am by and large in agreement with what you say throughout. No one says Lord except by his spirit...However, whilst you explain well how it is not "salvation by works" or by earning our way to heaven, you haven't covered "damnation by works" (which is well on topic) which still puts salvation in our hands. I don't know if you are in agreement that the only person who has the spirit is a person who is in Christ, ie: only Christians. On what basis do you hold, which you appear to, to the idea that exerising this ability to resist will result in loss of salvation for someone who is Christ given that, for example "There is now no condemnation for those that are in Christ".Every man resists to some degree - no one responds perfectly to the Spirits guidance. Where is the cut off point for salvation/no salvation and how is that determined? Or is it a case of "you'll find out when you get there"? What is the biblical warrant for the RC view if any?

Gotcha at last. But how does the passage show followers and non-followers. I know you said it but that's just you (with respect) saying it.I notice something else but haven't figured out the significance of it yet. When he talks to the righteous he says "to the least of these my brethern..." But to the unrighteous he just says "to the least of these..."Hmmm?

Steady on there Jar. Steady. Are we not missing the first word of both this verse and the following verse here? The word "for". "For" as always can be read as, "because ", or "it follows that". Becasue what? Not Pauls doxology obviously end Chapter 11. But verse 1 and 2....neither of which refer to salvation.Verse 1: Exhortation to present ourselves for Gods use...sacrifice self for Gods requirements. Which is a reasonable thing to do (either from gratitude because we are saved OR in order to be saved/avoid damnation - but neither indicated in the verse)Verse 2: be transformed, as Mr Ex rightly says, by the spirit so that we can experience God in us. No salvation/damnation hereVerse 3: "For (because) it is God (verse 2) doing the transforming, don't think your good works are down to you" makes sense in context. Whatever, there is no talk of salvation/damnation here.Verse 4: For (because) all parts of the body are necessary and thinking you are more important is foolish.He then goes on to describe the various gifts and exhorts the believers to good works. No causal connection with salvation/damnation here at all.The heading from verse 2 to end of chapter in the bible in front of me is "Responsibilities (of Christians) to society" Nothing about salvation/damnation

No? I asked for a show of hands. Anyone who says they love God with ALL their heart, soul and mind and their neighbour as themselves. This should be fun And he told whoever asked what they had to do. What do I have to do to travel faster than the speed of light. The answer, build a space ship that (include relevant technical details whether achieveable by man or not)that travels faster than the speed of light.Don't read what ISN'T in the text. In supposing that Jesus would tell them something that was achievable you are also supposing it must be achievable. But whats the basis for your assumption?He was asked a question, he answered it truthfully. That is what has to be done. As the disciples said with the rich man "who then can be saved??" What impossibility from only the rich mans case did they extrapolate to include all. Would you answer that? I'm afraid I'll have to pull you up here Legend. We've established that only Matthew is acceptable to you. Luke is out, thus Mark is out. John is out, Paul is out. Will it eventually get to some verses in Matthew not being acceptable?

I don't suggest it is. Perfection is required to get into heaven. A realisation that you are far less than perfect (filthy in sin in fact) is required for you to be saved. The spirit (the bit that ejects from the body on death) of a person who is saved is seen as perfect because they wear a coat of righteousness (perfection). Jesus righteousness.

Mr Ex pointed to this passage in relation to salvation/damnation. I suggest that there is nothing in the chapter which relates to salvation. We are discussing whether salvation/damnation by works is valid. We can't assume it, then point to a passage which doesn't mention anything about mechanisms of salvation at all and say "this is about salvation"The passage says what it says until someone shows (not assumes) otherwise. Or so I would have thought

You didn't but you made it effectively so:Pauls teaching are out according to youLuke is commonly held to be the author of Gospel of Luke and of Acts. Acts records Luke with Paul on during at least one missionary journey.If Pauls Gospel conflicts with Lukes Gospel then Luke nor Paul mention this. You've no explaination. Your device to get out of this is to downgrade Luke due to him copying (you say) his Gospel from others.If Luke is ruled out then Mark is ruled out on the same basis - to whit: his Gospel is secondhand information. If Luke is ruled in then Paul is ruled in.John is ruled out for reasons you haven't mentionedThat leaves Matthew.That's the way I see it. You will probably see it different. If so, how do you include Luke but get around that he had no conflict with Paul. No theories now - some objective reason to exclude Paul and include Luke (and thus Mark)

Work has indeed the same connotation in both instances. The question is: what is the work? I suggest it is not work leading to salvation. We can't ignore working out. The verse needs to be seen in the context of Gods overall plan of redemption or reinstatment of which salvation is but a part. This is adequately explained elsewhere (Romans chap 1-8 is about the most concise and complete). Salvation results in a coming to life of a dead spirit. The person has eternal life at that point. Salvation is, if you like, in the bank, it is not a process. Sanctifying work then takes place to make the person more and more like Jesus "he that has begun a good work in you will bring it to completion" The 'good work' is shown as a process here. God does this "by his spirit" - a phrase amply referred to in connection with this process of putting to death sin in the flesh.Take Romans 8:10: "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righeousness". The persons spirit is alive - brought to life from the dead. Raised from the dead.Take Romans 8:11 "But (ie: that's not all) if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you ". Process is applied to mortal body not spirit.The body is dead but the Spirit inside, who has brought the persons spirit to life (by virtue of taking up residence in the person) will do something also with our mortal bodies too - to whit - battle against sin.God works this into the person- by his Spirit: a dawning on the person of sin inside, a growing dislike of sin, a realisation that Gods laws are in fact good - that modern-views are just modern views Gods law supercedes whatever modern man comes up with. The person comes to be repulsed by sin rather than excuse it in themselves.(edit): How better "to equip you for every good work" than to cause you to be repulsed by anything bad. If you are disgusted with a particular behaviour: selfishness, gossip, lust, then it is unlikely you will persist in them. That you will "love your neighbour" follows if these things are absent. The good is there - we all enjoy doing good: we may be sullied by sin but we are still made in his image and likeness. It's the filth on top which prevents good blossoming (close edit)Another picture in the bible is God the gardener: pruning off that in us which bears no fruit, God the vineyard owner: trimming off dead vine. The people who are referred to on whom he works are only those that are saved. It is not a universal work. God has taken up residence in the believer (which is why he can believe). That is good. Now that goodness must get worked out. It cannot reside in sinful flesh as it is. The person is under new management and the flesh must change, must yield - goodness must come out. Fruit should be produced. Fruit is good, what we work (or express) out as a result of his work in, should be good, should be sweet: love, patience, gentleness, kindness, slowness to anger, virtue.The exhortation to work outs show us that we have a part to play. We are not dumb trees who only produce because they must. We still have will and the exhoration is to allow our will to be guided by him so as to maximise the crop. There are also warning for the saved who resist Gods work within. He promises, like I say "to bring the work to completion" He says he will make us perfect. He cannot break a promise. Resist if you chose but pay the price. Not loss of salvation - that can't be lost. But expect more stringent discipline. Expect the reins to be yanked. God prunes relentlessly. The dead wood must go. The dead wood will go. Whether the believer finds it comfortable or not.This message has been edited by iano, 07-Oct-2005 12:36 PM

Mark wasn't an eyewitness. He was using secondhand material. What makes it his 'theology and thus acceptable to you for examination?You say Luke allegedly. Why Mark and Matthew certainly?Why John excludedWhy Paul excluded?Why is Matthew included?

Luke wrote a gospel which conflicts (you say) with Pauls. You may speculate about why there is no mention of this in Lukes gospel but that's just speculation.The only fact we have is that Luke didn't mention any conflict with Paul. The very first thing that springs to mind - the most likely thing for want of any evidence to the contrary - is that he didn't see any conflict. Any other view involves speculation.Asserting there is conflict is not the same as there being conflict. We have the NT. That is a fact. If you think some of it is invalid then it's for you to show why. Why exclude Paul and John. What makes these less important?This message has been edited by iano, 07-Oct-2005 12:43 PM