|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why must we believe *before* we die? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yup.
The brethern will be those that follow GOD's wishes, most unlikely to be Christians.
Gotcha at last. But how does the passage show followers and non-followers. Were the sheep surprised to be saved? Were the goats surprised they were damned? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Romans 12:3 writes: For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. Mr Ex writes: Now, for the record, I think that this is what Paul was speaking of when he was warning against people thinking that our own good works could "win" our salvation. Jar writes: Hallelujah Brother, preach the Gospel. 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 here Verse 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sorry, I don't think I understand what you're asking here. Let me try rewording and let's see if it's close.
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) We should do what is right. Not because we are saved or in order to be saved, but simply because it's the right thing to do. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Legend writes: There's nothing self-evident about it. 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
Jesus was directly asked what to do to get saved. 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?
Please tell me what does Jesus say about salvation in the Synoptics? what should one do to gain life ? 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Legend writes: I also quoted Matt 19:17 where Jesus says that only God is perfect, but guess what? perfection is not required to be saved! 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
iano writes: 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? When did I say that only Matthew is acceptable ?? On the contrary I've been asking you all along to compare what Mark, Matthew and Luke say about salvation against what Paul says about salvation. so far, you've only been using Paul's teachings to interpret the Synoptics and been making assertions that are not supported neither by the text nor by common sense (e.g "Love God with all your heart" = impossible). I'm still waiting.... "In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
iano writes: The passage says what it says until someone shows (not assumes) otherwise. * Brilliant!! * [clapping sound] I couldn't have said it better myself! Now take this reasoning and apply it to: Luke 10:27, Matthew 16:27, Mark 12:32-34, Luke 19:8-9, Mathew 25:31-46 QED! "In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
"for it is God that works within you" God works in us, through us and with us. Hopefully you will see that this work doesn't refer to salvation (although he does the work there too) it refers to sanctifying work God commences once a person is saved The structure of the whole sentence suggests that "work" means the same in both clauses: "Work out your own salvation"--you are working at your salvation--"it is God that works within you"--here "works" must mean the same thing. God is also working on the salvation. If the 2nd "work" meant something different, then it would be a sort of pun, which does not seem stylistically very Biblical. ABE: So I guess the answer to my orignal question is "both." This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-06-2005 04:28 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Ex Nihilo Member (Idle past 1359 days) Posts: 712 Joined: |
You're quite welcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Legend writes: When did I say that only Matthew is acceptable You didn't but you made it effectively so: Pauls teaching are out according to you Luke 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 mentioned That 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
iano writes: Luke 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. I think you misunderstood me. You said "If Pauls Gospel conflicts with Lukes Gospel then Luke nor Paul mention this". I said that even if Luke was indeed the author of both Luke and Acts and the follower of Paul, he still doesn't have grounds for commenting on Paul because the gospel he (allegedly) wrote is not his own theology but a rehash of Mark and Matthew, so he's not expressing his personal views but re-telling a story. There are indications that he's sprinkled his own views in there on a couple of occasions, but -by and large- Luke's gospel tells the same story as Matt and Mark, chapter by chapter - that's why they're called the synoptics. There could also be a thousand other reasons why Luke doesn't denounce Paul in Luke's gospel, but we can only speculate on those. All I'm saying is that Luke's gospel is not his own rhetoric (like Paul's letters) , he 's just telling a story. Therefore there's no reason to be surprised that he doesn't denounce Paul in it.
iano writes:
the reason is simply that we're examining what the synoptics say about salvation, not what John says!
John is ruled out for reasons you haven't mentioned iano writes:
Like I've said, Luke, Matt and Mark are all telling the same story. And what they have Jesus say on salvation is very different to what Paul says on salvation. 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) Let's first establish what the synoptics teach on salvation and then we can have a look at Paul and John all you want! I'm still waiting for you to tell me what the synoptics teach on salvation without quoting Paul and John. "In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Robin writes: The structure of the whole sentence suggests that "work" means the same in both clauses: "Work out your own salvation"--you are working at your salvation--"it is God that works within you"--here "works" must mean the same thing. God is also working on the salvation. If the 2nd "work" meant something different, then it would be a sort of pun, which does not seem stylistically very Biblical. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Legend writes: I said that even if Luke was indeed the author of both Luke and Acts and the follower of Paul, he still doesn't have grounds for commenting on Paul because the gospel he (allegedly) wrote is not his own theology but a rehash of Mark and Matthew, so he's not expressing his personal views but re-telling a story 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 excluded Why Paul excluded? Why is Matthew included?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Legend writes: There could also be a thousand other reasons why Luke doesn't denounce Paul in Luke's gospel, but we can only speculate on those. 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.
Let's first establish what the synoptics teach on salvation and then we can have a look at Paul and John all you want Why exclude Paul and John. What makes these less important? This message has been edited by iano, 07-Oct-2005 12:43 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024