Why must we believe *before* we die?

Did you actually read what went on here Legend or are you just trying to score points of some description. Mr. Ex quoted a verse to support to his view on salvation. I showed (not assumed) it to be otherwise taking it in relation to the chapter from whence it was plucked. In showing to relate to something other than salvation (salvation wasn't mentioned in the whole chapter) I hope to demonstrate Mr Ex is in error.None of your verses show salvation by works. Take Lukes rich, young man. Jesus says do this, that and the other and you will be saved. Can any man do them? I suggest he can't (especially when you take Jesus describing in Matthew what murder and adultery involve (anger/lust). How can a man be saved by works if he can't do the work required?Jesus said "do this". He didn't say "try and do them" or "do your best to do them". That's what the passage says: "do". If you want to insert 'try' then it's up to you to show (biblcally) that try is the way it works. (ps: I looked up a Concordance under 'try' and 'trying'. There are about 8 references to these words in any context in the New Testament. Such a search for salvation-by-trying will I reckon be fruitless )

Looks like we've been rumbled by Admin Legend so it last word time... I hope you agree that if the two of us have a different definition of what is the bible then there is little point in continuing along those lines. You can't check for contradiction if you exclude the areas which you say contradicts from the discussion.Admin is right in that we've drifted off the off-topic we drifted onto.Cheers for now Legend

---

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

He doesn't insist. He doesn't force. Better worded: the 'entry requirements' are that a person becomes a believer during their time on earth.God doesn't expect a person to believe anything without evidence. He will call and a person may or may not respond to the call. If they do they respond, God will lead them to the point where it is possible for them to make an act of faith. The act is not made in a vacuum. The lack of evidence is not total. That would be irrational. And God is not and does not expect us to be irrational. He wants us to choose and "he wants that none should perish". He gives us a choice. He can create the circumstances where such an act of faith is possible and not irrational. But not a foregone conclusion...

---

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

Technically speaking I would have to agree with you here. 1 swallow doesn't make a summer. Neither 1 passage a doctrine (and such a important one at that)Nevertheless, the passage you quote is not speaking about behaviour in (causal or any other)connection with salvation. It is speaking to people in the church about behaviour. To infer that there is another overarching principle in which the passage is nested is fair enough, but the passage doesn't indicate what that is. That evidence for it being salvation linked must come from elsewhere. Salvation it seems is from God through Christ. We indeed read the warning not to think too highly of ourselves. There are good reasons to warn - but none referred to which warn in salvation/damnation sense. Good deeds are talked about all over the place - true. But in connection with salvation all that is referred to is "do this, that and the other". Saying good deeds necessary is a understandable, but only if unwarranted inferrances are made about what Jesus said. In connection with salvation he said "don't lust, don't be angry etc. What man has ever followed his teaching? Trying is not indicated anywhere to be causal in connection with salvation/damnation - just 'do'. I agree that good works flow as a result of the indwelling of Gods Spirit. But again, there is no connection with the resultant works (or probably more relevant: resistance to the Spirits efforts) having anything to do with salvation/damnation. The other option is that God does the saving altogether. He delivered the solution: complete, perfectly effectual, it will never fail. He is the one who delivers. We can't effect our salvation we can only accept what he offered. It is not of us"Nothing in my hands I bring, simply to thy cross I cling" as the hymn goes Everybody has been a non-Christian. All were born in Adam. None is born with an indwelling of the spirit. All must recieve this. Every Christian must be taken out of Adam and put 'in' Christ. I agree that it is the Spirit which moves people to the point of seeing and confessing their need. Not by dwelling in the person though - that isn't indicated biblically. In this sense God moves a person 'towards' salvation. As soon as they are saved they recieve Gods spirit. Everyone who has the spirit belongs to Christ and cannot be lost. Everyone who doesn't have the spirit doesn't belong to Christ and if they die this way - are lost. It's a common objection when people are told the Good News which includes the fact that their works have no bearing on salvation/loss of salvation. " Gee!!! Does that mean I get to sin all I want?!!!""By no means" says Paul at the start of Roman 6. He deals with this very 'objection' because it is a natural consequence of the unregenerate man (in Adam) when faced with the Gospel. What he doesn't reckon on however, is that the Spirit is going to move in. And that will bring change, a change in view as to what sin is. The man in Christ won't view salvation without works as "Yipeee! I can sin all I like" He will come to hate sin in himself and will (by the very Spirit who dwells in him) groan when he does sin - yet again.I suggest that Christians can do what they want and not lose their salvation. I also suggest that it is unlikely that a Christian will just do what he wants precisely because the spirit dwells in him. But we can grieve the Spirit and resist his work. For this there are consequences. But not loss of salvation. There is no wrath in connection with Christians who sin. Discipline yes, wrath, no. This (Hebrews 6)is a controversial passage and theologically, different views apply. The link below covers the common views...one of which is that the passage doesn't talk about Christians. I'd tend to agree: "a taste of something" is inconsistant with the radical transformation that is both explained technically and evidentially elsewhere.
I'm a biker: rain or shine. It is ingrained into me. Many like the idea of a bike: the image, the easing through congested traffic. They go out and buy a bike get a taste but fall away. They are not bikers - even though they've owned a bike for a short while. The spirit of biking never comes in. Just a taste.http://www.leaderu.com/isot/docs/heb2.html What are these? Any clear cut ones where Christians are involved? The line is quite simple although I can't look into anothers heart either. In Christ or not. In Christ or In Adam. In Christ is a forensic, legal declaration. The mechanics of this and how it works is explained in Romans in some detail. But there is no mechanical talk of how a person in Christ can be taken out of Christ again. Now, how could one who is in Christ be damned. If you're in him, he would have to go to damnation with you - unless you could be separated again.

You can't tell anothers heart by observing their behaviour. Heart is motivation. And there are many possible motivations behind apparant 'good deeds' Getting to heaven being one.

Earning/losing. There's not a whole pile of difference Jar. You have it but behavior loses it, you don't have it and certain behaviour gains it. A persons salvation depends on what they do/don't do.What practical difference is there. It involves struggling with the tendency we all have to sin. Does it not? I don't know if your in the same frame as Legend in deciding that certain bits of the bible aren't the bible. If not then this statement would have trouble holding up biblically. From whence this idea - salvation for all? The words 'try' and 'trying' appear less than a dozen times in the NT. And not in connection with salvation. Whats the biblical warrant for this?Quick...it's almost witching hour

---

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

I don't follow. Do you mean God would be stupid to give the impression that it was by trying when it really wasn't? That would imply that God was giving that impression. I agree, if only snippets of the bible are referred to. But surely that is the 'fault' of the recipient for not taking in the whole. Like I said the words 'try' or 'trying' don't appear in connection with salvation/damnation. Thus that connection is biblically unwarranted So you say. What I'm trying to establish is where this idea comes from - in the context of the bible. Not Jar repeating it to be so. I gather you believe this but on what biblical foundation is this built? Answering a question with a question is bad enough but when half the words mean nothing to this Irish lad then all hope is lost Any ideas on the original question?

This is excellent rational thinking. I mean that sincerely Jar.Now, imagine there was a biblical case to be made for the bar being set to high for us and that the reason for doing this was that the person would arrive at the only other conclusion that it logically possible..."That bar is too high for me - I can't jump it - that means Hell for me. Oh dear"

Possibility 1: "the bar MUST be an attempt" indicates own rational thinking about how God does it. There is no biblical case for this however..Possibility II And there is a biblical case to be made for this precise thingThe purpose of Law (do this, do that do the other) is not that in following it you will gain salvation. It's in not being able to follow it - and realising it - that you may gain salvation. edit: of course, not following it [b]completely[b] results in damnation.This message has been edited by iano, 12-Oct-2005 10:01 AM

Jesus was asked, Jesus told. "Do this..." If the man thinks that he is doing what Jesus told him was necessary then he is ignoring a wealth of evidence from life that points to the contrary. Only a liar would say to himself "I do what Jesus said was necessary" The best he could say is that he tries his best to do.We're looking at what the bible says. Not reading into it something that isn't mentioned. The only place where folk infer Jesus meant "try your best to do" is from their own heads. They won't find it in the bible.They will find however that adherance to law/commands cannot result in salvation. So: no mention of "trying" but lots of mention of works gaining nothing in terms of salvation.Your version or the bibles version. You pays your money...

Your right. It is not specific except to say ALL heart/soul/mind. Now. Do you love God with all your heart/soul/mind? When was the last time you really pondered on what this might mean. Following his law seems like as good a place to start as any.
Have you got a spreadsheet with all the behaviour you do listed out which you know God finds objectionable. Like, grouped under the main headings of lust/deceit/covetness/anger/greed/gossip/slander etc. What strenous (with all your heart/soul/mind) efforts are you putting in place to prevent reoccurances of these things. Why are you here on this site when you could be working at that - the most important thing you could be working at. How can you say ALL when you decide instead to go for a beer with your mates? You're putting a beer ahead of God?If you say try one more time you need to show that biblically. No more assertion on this point. Try is what counts. From the bibleAs regards Matt 25. You haven't shown why this means 'cause' of salvation as opposed to 'consequence' of salvation so something else would be needed I imagine. Like, if it's this critical then I imagine the gospel would be full of it. Would it not? Where is 'trying' then?Edit: sorry for the snotty language Jar. Try and read it as a request rather than snotty. Its been a long day...This message has been edited by iano, 12-Oct-2005 07:23 PM

No. God is absolute in everything. Someone who is absolute in everything can't be reasonable in the sense we understand it. Reasonable implies open to discussion, able to compromise, etc.

No. God is absolute in everything. Someone who is absolute in everything can't be reasonable in the sense we understand it. Reasonable implies open to discussion, able to compromise, etc.

He is not stupid...but neither is he intelligent. These words are used to describe relative aspects of humans. A person who knows everything cannot be described in relative terms. Intelligence indicates an ability to apply, for example, rational thinking in solving a complex problem. God on the other hand doesn't have problems to apply intelligence to.For the sake of human level discussion though: God isn't stupid.

(Assuming the same human limits as previouly noted) Nope(But I certainly can be. Demonstration of the fall perhaps)