Works, Faith, & Salvation (for Iano)

I answered this in post 63 already. I'm thinking that my post 63 still suffices as an answer to your whole post, so I'm just going to leave it at that rather than basically go over the same material again. So, I guess I'll just rest my case and figure I've had my say.Thanks.

In order not to let the point get lost in all those words:I ran through all the verses where Paul uses eternal life; every one. You can quote all sorts of other verses and say that he means the same thing when he mentions the life of Christ, but it's very clear that he uses them differently, despite your arguments that they have to be the same.Eternal life is a reward at the judgment to Paul. It's different than receiving the life of Christ for the power to live on earth.Again, I'll simply reference my post 63.

There is every reason to point out the difference in usage between John and Paul. (I think you're misusing the term dichotomy here, too, which I think means to make them contradictory or opposed, which I did not do, but instead gave an explanation of what common idea the both of them were expressing.)The fact is, that combining the usages of John and Paul regarding the phrase eternal life gives rise to the dancing around and explaining away of verses so common to Protestants, just as you are doing here. The fact is, despite all your quoting of verses, and all your definitions and arguments, even if you were right the only result would be to make Paul's letters silly.

quote:

---

Behold, God is not mocked. Whatever a man sows, that will he reap. He who sows to the flesh will from the flesh reap corruption. He who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap everlasting life. Let us not grow weary, then, in doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart.

---

Ok, let's assume that you can actually make this say that if you continue to do good you will reap everlasting life on an ongoing basis during this life. Standing alone, I'll admit you could take this passage this way, though it would not be the normal way to read it.Now let's back up one chapter to Gal 5:19-21, where Paul says that if you practice the works of the flesh you will not inherit the kingdom of God. Do you have the kingdom of God growing in you, too, on an ongoing basis?Now, rather than list any more such verses, let me just say that you probably know the whole list of "if" verses, and warning verses that say Paul might be disqualified, the Sardisians won't walk with him in white without overcoming, etc.Trying to fit John's use of eternal life into Paul's letters produces the battles between the eternal security folks and the you-can-lose-it folks, all of them having verses they use and verses they have to do doctrinal dances on. They can't just read and believe what's written; they have to do "exegesis" and explain this exceptionally difficult book, the Bible.I don't find it that way at all. I look at Paul's usage of eternal life, and I read him for what he said. I look at John's, and I read him for what he said. And I create no dichotomy at all, but an understanding of what both said and how they both agree, in such a way that no doctrinal dances are necessary at all.Then, not surprisingly, when I do so, I find that I am reading the Bible in such a way that it agrees with the universal view of the church on such issues for the first four centuries of it's existence.So the reason for noticing John and Paul's different usage is to understand what Paul is saying. When you do this, the result is not only that Paul agrees with John, but that Paul completely agrees with James, something that Martin Luther considered impossible and offered his doctorate degree to anyone who could reconcile Paul and James.In fact, let me ask you two questions.1.) Do you believe James when he says that a man is not justified by faith alone?2.) (Assuming you agree with Rom 3:28 without explanation), how do you explain James 2:24, which is James statement that people are justified by works?I don't have to explain either. James is talking about redemption as a whole, which begins by a work of faith and ends at a judgment of works, and Paul is talking about just the entrance into justification, which does indeed occur by faith only. How do you explain them, because it is this "contradiction," between Rom 3:28 and Jam 2:24, and so many other "contradictions" like them that prompt me to say it is very necessary to note Paul and John's different usage of eternal life, so that you can correctly understand what Paul's saying, and quit seeing him as contradicting his contemporaries and co-workers.

lol. Well, this helps me understand some of our problems. There's really a great lack when people aren't face to face.I don't understand this question. I think the answer to your question is yes, but I don't know why you're asking it. What did I say that prompted this question? I think every time Paul uses eternal life, he is speaking of a reward to the judgment. Did you notice that each verse you quoted to refer to the life of the King being in a disciple in this lifetime, Paul only used the word life, never eternal life. You point out repeatedly that this life of Y'shua must be eternal life and not some other life.I am not cavalierly dismissing these verses. Basically, I agree that the life of the King is not some other life than is given to the disciple at the judgment. It's the same life, and that's why John calls it eternal life, even in this life when it's the possession of the Son only, and not the disciple. However, since we're talking about Paul's usage of the term eternal life, I have to point out that all your verses don't use that term. Each one uses just the word life. That's not an accident.When Paul says "eternal life," he's talking about a reward at the judgment. That's what he does, whether or not we agree that it's the same sort of life during this lifetime.In the end, though, the reason I am arguing this is specifically because of Gal 6:7-9. My main point is that Paul is using eternal life as a reward at the judgment in Gal 6:8,9. Aren't you disagreeing with that? Since Gal 5:19-21, Eph 5:3-5, and 1 Cor 6:9,10 don't say anything like this, you're going to have to explain why you believe this. Personally, I think this whole explanation is a way to make Gal 5:19-21 and the others NOT say something, rather than a conclusion drawn from anything the Scriptures do say. Why wouldn't this be eternal? Why is the kingdom only the millennium spoken of in the Revelation?May I suggest that Paul, in his letters, wouldn't have known anything about this millennial kingdom? The Revelation came later, and there's no indication Paul knew anything about a millennial kingdom, literal or not literal, when he was writing. It would be easy to "over-interpret" a parable, making too much of one-to-one correlations, when a general message is being communicated. In this example of yours, that's not a problem, but I'd be very hesitant, in general, to get too specific with an interpretation of a parable.In the case of Mark 4:26-29, however, even with your interpretation (which I don't have any problem with), the kingdom is growing, but not inside of anyone. There's a harvest at the end of the growth, which I would interpret to be people. So I see people in the kingdom here, not the kingdom in people. I do believe that the Word grows in people. I'm not arguing against growth, if that's what you think.I've been pretty much sticking to one issue in my discussion with you, which is that Paul believed that a person enters the kingdom through a judgment of works; that he does not believe "faith only" when it concerns the judgment, entering the kingdom, or inheriting/reaping eternal life. You're going to have to give some reason for this. I don't think there's anything in Paul's writings to suggest this is true.As an example, Phil 3:8-12 talks about something Paul is striving for, and that something is the resurrection of the dead. The reward spoken of in Gal 6:9,10 is eternal life, not avoiding punishment for 1,000 years. The same is true of Rom 2:6,7, that iano argues is only for unbelievers, but I think just agrees with Gal 6 and every other verse on the judgment in Paul's writings. There's just nothing in James, the Gospels, or Paul about millennial punishments, just a final salvation or not a final salvation. ("He who endures to the end will be saved.") Y'shua says the same thing in John 5, saying that those who do good will resurrect to life, and those who have done evil to death.Really, all of that is pretty simple. There is a judgment of works, and those who patiently continued to do good will receive life, and those who disobeyed God will receive death. There's just nothing in the Scriptures that necessitates complicating that. I think there's every indication you have this completely backwards, and Paul would be horrified. He spent all that time in Romans and Galatians just to say that you will not become righteous by works. You can't get out of your old way of life by works. You can only get out of your old way of life by faith in Y'shua, because you need a new heart and new life, and that can't be worked for. Grace is indeed a gift, obtained by simple faith.If that's true, and I think that it's the basic Gospel of faith, then James couldn't have been talking about becoming saved out of your old way of life by works. Thus, he would be talking about being saved eternally by works, just as Paul does repeatedly. I think I've been making this point all along. But he can die, and it's warned about regularly (Rom 8:12,13, for example).

Hi, jaywill,I can't give you a fair reading, much less a fair answer, today, and that's likely to be true till this weekend. I'm our head bookkeeper, and we're consolidating some corporations into an LLC, which means dissolving the corporations, determining FMV on all their assets, transferring them to the new LLC, determining Section 1251 ordinary income and capital gains on them, electing the LLC's tax status, getting signed member agreements on all the members, transferring Worker's Comp and bank accounts, etc.I'm not expecting to be thinking real well till I get a day off. Then it's start on our taxes, take a three week break to visit a pastor in India and his awesome orphanage system, and then back to taxes. I think after this weekend, I have to back off and probably drop all my discussions until tax season is over. But I'd like to cover a couple things with you this weekend before I quit.

Jaywill,I didn't find your comment about being done on the subject until later, after I'd posted.No problem. I'll read all you wrote this weekend; maybe I don't need to respond, either. Thanks for the very civil response either way.

I didn't have time to get back to this thread this weekend, and jaywill was done, anyway.I'm off to India Tuesday morning for three weeks. Tax season will be in full swing when I get back, so I may not be around till at least April. Y'all have fun!