Originally posted by PinkFloyd
What if the person has no time to do any "works"?
Originally posted by whodey
Again, what of the thief who died next to Christ on the cross? What good works did he provide to earn favor for salvation?
These two questions are essentially the same, although Whodey I remain mystified that you
continue to couch works as things that 'earn' salvation even though I made it explicitly clear
that such a stance is not Biblical in my previous post.
In order not to revisit this a third time: Bible-backed theology will maintain that salvation
cannot be earned, but that it is an undeserved gift given by God. This gift is given to those
people of faith. People of faith, among other things, are people who do works.
Do you see in this description how works doesn't 'earn' anything? God doesn't reward the
workers. He rewards the faithful. The faithful are people who, as part of being a faithful
person, will perform works. It is an expectation, explicitly articulated by Jesus over and over
and over.
I guess the word "prefer" was a poor word of choice. What I should have said was what I know to parallel scriptural teaching. Mankind will not be praised in the end, rather, only God. All glory belongs to God so how is this possible if we then "earn" our salvation?
As Jesus said, the purpose of works is to glorify God. Consider the Parable of the Widow's
Mite, in which the rich Pharisee gives oodles of money to the great acclaim of his colleagues
is contrasted with the Widow who gives next to nothing. Whom did the Pharisee glorify? While
his funds certainly did more for the charity to which he donated it, it was for his own benefit
that he did it. The same goes for the person who fasts and looks gloomy, or prays dramatically
in public, or (to reiterate) calls great attention to his almsgiving. If the purpose of the act is
to glorify oneself rather than the sincere desire to do good works, then it isn't a work that
derives from faith.
Now, to answer the question: What if the person in question doesn't have time? Or, by
extension, the capacity to do works because of extenuating circumstances (such as illness,
disease, or handicap)? Or what if the person lives under the rule of a vicious tyrant and can
only just barely survive by looking out for himself? What of these?
The story of the 'Good Thief' answers this question: The moment of conversion -- the epiphany
if you will -- is itself the first work. If done with a sincere heart (something that only God
will know), it is an 'act of righteousness,' as it were. The Good Thief had the opportunity to
go further; he defended Jesus from slander. That is, he stood up for a person in need. Given
his circumstance, it was the full extend of the works that could be expected of him.
The Parable of the Talents serves as a sufficient justification for this, in which a person who
has great capacity will be expected to execute great works (but always with a mind and heart
of sincerity). A person of moderate capacity will be expected to execute moderate works. But
woe to the one, even a person with modest talents, who will not work. As Jesus said, a person
of faith will yield 30, 60 or 100 fold (a further indication of His recognition that individuals
working in the field will not produce equally).
But the fig tree that will not yield fruit, it will be torn up.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThis discussion would be if those particular athletes are cheaters, which they are by definition. If you chose a subset defined by irrational thinking and say they are irrational, what have you achieved?
Let me try this:
Say someone started a thread about the rationale of athletes who use performing enhancing drugs. The group is identified without having to identify specific sports or teams or the number of individuals. It'd just be a general discussion about those athletes who use performing enhancing drugs.
This is pretty much the same thing.
Originally posted by Conrau KDid the Lion of Logic shoot this one down, or did he pussy out?
Wow. Are you trapped in the dark ages or something? This argument does not obtain for any given P and A. This argument would fail if A contained a vague predicate and hence the conjunction of A and not-A had a non-zero truth-value. It would also fail in non-normal modal worlds in which contradictions are allowable.
Originally posted by PalynkaThis is like black beetle's thread. We are living in flawed premises.
This discussion would be if those particular athletes are cheaters, which they are by definition. If you chose a subset defined by irrational thinking and say they are irrational, what have you achieved?
What's more frightening anyway, irrationality or rationality taken to an extreme?
Originally posted by NemesioIn order not to revisit this a third time: Bible-backed theology will maintain that salvation
Originally posted by PinkFloyd
[b]What if the person has no time to do any "works"?
Originally posted by whodey
Again, what of the thief who died next to Christ on the cross? What good works did he provide to earn favor for salvation?
These two questions are essentially the same, although Whodey I remain mystified that you
But the fig tree that will not yield fruit, it will be torn up.
Nemesio[/b]
cannot be earned, but that it is an undeserved gift given by God. This gift is given to those
people of faith. People of faith, among other things, are people who do works
This statement I've highlighted (by Nemesio) should end the grace v. works debate.
EDIT: Lord willing...
Originally posted by Nemesio"The passage you cited addresses this, not the idea that one who sins cannot be saved."
Naturally, I'm not. I'm curious how you could interpret what I wrote as an endorsement of that,
unless you believe that feeding the hungry constitutes sin.
Nemesio
Matthew 7:21-23
Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will tell me in that day,'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?' Then I will tell them,'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'
Those who do not do the will of God, i.e, work iniquity, will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Originally posted by Rajk999How does one serve others "unselfishly" if one is thinking about doing it in order to "get" salvation?
Christ said go and do good works in order to get salvation.
He said feed the hungry, and you get salvation.
He said give of your self unselfishly in the service of others and you get salvation.
None of your twisting of scripture can change what Christ said.
As long as you sleep well at night knowing that you dont believe in what Christ taught, I guess thats the important thing for you.
If one already has salvation then the process of unselfish acts of kindness can begin because such acts will not be motivated by trying to earn salvation.
Grace is the true path to compassion. Once compassion has been bestowed to you via grace then you can then pass it on.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou are taking 'you who work iniquity' as congruent with 'you who have ever worked a single act
Those who do not do the will of God, i.e, work iniquity, will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
of iniquity.' I'm not sure that's a reasonable equivalence.
The Greek reads: oi ergasomenoi ten aeomian which means 'the ones working lawlessness.'
Keep in mind the connotation that the 'law' tends imply (i.e., the 'Law'😉 and the fact that this
particular passage is peculiar to St Matthew (in its dramatic form, with mighty 'works' and so
forth), the Gospel writer who seems to be most concerned with a Jewish rather than Gentile
audience, and thus interested in preserving the Law.
Compare with St Luke's version, which is in two separate parts:
'Why do you call me "Lord, Lord," and not do what I tell you?' (6:46, and that's it!)
'When once the householder has risen up and shut the door, you will begin to stand outside and
to knock, saying, "Lord, open to us." He will answer you, "I do not know where you came from."
Then you will begin to say, "We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets."
But he will say, "I tell you, I do not know where you come from; depart from me, all you workers
of iniquity!"' (13:25-27) (the last words, in Greek, are 'eryatai adikias,' or workers of unrighteousness.)
So, the question is: Who is a worker of unrighteousness/worker of lawlessness?
I do not believe the simple presence of sin in a person indicates that they are a worker of
lawlessness/unrighteousness, particularly if they are sorry for having sinned and strive to avoid
it in the future.
Nemesio
Originally posted by knightmeisterInteresting.
How does one serve others "unselfishly" if one is thinking about doing it in order to "get" salvation?
If one already has salvation then the process of unselfish acts of kindness can begin because such acts will not be motivated by trying to earn salvation.
Grace is the true path to compassion. Once compassion has been bestowed to you via grace then you can then pass it on.
By the Way, are we capable or incapable to follow the true path to compassion without your god's grace? Or one has to be "truly born by God" Christian in order to become "graced"?
Originally posted by Nemesio"You are taking 'you who work iniquity' as congruent with 'you who have ever worked a single act of iniquity.' '"
You are taking 'you who work iniquity' as congruent with 'you who have ever worked a single act
of iniquity.' I'm not sure that's a reasonable equivalence.
The Greek reads: oi ergasomenoi ten aeomian which means 'the ones working lawlessness.'
Keep in mind the connotation that the 'law' tends imply (i.e., the 'Law'😉 and the fact that this
par having sinned and strive to avoid
it in the future.
Nemesio
Not at all. I'm taking 'you who work iniquity' as congruent with 'you who continue to commit sin'. Jesus teaches that one cannot continue to commit sin and have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation". However, past sins will be forgiven.
"So, the question is: Who is a worker of unrighteousness/worker of lawlessness?
Seems to me that the Matthew and Luke versions are basically saying the same thing about those who continue to commit sin. Like Jesus says just before your Luke quote, "Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able." when asked "Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?" Jesus then explains that those who continue to commit sin will be told to depart, just as he does in John 8:34-35, "...Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever;...". The slave gets turned away at the door. In John 8:32, Jesus explains that one doesn't have to remain a slave, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
Originally posted by Bosse de NagePlease. What's the point in arguing with somebody who doesn't accept the law of non-contradiction?
Did the Lion of Logic shoot this one down, or did he pussy out?
Suppose the truth of proposition P is in question -- you believe P and he believes Not-P. Suppose you now demonstrate via a valid proof from mutually accepted axioms that P. Then he's just going to say, "So what? That has no bearing on the truth of Not-P." What good can possibly come of such an exercise?