Christianity: Obstacle to reason?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do you have an opinion on this topic or are you just looking for something to analyze?

I do not think that there is a contradiction but I only say that cautiously because you have not supplied the quotes which you believe are in conflict. Simply saying "some people believe Paul taught otherwise" is not a very compelling case,

Originally posted by Conrau K
I do not think that there is a contradiction but I only say that cautiously because you have not supplied the quotes which you believe are in conflict. Simply saying "some people believe Paul taught otherwise" is not a very compelling case,

I'm not trying to "make a case". From posts you've made in the past, I gather that you're primarily in looking for things to analyze which is okay I guess. However, I don't feel compelled to provide you with the numerous passages of Jesus which support my position as I've provided them a number of times. As to the passages of Paul, you'd probably be better off getting them from someone who believes in "salvation by grace".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm not trying to "make a case". From posts you've made in the past, I gather that you're primarily in looking for things to analyze which is okay I guess. However, I don't feel compelled to provide you with the numerous passages of Jesus which support my position as I've provided them a number of times. As to the passages of Paul, you'd probably be better off getting them from someone who believes in "salvation by grace".

You are claiming that Christians must accept a number of contradictions and that Christianity is thus an obstacle to reason. I am not looking for things to analyse; I sincerely disagree with the content of those claims.

But now it seems that you are not claiming that Christianity is an obstacle to reason but that "salvation by grace" Protestantism is.

Originally posted by Conrau K
You are claiming that Christians must accept a number of contradictions and that Christianity is thus an obstacle to reason. I am not looking for things to analyse; I sincerely disagree with the content of those claims.

But now it seems that you are not claiming that Christianity is an obstacle to reason but that "salvation by grace" Protestantism is.

Try reading through the thread. It's been all over the place. I was completing a sidebar with PinkFloyd when you asked for details on Jesus vs. Paul. We both had sufficient knowledge to complete our discussion. We both recognize the contradictions but deal with them differently.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]If one were to sin again, then they had yet to have been "saved". So far as I can tell, the "theology of grace that Paul presented" is contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

So according to your theology, the apostle Peter was not "saved", at least not until after he had denied knowing Christ at the cross and cursed at those who asked if he was one of his disciples? In addition, King David was not "saved", at least not until after he had committed adultery and had the woman's husband killed?

Originally posted by whodey
So according to your theology, the apostle Peter was not "saved", at least not until after he had denied knowing Christ at the cross and cursed at those who asked if he was one of his disciples? In addition, King David was not "saved", at least not until after he had committed adultery and had the woman's husband killed?

According to the teachings of Jesus, "the truth will make you free".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
According to the teachings of Jesus, "the truth will make you free".

But if one really did have grace, one would not sin, right? The whole point of grace is that it is a full cooperation with the will of God.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
According to the teachings of Jesus, "the truth will make you free".

Getting back to my two examples, what you see are the responses of both Peter and David after they sinned. They both repented immediately and bitterly once they are confronted with their sin. It was not so much the act of sinning as it was that they transgressed against the Lord whom they loved and served. You see, it is the love for their God that motivated these men. That is the Biblical example of the "saved" that sins. In fact, the number one commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and to love your neighbor as yourself.

In contrast, you also have people who are confronted with their transgressions against God yet they are unrepentant. These I believe do not have the love of God in their hearts no matter how "good" a life they may live. There are several passages in the gospels that say something to the effect that if you love the Lord, you will follow his commandments. For me, it is like a husband who attempts to please his wife. He does so out of love even though he may fall short at times. In contrast, you also have people trying to please their wives out of dread so that they will not nag them or divorce them etc. Both may outwardly do the same number of "good" deeds for their respective mates but with opposite motivations. One motivation is grounded in love for another and the other motivation is grounded in self preservation and self interest.

Originally posted by Conrau K
But if one really did have grace, one would not sin, right? The whole point of grace is that it is a full cooperation with the will of God.

Grace is a topic unto itself. I'm not sure why you brought it up.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm not sure why you brought it up.

Because you are arguing that St. Paul's "theology of grace" is in conflict with Jesus' explicit statements that a person who sins cannot receive salvation. I do not see a conflict because a person with grace would not sin in the first place.

Originally posted by whodey
Getting back to my two examples, what you see are the responses of both Peter and David after they sinned. They both repented immediately and bitterly once they are confronted with their sin. It was not so much the act of sinning as it was that they transgressed against the Lord whom they loved and served. You see, it is the love for their God that motivat ...[text shortened]... e for another and the other motivation is grounded in self preservation and self interest.

You seem to be off on a tangent here. Why are you seemingly trying to convince of the power of love as a motivator?

Yes, true repentance entails a transformation to righteousness. As such, someone truly repentant would not sin. Therefore those who continue to sin are not truly repentant.

Yes, someone who truly loves God will follow His commandments, i.e. not sin. Therefore those who continue to sin do not truly love God.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Because you are arguing that St. Paul's "theology of grace" is in conflict with Jesus' explicit statements that a person who sins cannot receive salvation. I do not see a conflict because a person with grace would not sin in the first place.

Seems to me that the vast majority of Christians believe that they have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" even though they continue to sin. They all seem to point to the teachings of Paul. In fact you're the first person I've known who believes that Paul taught that one cannot continue to sin and have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation".

If you can shed some light for those folks, I'm thinking it'd be a very good thing.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seems to me that the vast majority of Christians believe that they have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" even though they continue to sin. They all seem to point to the teachings of Paul. In fact you're the first person I've known who believes that Paul taught that one cannot continue to sin and have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation".

If you can shed some light for those folks, I'm thinking it'd be a very good thing.

Perhaps that is because every other Christian on this forum is Protestant, whereas I am stuck somewhere between the Orthodox and Catholic churches. We do not accept that a person in a state of grace would sin nor that a person in a state of sin could receive salvation. But I doubt I would be able to offer any satisfactory explanation of this when it is possibly the belief most disputed by Protestant Christians.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You seem to be off on a tangent here. Why are you seemingly trying to convince of the power of love as a motivator?

Yes, true repentance entails a transformation to righteousness. As such, someone truly repentant would not sin. Therefore those who continue to sin are not truly repentant.

Yes, someone who truly loves God will follow His commandments, i.e. not sin. Therefore those who continue to sin do not truly love God.

What I am saying is that the love for God helps determine if someone is truly repentant.

I agree that if someone "repents" they are doing so with the intention of turning from that sin. However, I also recognize human weakness when trying to overcome sin. For example, someone who abuses drugs may have the intention of turning from their drug abuse but due to addiction and human weakness fall back into that practice at some point and then begin the repentance process again. I think this is far different than someone who calls them self a Christian and does not repent or repents with no intention of turning from their sinful ways.

Take for example, the disciple Judas. He betrayed Christ and then hanged himself. Why? Obviously he was remorseful for betraying him because he later hanged himself. In fact, you might say he never intended on doing so again and was repentant in that sense. So why was he not forgiven? I say it is because he had ulterior motives for following Christ rather than following him to do his bidding because he loved him and wanted to please him. Instead, Judas probably had intentions to use Christ to help begin a movement to take up arms and overthrow the Roman authorities. He was probably turning Jesus in to the authorities with the promise from them that they would not harm him and, in addition, this might provide a catalyst for creating this revolt movement that was not transpiring according to his liking. Its just a guess but that is the way I see things.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Perhaps that is because every other Christian on this forum is Protestant, whereas I am stuck somewhere between the Orthodox and Catholic churches. We do not accept that a person in a state of grace would sin nor that a person in a state of sin could receive salvation. But I doubt I would be able to offer any satisfactory explanation of this when it is possibly the belief most disputed by Protestant Christians.

You see, ThinkOfOne, this is a perfect example of a contradiction in scripture which alludes to a deeper truth.

The Bible contains passages which proclaim that we are saved by grace (and that by faith). The definition of grace is "unmerited favor." Favor unmerited is favor gained without striving or accomplishment. Apparently, according to the Bible, there is no human being, living, dead, or unborn, to whom God could ever say, "You don't need my forgiveness, you, sir (or madam), are worthy to abide in my holy presence forever as is." If we acknowledge our unworthiness in the presence of the Lord, then we must admit that grace is absolutely essential for salvation.

On the other hand, the Bible also contains passages which clearly indicate that good works are necessary for salvation. This seems to contradict the many other statements delineating salvation as a strict matter of grace and faith. And so we have the grace v. works debate raging ad infinitum (nauseum), each side staking its claim employing two well-represented aspects of scripture which appear to be contradictory.

Now, I could arrogantly chalk the grace v. works contradiction up as another example of the Bible's supposed "incoherency", or I could give the Bible the benefit of the doubt and search for a deeper understanding of what is revealed; an understanding which may unite the apparently contradictory verses. (Thus the relevancy of Pascal's assertion that contradiction is not a sign of falsity. For my purposes I would change that to say, "contradiction is not a sign of incoherence," since incoherence is more relevant in this instance since incoherence is what you happen to be accusing the Bible of.)

If the Bible is incoherent, then we should be able to pick and choose which passages suit our needs at the expense of those which do not. For instance, if I believe that one must earn salvation, then I can take the passages which support my claim and ignore all the rest. Or, if I believe that salvation is by faith alone, I can take a similar approach. If I deny that contradiction may allude to a deeper, more profound truth, then I am forced to choose one or the other, i.e., either I am saved by faith alone and can continue in sin, or I must strive under the heavy burden of works-righteousness.

God condemns both extremes. Therefore, the proper interpretation of scripture goes like this: those saved by grace through faith know they have eternal life when, through faith in Christ, they overcome sin and do good works. Overcoming sin and doing good works are fruits of the Spirit - the Spirit which is given to all those who genuinely believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Contradiction isn't a sign of incoherency.