Without getting anything in return, would you f...

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Interesting. How do you interpret the following? Seems to me doing the will of the father is required.

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 ...[text shortened]... rks?'

Then I will tell them,'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'

I think I agree with Freaky in that faith is what is needed for salvation. After all, what is faith? Faith is merely following what God has said and beleiving what God has said to do, no? It is not a matter of doing an X amount of good works to outweight your bad deeds, rather, it is about following God with your whole heart. Therefore, if you are practicing iniquity, you are not following God with your whole heart. Is not the #1 commandment to love the Lord with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself? If you do so, what iniquity will you then practice? Notice it does not say those who committ iniquity, rather, those who PRACTICE iniquity. You may be trying to do "good works" to earn your way into heaven, but you have not submitted your life to him and have a life style that is contrary to what God wants for you. It is interesting that they yelled, "Lord, Lord!" is it not? What is a Lord? Is a Lord not someone whom you serve? Therfore, if they are not serving him in their life by practicing iniquity, what right do they have to call him Lord?

Originally posted by whodey
I think I agree with Freaky in that faith is what is needed for salvation. After all, what is faith? Faith is merely following what God has said and beleiving what God has said to do, no? It is not a matter of doing an X amount of good works to outweight your bad deeds, rather, it is about following God with your whole heart. Therefore, if you are practic ...[text shortened]... serving him in their life by practicing iniquity, what right do they have to call him Lord?

Maybe I've mis-interpreted the posts by both you and Freaky, but from what I can tell, I'm thinking our views are much closer than that of Freaky 🙂 The only difference I can tell, is the commit / practice frequency distinction you make. I guess I'm wondering just where the line would be drawn as to continuing to "commit" a sin becoming a "practice". Do you have a rule a thumb for this? I'm genuinely interested.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Maybe I've mis-interpreted the posts by both you and Freaky, but from what I can tell, I'm thinking our views are much closer than that of Freaky 🙂 The only difference I can tell, is the commit / practice frequency distinction you make. I guess I'm wondering just where the line would be drawn as to continuing to "commit" a sin becoming a "practice". Do you have a rule a thumb for this? I'm genuinely interested.

I would say that as a Christian sin should trouble the believer. A Christian should bring that particular "known transgression" to God and ask for forgiveness and desire to be free from that particular sin. Unfortunatly, as Christ once said, the sinner tends to become a slave to the particular sin that he or she commits. The sinner therefore feels compelled to repeat that particular transgression until they have been freed from the chains of that particular sin. They repeat such sins even though they hate themselves for doing so. Sin becomes a task master with a whip if you will. Unfortunatly, this can be problematic for anyone at times, including the believer. It may take time in prayer and help from other believers via prayer and such to help release you from those chains. So getting back to your question I would say that making a sin a "practice" to me is one that no longer feels the need to repent of a particular sin. They are no longer troubled by their sin and, therefore, no longer feel the need to repent. In fact, they may even rationalize that their sinfulness is indeed considered a good thing. So the one who commits sin is one who is in the active process of repentance in contrast to one who practices sin is OK with the way things are. I guess it all comes down to whom you serve. Is it God or is it yourself? Some try to do both by doing "good deeds" for God but not submitting to his Lordship.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't noticed.

Without getting anything in return, would you follow God's ways?

The question presupposes that the way it works is you love your neighbour (for example) and then because God sees you do this he hands out a reward "sweetie" of happiness as if their is no correlation between the thing you do and the reward that goes with it.

But infact you might as well ask "would you think positively if it didn't give you the reward of helping you be less depressed" or "would you drink water if you didn't feel less thirsty as a reward". With God the reward is tied up with the action because "following God's ways" mean living in accordance with his spirit. If one does not align oneself with his spirit then even he can't make you happy because happiness is not a "reward" as such that can be handed out ad hoc but more like an energy field. You either stand in it or outside of it.

Originally posted by whodey
I would say that as a Christian sin should trouble the believer. A Christian should bring that particular "known transgression" to God and ask for forgiveness and desire to be free from that particular sin. Unfortunatly, as Christ once said, the sinner tends to become a slave to the particular sin that he or she commits. The sinner therefore feels compelle ...[text shortened]... lf? Some try to do both by doing "good deeds" for God but not submitting to his Lordship.

A choice between serving the Father or oneself. Do you believe that one has free will in doing so? I have to believe the answer is absolutely. It also seems that a key, if not THE key, message from Jesus is that one has that choice. A choice that springs from love of the Father and not fear. It's really quite simple, one must love the Father more than oneself to stop the sin. What's more, Jesus says one should give one's ENTIRE heart to the Father. It seems that if one is able to do that, not only does one stop sinning, the desire for the sin would disappear. Perhaps this is what is truly meant by repentance and anything short of this would indicate one is still in the process of TRYING to repent. Thoughts?

Originally posted by knightmeister
The question presupposes that the way it works is you love your neighbour (for example) and then because God sees you do this he hands out a reward "sweetie" of happiness as if their is no correlation between the thing you do and the reward that goes with it.

But infact you might as well ask "would you think positively if it didn't give you the rew ...[text shortened]... out ad hoc but more like an energy field. You either stand in it or outside of it.

In your first sentence, did you mean to say "as if there is A correlation"? If not, please clarify your position.

As to your inquiry, I believe I clarified the idea of the question in my reply to whodey earlier. But aside from that, I guess I'd include "happiness" as an external reward. Can't one just humbly do the will of the Father?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
A choice between serving the Father or oneself. Do you believe that one has free will in doing so? I have to believe the answer is absolutely. It also seems that a key, if not THE key, message from Jesus is that one has that choice. A choice that springs from love of the Father and not fear. It's really quite simple, one must love the Father more than on thing short of this would indicate one is still in the process of TRYING to repent. Thoughts?

I think there is some truth to what you are saying except for the theory that you can somehow chase away the desire to sin. Did Jesus chase away the desire to sin I wonder even though he had the love of God in his heart? If I recall, he was tempted just as we are in the wilderness for 40 days. He also asked the Father for an alternative to going to the cross as he sweated great drops of blood. Does this sound like he wanted to go to the cross? There is no question that sin has an element to it that is tempting, otherwise there would be no reason to choose to sin. In order to choose sin there must be some type of carrot at the other end, no? At some point there is simply the choice to pursue the temptation despite the warnings God has posted. This disconnect and loss of faith in God assumes that God either does not know what he is talking about or he must be over reacting to the consequences of a particular transgression or he wants us to miss out on all the fun.

As the scriptures point out, those who commit sin are a servant of sin. Once you commit a particular sin, and we all do, you then have the added temptation of sinning again with the knowledge of the pleasure it provided you the last time you sinned. It then boils down to the love of God over the love of the pleasure it provided you. Just as 2 Timothy 3:4 says there are some who are lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God. Those who do would then fall into the category of those who "practice sin". They continue to sin and do not care about what God has said about it. I think it possible, however, to love God more but be overcome with sinful temptation. This fits the category of those who commit sin and wish to stop commiting sin because they love God more than the pleasure of sinning. They will be miserable until able to stop sinning and therefore continue to fight sinning. It comes down to learning to deal with temptation and avoiding it. There is a reason that the Lords prayer has the words "and deliver us from temptation" in the prayer. It has to do with our thought life. We are instructed to flea temptation as instructed us by 1 Timothy 6:11 and 2 Timothy 2:22. Do not think yourself as being high and mighty just because you have the love of God in your heart. Another scripture is James 4:7 which says, "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." You see we must first be submitted to God if we are to expect to be victorious over temptation otherwise we are fighting temptation based upon our own power. Then we are to flee temptation and not entertain temptation or give place to it but only if you really do not want to sin. I liked what Billy Graham once said. They asked him about how he avoided sex scandels such as the ones seen with Haggardy. His reply was that he never allowed himself to be alone with a woman. He never gave temptation a chance nor entertained such sins in his mind. Had he done so I dare say scandel would have followed his ministry as well.

As far as free choice, I am a big advocator that all men have the freedom of choice to serve and love God. As I have said many times on these boards, love demands free will. If you love something you must first set it free as God did his creation. Can you think of any examples of love being shown where the other party did not have the choice to love them back? Controlling husbands who beat there wives come to mind, but is this love?

Originally posted by whodey
I think there is some truth to what you are saying except for the theory that you can somehow chase away the desire to sin. Did Jesus chase away the desire to sin I wonder even though he had the love of God in his heart? If I recall, he was tempted just as we are in the wilderness for 40 days. He also asked the Father for an alternative to going to the cro ...[text shortened]... love them back? Controlling husbands who beat there wives come to mind, but is this love?

Seems we are in agreement except for the desired destination. Try looking at as steps in a journey to spiritual maturity. I agree that one of the steps is to keep away from the sin. I have to believe that there's another step beyond that. By keeping away from the sin for enough time, one can begin to gain clarity on the nature of the sin. With this clarity, the desire for the sin lessens. As the desire for the sin lessens more clarity is gained and can ultimately disappear.

If you look at desires you've had in your life, you'll know this to be true. You can probably think of some where you absolutely no longer have the desire. Of those, there are at least some that were extremely important to you at the time and led you to cross lines that would be unthinkable to you now.

I see one of the verses that you cite as supporting this:
James 4:7
"Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you."

It says "he will flee from you." Not the other way around.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
In your first sentence, did you mean to say "as if there is A correlation"? If not, please clarify your position.

As to your inquiry, I believe I clarified the idea of the question in my reply to whodey earlier. But aside from that, I guess I'd include "happiness" as an external reward. Can't one just humbly do the will of the Father?

No I did not make a mistake. I think if you think of happiness as an unrelated "reward" then you are on the wrong track. Getting big muscles for example is not really a reward as such for going to the gym but more a direct consequence of it. If I gave you a new pair of shoes for going to the gym then that would be an unrelated "reward" but not a consequence in the true sense of the word because no amount of exercise is going to get you shoes unless I give them to you.

It all depends whether you think God has the power to make someone happy even if they are following a path of unhappiness. If you think he can then you have a different idea of rewards and happiness than I do. To me happiness is not a package (or sweetie) to be handed out but more like a mental state resulting from personal choices.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seems we are in agreement except for the desired destination. Try looking at as steps in a journey to spiritual maturity. I agree that one of the steps is to keep away from the sin. I have to believe that there's another step beyond that. By keeping away from the sin for enough time, one can begin to gain clarity on the nature of the sin. With this clarit and he will flee from you."

It says "he will flee from you." Not the other way around.

I see what you are saying and agree to a point. However, I still say there are temptations out there that will continue to be very tempting for you to give in to. For example, the night before Christ went to the cross he was sweating great drops of blood and continuously asked the Father for a way out. Was it a sin not to want to be tortured and killed the next day? No. However, would it have been a sin not to go through with it? I say it would have been because he would have had to undermine the will of the Father in doing so. Could you imagine a temptation so intense that you would begin to sweat blood? I don't think either of us have been there. However, if it is possible for Christ to be tempted to such a point, I say it is possible for us as well. Therefore, I say the scriptures in Timothy contains wisdom in the passages when it says to flee temptation. Why entertain something that may destroy you? Why not cast the thought down and flee no matter how "mature" you think you may be?

I guess what I am saying is that we need to approach our sinful nature with a dose of humility. When I see a drunk on the streets, for example, I do not see myself as more mature spiritually than he as I do being shown the grace of God to escape a similar fate. After all, it could have just as easily been me in his position if I had given into that type of sin only one time. I too could have been bound by the chains of that particular sin as he is. Therefore why not flee such sin that has the capacity to chain you and bind you for an entire lifetime?

Originally posted by knightmeister
No I did not make a mistake. I think if you think of happiness as an unrelated "reward" then you are on the wrong track. Getting big muscles for example is not really a reward as such for going to the gym but more a direct consequence of it. If I gave you a new pair of shoes for going to the gym then that would be an unrelated "reward" but not a cons ...[text shortened]... (or sweetie) to be handed out but more like a mental state resulting from personal choices.

Thanks for the clarification. I think I understand now.

Originally posted by whodey
I see what you are saying and agree to a point. However, I still say there are temptations out there that will continue to be very tempting for you to give in to. For example, the night before Christ went to the cross he was sweating great drops of blood and continuously asked the Father for a way out. Was it a sin not to want to be tortured and killed the ...[text shortened]... why not flee such sin that has the capacity to chain you and bind you for an entire lifetime?

I agree that it's best to avoid the temptation altogether.

THINK OF ONE SAID "Perhaps one needs to be sorry enough to change one's heart - to purify one's heart. If one's heart is truly changed, there is no more "fouling up" because there is an understanding of the nature of the sin and the desire becomes meaningless. Perhaps the love of Truth (God) that Jesus exemplified is what is required to turn away from the sin. Perhaps this is how He saves one from sin."

Sorry , This is a distortion of christian belief and is not what is preached in the NT. Your belief system is similar to all worldly belief systems in that the emphasis for salvation is subtly taken away from God and moved towards self. The only power or thing that can purify you heart is God not you. This is what makes Christianity distinct. This is the true understanding of the "nature of sin", that we cannot save ourselves , we cannot by our own good works , moral behaviour or will power do anything without God's help. We cannot even begin to think about sin unless God guides us. He does not save by setting an example to us primarily at all. That would suggest that we just have to try harder or follow an example to be saved. When the Bible says that it is Jesus that saves us from sin , it means precisely that!! Jesus saves through the actvity of the Holy Spirit within us. When Christians say Jesus lives in them they do not mean it symbolically in some woolly way they mean it absolutely literally. You need to ask yourself why you choose to place metaphorical interpretations on to Christian belief instead of just accepting it for what it actually is.

By the way it wasn't the "love of truth" that he exemplified , it was the truth of love.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
No requests granted.

No salvation.

Granted, the vast majority seem to be reluctant to fully embrace Gods ways even with the promise of rewards. I still think it's an interesting question.

The answer is *yes* as in I wouldn't do anything differently than I am now. I don't do the things I do because of some afterlife promise. I teach what and where I do, and behave in certain ways, to make things better here and now as well as in the future for those whose lives I may get to touch along the way. If you had concrete, unequivocal proof that there was no afterlife, it wouldn't change a thing. That's really a weird thing to know about myself.

Originally posted by reader1107
The answer is *yes* as in I wouldn't do anything differently than I am now. I don't do the things I do because of some afterlife promise. I teach what and where I do, and behave in certain ways, to make things better here and now as well as in the future for those whose lives I may get to touch along the way. If you had concrete, unequivocal proof tha ...[text shortened]... no afterlife, it wouldn't change a thing. That's really a weird thing to know about myself.

I don't know if you saw the following later in the thread:

As Penguin pointed out, the question is directed at the idea of following Gods ways for the sake of following His ways without having some sort of external reward / punishment system as incentive / disincentive such as heaven, hell, a downpayment on what one wants, etc.

Is the answer still "yes"?