Ship of Fools: Saved by Faith and Goats and Sheep

Thread: Saved by Faith and Goats and Sheep Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020338

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Evangeline wrote:

quote:

As a matter of interest how do you, as a good Protestant reconcile Matthew's story of Jesus' words about the sheep and the goats from Paul's words about justification by faith? How do you interpret Jesus' words in Matthew? [/QB]

Short answer, we are saved by grace alone, we accept grace through faith, and the demonstration of this acceptance is through good works of charity and justice. We accept grace from Jesus, and this grace equips us for good works.

I assuming this is an Arminian answer?

The other argument I have heard is that the judgment passage in Matthew refers to the judgment of the nations, not the judgment of individual persons. This strikes me as eisengesis rather than exegesis.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Trouble is, Jesus says nothing about "faith" in the "Sheep and Goats" passage, so your interpretation also sounds like eisegesis.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

I tend to agree with Mousethief, even though I'm a Protestant. Going on the Matthew passage alone, there really is nothing to support the argument that either grace or faith trump or must precede good works when we are facing the judgement seat.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

The sovereignty of God trumps all human speculations about what He has done, is doing, and will do. We trust that He is both Just and Merciful, since each of these flows from our central belief that He is Love.

It's puzzling, of course. These days I'm more inclined to believe that ultimately, Justice and Mercy will kiss, so that God will be all in all. Exactly how that will happen, I'm not sure. I find I don't need to be.

[ 23. October 2017, 06:05: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I can’t reconcile any of this. Love and compassion can’t be comparable with hell and the gnashing of teeth in eternal torment.

Likewise the wheat and tares.

Our preacher used this passage last week - but he majored on the ‘together sewn’ bit and the fact that it’s not up to us to judge. And the fact that we can’t assume we are the wheat - which we all do.

The only way I can take these parables is as warnings to be good, for our own good, rather like red riding hood.

[ 23. October 2017, 07:13: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I think these are theological points that challenge and question each other:

If we start from the position that giving someone in need a cup of water is the right and godly thing to do.

Ah, but if one gives a cup of water to a thirsty person but exploits workers that is hypocritical.

OK, so one doesn't exploit workers

But there are many people seen and unseen who we interact with on various levels every day. Many of whom are held in slavery and poverty. We can't possibly know about or help everyone.

Right. So we have a "reasonableness" standard. Who can I reasonably help.

OK, but the divine demand is to go beyond what is reasonable. Loving an enemy is not a reasonable commandment.

This is impossible, nobody can therefore do the right thing. It's a standard that nobody can live up to.

Right, so forget that for the moment. Nothing you can do could meet the standard, but at the same time it isn't about meeting an arbitrary pass mark because nobody would meet it.

OK great, so I'm saved by faith and don't actually have to do anything.

But if you give a cup of water..

etc

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

A topic explored, Boogie, and IMO rather well, by Rob Bell in his book "Love Wins". A book which got him into a lot of trouble with many traditional believers.

Some people seem to need the certainties of belief in Hell and eternal punishment. I'm not sure I ever did.

Refinement, purification, learning how to behave better, be more loving, less selfish, those are different matters. I'm still processing C S Lewis's quote that God in His mercy made the fixed pains of Hell. There's a lot of metaphor going on, I think. Some Orthodox believe that when faced with God's presence, some folks cast themselves into the 'fixed pains of Hell' so as to emerge at some stage 'purified by fire'. Also that Hell and Heaven are essentially the same place, simply reflecting the different human responses to the eternal Light of God's presence. What warns and illuminates and comforts some is intolerable to others.

In general I think many traditional beliefs about Hell and eternal punishment have been far too literal, used by church leaders as means of control. Inner conviction of sinfulness is the work of the Holy Spirit, not much helped by scare tactics.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Just clicked on your sig. I felt a wave of hysterical laughter rise but some repressive mechanism kicked in, an ancient 'BLASPHEMY!' response I suppose. Rats. Still smiling.

As for the thread, Jesus and Paul were inspired in their cultures. Making it up as they went along as we all do.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A topic explored, Boogie, and IMO rather well, by Rob Bell in his book "Love Wins". A book which got him into a lot of trouble with many traditional believers.

Some people seem to need the certainties of belief in Hell and eternal punishment. I'm not sure I ever did.

Refinement, purification, learning how to behave better, be more loving, less selfish, those are different matters. I'm still processing C S Lewis's quote that God in His mercy made the fixed pains of Hell. There's a lot of metaphor going on, I think. Some Orthodox believe that when faced with God's presence, some folks cast themselves into the 'fixed pains of Hell' so as to emerge at some stage 'purified by fire'. Also that Hell and Heaven are essentially the same place, simply reflecting the different human responses to the eternal Light of God's presence. What warns and illuminates and comforts some is intolerable to others.

In general I think many traditional beliefs about Hell and eternal punishment have been far too literal, used by church leaders as means of control. Inner conviction of sinfulness is the work of the Holy Spirit, not much helped by scare tactics.

I agree that there must be a lot of metaphor going on.

It wouldn’t bother me so much except that the words are attributed to Jesus. Did Jesus really say (as an ‘explanation’ of the parable) “Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let anyone with ears listen!” ?

If he did he said stuff I simply can’t agree with. Even the worst psychopaths deserve oblivion over eternal torment imo.

[ 23. October 2017, 12:04: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

We talk as if oblivion were possible, as if God could uncreate or decreate anything. But what if we are wrong and in some way this is a logical impossibility--that is, a contradiction of the divine nature itself? In that case hell would be the natural result of the continual unrepentant refusal of some creatures possessing free will to love, do good, be happy, and so on. Such immortals would create hell by their very being, and have to be quarantined to prevent them taking their selfmade misery out on others.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

An old one.

The first thing to note the 'least of these my brothers'. That is terminology that is recognised as referring to the Christian Community. So the judgement is primarily based on the way people react to those who belong the Church. Yes, I would personally extend that action towards all human being. Claiming in as much as they are made in the image of Christ so I need to consider them. However, I like to let the original stand as well particularly when considering the fragile setting of the early readers of the Gospels.

Secondly, we read the statement of faith through a cultural ideology that Jesus would not understand. The idea that faith predominantly rests on holding a set of beliefs may only go back to the Emperor Constantine and the first Council of Nicea. More widely in the world today religious faith has little to do with actual doctrine but a lot to do with loyalty. The predominant idea of belief is a case of Western exceptionalism. I can quote the literature in full if you want me to.

Christ is here making a strong connection between loyalty to him and loyalty to other members of the Church. The acts of kindness towards the members of the Church are signs of God's Grace active in the individuals. You get into a world where Matt 10:42 makes sense. This act of faith is seen as 'sanctification' and classical Reformed look for its activity in just this manner. Claims of great belief are no match as evidence of faith compared with the good will and kind actions you show to your fellow Christians and the wider community. Show me where your loyalty lies by your actions and that will show me your faith.

Jengie

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
The first thing to note the 'least of these my brothers'. That is terminology that is recognised as referring to the Christian Community.

Recognized by whom?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
The first thing to note the 'least of these my brothers'. That is terminology that is recognised as referring to the Christian Community.
Recognized by whom?

We have had at least one long thread on this topic. Unfortunately I don't have time to look for it. What I remember is that there is strong evidence that this refers to the Christian community.

Moo

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Jenjie jon

quote:
The first thing to note the 'least of these my brothers'. That is terminology that is recognised as referring to the Christian Community.

I think, Jenjie, it could be argued that 'these my brothers' has an even narrower focus than the one you imply, and refers simply to the disciples because the words are specifically addressed to them as part of a private discourse that begins in Matthew 24: 1-3., and ends at the conclusion of chapter 25, as indicated in 26:1.

More generally, I think we just have to admit that in whatever way we make sense of the God revealed in Jesus Christ it will be difficult to do so without editing out of our understanding parts of scripture, including the NT, which don't fit.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

There's also the issue of whether you take this parable to be prescriptive or descriptive.

Is Jesus' point really, "...so you all need to get out there and do more good works so that when the time comes you'll be a 'sheep,' not a 'goat'"? Or is he just describing The Way Things Are -- that some people who portray themselves as Christians really aren't, whereas other people may be Christians even if they don't identify as such or even know the Jesus story -- "Christians by desire," I think my RC friends would say -- who in the end will say, " Yes; this; I somehow knew it and trusted it all along."

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
An old one.

......

Secondly, we read the statement of faith through a cultural ideology that Jesus would not understand. The idea that faith predominantly rests on holding a set of beliefs may only go back to the Emperor Constantine and the first Council of Nicea. More widely in the world today religious faith has little to do with actual doctrine but a lot to do with loyalty. The predominant idea of belief is a case of Western exceptionalism. I can quote the literature in full if you want me to.

........
Jengie

Thanks Jengie.

The next comments are mine entirely.

I have been astonished, puzzled and infuriated by the mess the Church, and what it claims to be the Christian message, have got into. (Don't get me started on the Nicene Creed.... ). It's evident to me that "faith" and "belief" are not at all the same thing, and if that wasn't already obvious then have a look at the epistle of James.

Bluntly, if you define membership of the Church as adherence to beliefs, then what you have isn't Christianity, it's a cult. As, again, should be obvious.

And salvation. By works, or by faith (as defined in the Bible rather than by a creed); or is salvation ultimately, though it may be a long and rocky road, available to all? All 3 positions can be justified by Bible verses, so should we assume that the principle of Bible infallibility has to go? or should we rather assume what should already be obvious, that God's justice and mercy far outrun human understanding?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Boogie, Lamb Chopped, we talk as if this briefest flicker of existence is anything to go on, to be judged for, to be stuck in, twisted, frozen in the sublime.

Jesus saves.

Jesus spoke as a MAN. The most inspired, the only divinely natured human, unlearnedly morally perfect, other centred, at every stage of His development. Unimaginably unselfish, non-violent as a two year old. And ignorant. Until and in His death. Partially knowingly so. So He made up culturally constrained stories to motivate His followers. Stories surrounded by white space where metanarratives can be told.

As in every other area, we vastly overstate our condition and infinitely underestimate His transcendent capability.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
The first thing to note the 'least of these my brothers'. That is terminology that is recognised as referring to the Christian Community.

This is a relatively recent interpretation popular, for obvious reasons, with Christian supremacists and theocrats. They find a radically inclusive Jesus an abomination.

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Christ is here making a strong connection between loyalty to him and loyalty to other members of the Church. The acts of kindness towards the members of the Church are signs of God's Grace active in the individuals.

This exclusivist attitude is illustrated elsewhere in the teachings of Jesus:

quote:
In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he said 'Screw that guy! I only help other Samaritans', and he passed by on the other side as well. The end."

I understand there are variant translations with a more heretical, universalist themes that don't restrict kindness and mercy to one's co-religionists, but obviously they don't really 'get' what Jesus was all about.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
The first thing to note the 'least of these my brothers'. That is terminology that is recognised as referring to the Christian Community.
This is a relatively recent interpretation popular, for obvious reasons, with Christian supremacists and theocrats. They find a radically inclusive Jesus an abomination.

You are overlooking something important, the judgement is of people outside the community and how they react to those in the community. It says nothing of the people in the community in that reading. It could be read therefore as saying, those who are kind towards you are part of your community regardless of where you draw membership lines.

Not really recent either. I am afraid it is a case of interpretation of the text by the text. I had a whole post with Bible references from the gospels backing this interpretation.

Jengie

[ 23. October 2017, 17:39: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I agree with Jengie. Furthermore, I rather resent the implication that anyone who suggests that texts were dorected to the faithful community, not the world at latge, is a reactionary loon. Obviously yhe texts were addressed to the faith community!

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

In case anyone is interested, one of the Pauline themes of Mark is suggested to be the notion that the gospel was for the gentiles.

Which indirectly touches on the discussion above. If Jesus was first/primarily about the Jews (or a subset of the Jews) then it makes sense that Matthew 25 is talking about Jews (or even disciples as suggested above).

However if the thing is taken within a Pauline understanding, it makes sense to see it as a much wider - perhaps universal - instruction.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I agree with Jengie. Furthermore, I rather resent the implication that anyone who suggests that texts were d[i]rected to the faithful community, not the world at latge, is a reactionary loon. Obviously [t]he texts were addressed to the faith community!

It's not a question of whether they were directed to Christians, but rather whether it's only about Christians. "Love your [Christian] neighbor as yourself" doesn't have quite the same ring to it, and implies your non-Christian neighbors fall outside the legitimate range of caring.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Mmmm... I'd always assumed the "neighbour" passage was universal and the "my brethren" one was somewhat more restrictive. Not sure why... Perhaps the "my" and the situation in which it occurred. Or perhaps I was told that; can't remember.

That's why I love this place. One is challenged on, potentially false, assumptions.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
We talk as if oblivion were possible, as if God could uncreate or decreate anything. But what if we are wrong and in some way this is a logical impossibility--that is, a contradiction of the divine nature itself? In that case hell would be the natural result of the continual unrepentant refusal of some creatures possessing free will to love, do good, be happy, and so on. Such immortals would create hell by their very being, and have to be quarantined to prevent them taking their selfmade misery out on others.

Two other possibilities imho:

1. Hell is more or less literal, but it is an earthly dimension. Not quite Kafka's "hell is other people" but more "we make our own hell". One need look no further than the current POTUS who seems to have acquired everything his heart ever desired and also to be entirely miserable, trapped in a hell of his own making (or is that sinful wishful thinking on my part?)

2. There is a real, literal, other-worldly hell-- and it is quite empty (the obscure 1 Peter 3:18ff)

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Sartre.

[ 23. October 2017, 21:29: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Mmmm... I'd always assumed the "neighbour" passage was universal and the "my brethren" one was somewhat more restrictive. Not sure why... Perhaps the "my" and the situation in which it occurred. Or perhaps I was told that; can't remember.

Well, the Bible tells us to love those who hate us, and not to restrict our kindness only to those who are good to us. All of which, to me, suggests non-believers as well as believers, since our 'fellowship' with believers is more or less expected.

I think the story of the good Samaritan makes this explicit. The Samaritan wasn't an orthodox (or pure-blooded) Jew, but he helped a man who was. The 'good' Jews didn't come to the aid of another Jew, as would have been expected of them.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

The ethic of inclusion, generosity and kindness are expected to be extended to all. But the actual instruction is to the faith community. And admonitions/discipline are intended for the faith community, not the world at large ( and thus are not an argument for theocracy.) Did I totally misunderstand the issue here?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
The ethic of inclusion, generosity and kindness are expected to be extended to all. But the actual instruction is to the faith community. And admonitions/discipline are intended for the faith community, not the world at large ( and thus are not an argument for theocracy.) Did I totally misunderstand the issue here?

Yes. The issue is, whom is Jesus referring to by "the least of these my brethren" -- the people who were not fed, watered, clothed, etc. Not the people who didn't do the feeding, watering, clothing, etc. The recipients of the good works, not the doers (or not-doers) of the good works, who are the ones being addressed. Who THEY are is not at issue in this particular conversation. Yet.

[ 23. October 2017, 23:43: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Sartre.

Agh, I almost said Sartre, then self-corrected to Kafka. Need that set of existentialist playing cards...

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

I don't think this passage has much to do with love of neighbour, however much such sentiment is a central part of the gospel; nor do I think it's got much to do with the righteous actions of gentiles meriting salvation. Remember the context: the deadly crisis of Christ's ministry following his entry into Jerusalem and the rejection of his Messianic claims by the Jewish leaders which was accelerating the culmination of the murderous conspiracies against him. Here Jesus is indicating that the manner of his death was likely to be visited in similar manner on his disciples. The virtues of the gentiles are used as a foil to contrast with the failures of the righteous, those who should have recognised God's anointed. In other words the focus is less on who shall be saved than on the judgement against the Jewish goats. (I hasten to add this has nothing to do with anti-semitism).

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I don't think this passage has much to do with love of neighbour, however much such sentiment is a central part of the gospel; nor do I think it's got much to do with the righteous actions of gentiles meriting salvation.

OK, well I think it matches the "love of neighbour" teaching so closely that it makes zero sense to see it talking about caring for fellow believers.

If it was just about the disciples, I can't see why it got retained in the gospels tens of years later - presumably at a point where a lot of the disciples were dead.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

mr cheesy

quote:
If it was just about the disciples, I can't see why it got retained in the gospels tens of years later - presumably at a point where a lot of the disciples were dead.

You raise an interesting point as to how this passage has been used in Christian teaching and preaching, particularly at the time the gospel was being complied. Quite frankly, I have no idea as to why the passage was included in Matthews gospel, and I guess you are in a similar position. In my ignorance might I suggest, however, that eschatological passages in which sheep are separated from goats and individuals are summarily sent to heaven or hell would be a great comfort to Christians subject to intense persecution. It's not a theology that resonates with mine, but it's there in scripture.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
You raise an interesting point as to how this passage has been used in Christian teaching and preaching, particularly at the time the gospel was being complied. Quite frankly, I have no idea as to why the passage was included in Matthews gospel, and I guess you are in a similar position. In my ignorance might I suggest, however, that eschatological passages in which sheep are separated from goats and individuals are summarily sent to heaven or hell would be a great comfort to Christians subject to intense persecution. It's not a theology that resonates with mine, but it's there in scripture.

It is one of the parts that most resonates with me. Declaring that it is effectively a "spare part" or trying to limit the target of the audience seems to me to be a travesty.

But there you go. I should never underestimate the ability of people to find ways to make the gospels not-apply-to-them.

[ 24. October 2017, 08:04: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

This makes sense but would still require Jesus to be saying something to them for their comfort rather than the truth, wouldn’t it?

Rainbow Bridge style. (A story told to comfort people who have lost loved pets)

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Boogie

quote:
This makes sense

Boogie, it would be helpful if you could indicate what the 'this' is that makes sense, and why you come to your conclusion.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Sorry -

I meant the idea that the story would be a great comfort to Christians when they were under intense persecution.

Jesus told the story (I assume?) or did they simply attribute it to Jesus to give it credence?

[ 24. October 2017, 08:50: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Boogie

quote:
Jesus told the story (I assume?) or did they simply attribute it to Jesus to give it credence?

I think the question, Boogie, is how the eschatological passages in the NT fit into the more universalist themes and our understanding of how salvation comes about. What Jesus thought about these issues and how he integrated them is an intriguing question that I'm not competent to address.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

That there is a challenge in the words of Jesus is undoubted. But are they to be taken literally?
Given the Wheat and Tares parable is Jesus saying that, at the ultimate separation/judgement the only alternatives are Heaven ( for the few) and Hell ( for the vast majority)?

And why is annihilation not a possibility? Given that faith and repentance are essential to 'salvation' what if wee can't repent? The real punishment of sin is that it degrades our moral sensitivity and awareness. If we get to the point where we cannot recognise the difference between Good and Evil, Right and Wrong then we have effectively 'ceased to be'. The real difference between us and the rest of created life is that, as humans, we have a moral discernment. Lacking any moral discernment we are unable to recognise Good from Evil and therefore incapable of repentance.

Annihilation is not something which God inflicts upon us. It is something which we bring upon ourselves. As has been said; " We are not punished for our sins but BY our sins". One such 'punishment' is the dulling of any moral awareness and sensitivity. This reduces our capability to respond and the inability to respond precludes any genuine repentance.

So we simply "cease to be". Call it annihilation of you wish.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Is it annihilation, or is it simply not resurrection? Is the Christian idea really that we have these ghosts inside us which are immortal, and can go to heaven or hell, or is it that we have a hope of a life beyond death through resurrection? If we're not resurrected, we stay dead?

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :

Though I change my mind a lot, I most often come back to this, Karl.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Perhaps it's more like software. We are down here running 1.0 on fairly primitive systems without a lot of processing power. Knees, spinal discs, nearsightedness -- clearly these are not perfect machines. When we die, God downloads us into storage -- the Heavenly Cloud. The physical machine, your body, goes to the cemetery and we, our real selves, are safe with Him. Come the new creation, a new Earth 2.0 will be there, without the many issues that plague us now. This is why it can only be described in metaphor; we can't really access it now because we haven't the power.
The sheep and the goats come in, if we ourselves bollix up our program. Because we can do that. We can jimmy our file so that the data doesn't download into the new Heavenly system. At that point the angelic software engineers have to resort to difficult things -- this is where the doctrine of Purgatory fits in. Either they can get the bugs out of the corrupted file (downloading it into some other device so the code can be tinkered with) or they can't. Dante envisioned Purgatory and Hell as quite different places with different activities (torments). But other thinkers had them as the same place; the only difference was whether you were there forever or only for a term of penal servitude.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Talk of 'real selves' makes me splutter a bit these days. I'm not sure what this means. But at least, various nasty bits of me have been pretty productive for me in life, just as much as the nice bits. I'd hate to separate them.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Is it annihilation, or is it simply not resurrection? Is the Christian idea really that we have these ghosts inside us which are immortal, and can go to heaven or hell, or is it that we have a hope of a life beyond death through resurrection? If we're not resurrected, we stay dead?

So some of us are so broke we can't be fixed? Does that only apply to those of us who are complicit in our own brokenness? Have made free, sane, fully informed decisions that have hurt others so badly, that we could easily not have done, and thus ourselves irrevocably, unforgivably, unrepentably?

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Talk of 'real selves' makes me splutter a bit these days. I'm not sure what this means. But at least, various nasty bits of me have been pretty productive for me in life, just as much as the nice bits. I'd hate to separate them.

For anyone who believes that there is a God, how big a leap is it to also believe that there is more to us than our physical body?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Is it annihilation, or is it simply not resurrection? Is the Christian idea really that we have these ghosts inside us which are immortal, and can go to heaven or hell, or is it that we have a hope of a life beyond death through resurrection? If we're not resurrected, we stay dead?
So some of us are so broke we can't be fixed? Does that only apply to those of us who are complicit in our own brokenness? Have made free, sane, fully informed decisions that have hurt others so badly, that we could easily not have done, and thus ourselves irrevocably, unforgivably, unrepentably?

Dunno. Perhaps it's no-one.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Karl:
I think it cannot be known, even though some of convinced and persuasive of themselves in their certainties seem to know. I find myself returning to Ecclesiastes where we hear in 3-20ff (which I like in KJ because of poetry):

quote:
All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?

So drink ye the beer now. Let eternity be what it is, also reflected in the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyan:

quote:
Ah, make the most of what we yet may spend,
Before we too into Dust Descend;
Dust to Dust, and under Dust, to lie,
Sans Wine, sans Song, sans Singer and — sans End!

--and no more of thee, and me.

[ 24. October 2017, 18:52: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I agree with Jengie. Furthermore, I rather resent the implication that anyone who suggests that texts were d[i]rected to the faithful community, not the world at latge, is a reactionary loon. Obviously [t]he texts were addressed to the faith community!
It's not a question of whether they were directed to Christians, but rather whether it's only about Christians. "Love your [Christian] neighbor as yourself" doesn't have quite the same ring to it, and implies your non-Christian neighbors fall outside the legitimate range of caring.

The theological argument is also complicated by the contrasts between the picture of Jesus painted by Matthew and the picture painted by Luke. The Luke picture is significantly more 'light to the Gentiles'. And it provides a strong challenge to exclusive views in the Samaritan parable.

And of course there is Paul, in a very early letter, proclaiming (in Galatians) that the faith community transcends nations and gender and social standing.

Of course the exegetical journey is complicated by weighing contrasting sources. But it can hardly be regarded as bounded just by the more Jewish emphases of Matthew.

Anyway, as Moo hints, it may be that Kerygmania would be a better forum for this more detailed discussion. Thinking about that, with my Host Hat on.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Is it annihilation, or is it simply not resurrection? Is the Christian idea really that we have these ghosts inside us which are immortal, and can go to heaven or hell, or is it that we have a hope of a life beyond death through resurrection? If we're not resurrected, we stay dead?
So some of us are so broke we can't be fixed? Does that only apply to those of us who are complicit in our own brokenness? Have made free, sane, fully informed decisions that have hurt others so badly, that we could easily not have done, and thus ourselves irrevocably, unforgivably, unrepentably?
Dunno. Perhaps it's no-one.

Karl. We've had this before. You seem to respond as if the worst case God could be true. It's just the case. The graven image. Graven even at best in the mind of the man Jesus.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Maybe Matthew 25 is talking about non-believers - oi ethnoi

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Maybe Matthew 25 is talking about non-believers - oi ethnoi

AIUI oi ethboi referred to gentiles rather than non-believers.

Moo

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Moo:

quote:
leo: Maybe Matthew 25 is talking about non-believers - oi ethnoi.

Moo: AIUI oi ethboi referred to gentiles rather than non-believers.

I find it difficult to make sense of the passage if "ethnoi" in this instance does not include the Jews...But perhaps it does.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

Speaking of finding it difficult ...

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I don't think this passage has much to do with love of neighbour, however much such sentiment is a central part of the gospel; nor do I think it's got much to do with the righteous actions of gentiles meriting salvation. Remember the context: the deadly crisis of Christ's ministry following his entry into Jerusalem and the rejection of his Messianic claims by the Jewish leaders which was accelerating the culmination of the murderous conspiracies against him. Here Jesus is indicating that the manner of his death was likely to be visited in similar manner on his disciples. The virtues of the gentiles are used as a foil to contrast with the failures of the righteous, those who should have recognised God's anointed. In other words the focus is less on who shall be saved than on the judgement against the Jewish goats. (I hasten to add this has nothing to do with anti-semitism).

I am one who sees the passage as being all about how essential it is for us to treat everyone around us with charity, so I find it difficult to see how the "least of these my brothers" can be Jesus referring specifically to his disciples, particularly when he includes the word "least." In Luke 8:21, Jesus explicitly identifies his brothers:

quote:
"My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it."

Why would the disciples be "least?"

And I find it even more difficult to square the interpretation you present with the fact that there is no reference to persecution in any part of the passage, only deprivation that would have been normal experience for the poor. True, it does refer to being in prison, but I see nothing to indicate that it was imprisonment as a form of persecution. What do you see in the text that indicates to you it's about persecution?

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

W Hyatt

quote:
And I find it even more difficult to square the interpretation you present with the fact that there is no reference to persecution in any part of the passage.

The Sheep and Goats passage is the conclusion of a ‘private’ (v 3) discourse which begins at the start of Matthew 24, following Jesus’ prediction of the total destruction of the Temple. I took place on the Mount of Olives, and it seems not unreasonable to suggest the disciples are sat round him as he taught. There are some fierce predictions (v 4-35), in which Inter alia, Jesus warns “you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me (v 9);” and only “ for the sake of the elect those [latter] days will be shortened (v 22)”. The timing of these events is not precisely known but they will take place within the course of the current generation, ‘then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory (v 30).’ It is very strong stuff, so the disciples were urged to be on permanent alert with their lamps trimmed…….The warnings conclude with the judgement of the nations: the separation of the sheep and goats in which the treatment of ‘the least of these my brethren,’ says Jesus to his assembled brothers, is the deciding factor.

W Hyatt

quote:
I am one who sees the passage as being all about how essential it is for us to treat everyone around us with charity, so I find it difficult to see how the "least of these my brothers" can be Jesus referring specifically to his disciples, particularly when he includes the word “least."

If ‘the brothers’ is a reference to suffering humanity in general then do we not have a serious problem, for while it is commended for its charitable sentiments it is not only a denial of salvation by grace, but establishes a mark of works that is unrealisable by just about everybody? Who shall save me, wretched man that I am? For teaching on good works and salvation I, personally, am more reliant on Christ’s teaching in the parables of the Good Samaritan and the traditionally-named Prodigal Son. The Sheep and the Goats is a passage which causes great difficulty for both conservatives and liberals who are not of a very strong Calvinist persuasion.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

W Hyatt

quote:
I am one who sees the passage as being all about how essential it is for us to treat everyone around us with charity, so I find it difficult to see how the "least of these my brothers" can be Jesus referring specifically to his disciples, particularly when he includes the word "least." In Luke 8:21, Jesus explicitly identifies his brothers"My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it."

I think there is a danger in using a definition and use of a word or term in one context and applying it to another, especially when the authors are different.

I would also suggest that Luke’s definition does not in any way help your argument re The Sheep and the Goats. In Luke ‘the brothers’ are those ‘who hear God’s word and put it into practice.’ In your interpretation of the Sheep and Goats passage ‘the brothers’ are the object of charity not the doers.

It furthermore occurs to me that if the reference to brothers in Sheep and Goats is a reference to humanity in general, then ‘the brothers’, whether the greatest or the least, as the recipients or otherwise of charitable acts by others are of no concern for Christ at the last judgement, because it is the doing rather than receiving that is critical. If the ‘least brother’ has failed in charity then he/she will be subject to the torments of hell. The more one looks into the passage the more problematical it becomes.

W Hyatt

quote:
Why would the disciples be "least?"

Because Jesus is referring the 'the least' of the disciples.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
It furthermore occurs to me that if the reference to brothers in Sheep and Goats is a reference to humanity in general, then ‘the brothers’, whether the greatest or the least, as the recipients or otherwise of charitable acts by others are of no concern for Christ at the last judgement, because it is the doing rather than receiving that is critical.

Yes. We will be judged based on what we have done. All of us. And we’ll almost certainly all fail, which is where Grace and forgiveness come in. But I fail to see what’s so controversial about the idea that it’s what we give rather than what we receive that is important to God.

quote:
If the ‘least brother’ has failed in charity then he/she will be subject to the torments of hell.

Yes. There’s no get out clause in Christianity that allows you to be a selfish, hateful bastard so long as you’re poor enough.

(Though I do also note that “from him to whom little has been given, little will be demanded”)

quote:
The more one looks into the passage the more problematical it becomes.

I find it much more problematical when people start interpreting the passage to mean we only have to be charitable towards other Christians.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

As you say Kwesi, this was private, to an audience of twelve men, with no conscious thought to posterity apart from through them. I'm sure that God the Holy Spirit, in His utterly ineffable way, ensured the remembrance and recording of these memorable words decades later, by, from men who were there, in the Church.

We nearly all feel that the Holy Spirit, that the nature of God in Christ, was layering Jesus' words to us, for all time, despite the glaring context of the twelve, of Jesus Himself, an inspired, driven, ignorant man such as you and I, uniquely transcending His culture with sufficient nature of perfect love, despite the glaring historical fulfilment to his listeners, within a couple of decades more of all that He figuratively said.

We still yearn for His words to be to us. Despite the objective fact that they were not, that they are not universal and that where we make them, where we generalize from the twelve disciples, they are not literal either.

But let us say that they were timeless and universal, the warnings that were given to the twelve were apostolically passed on to us. So? They are not literal.

Because none of us has failed the test surely? And all of us have.

[ 26. October 2017, 10:45: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I find it much more problematical when people start interpreting the passage to mean we only have to be charitable towards other Christians.

If Sheep and Goats was all there was, I think it's justifiable to argue that from that particular text. But it can't be used to limit charity, basically because there is a whole lot of other stuff which also has to be taken into account which is much less exclusive about "the way of love".

We don't have to make every passage in the NT non-exclusive about love. Romans 12 (whose written authorship precedes Matthew by most scholars' reckoning) is broad enough in scope and non-exclusive enough about the way of love to provide a very effective counter-balance to any arguments based on any other passage of scripture. Throw 1 Corinthians 13 into the argument (a passage which also pre-dates Matthew and is absolutely unlimited in its interpretation of the way of love) and there really is no contest. Agape love, charity, by its very nature, is non-exclusive.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Martin the Martian

quote:
Yes. We will be judged based on what we have done. All of us. And we’ll almost certainly all fail, which is where Grace and forgiveness come in. But I fail to see what’s so controversial about the idea that it’s what we give rather than what we receive that is important to God.

Will we not be judged on what Christ has done for us? I agree that God is concerned that we should show our love for him through repeated acts of faith and love. Our salvation, however, is not dependent on such actions, rather on our willingness to accept God's unconditional grace, IMO.

Martin the Martian

quote:
I find it much more problematical when people start interpreting the passage to mean we only have to be charitable towards other Christians.

I agree entirely, and I'm not arguing that here.

Barnabus62

quote:
If Sheep and Goats was all there was, I think it's justifiable to argue that from that particular text. But it can't be used to limit charity, basically because there is a whole lot of other stuff which also has to be taken into account which is much less exclusive about "the way of love".

We don't have to make every passage in the NT non-exclusive about love.......................

Could't agree more.

Martin60

quote:
We nearly all feel that the Holy Spirit, that the nature of God in Christ, was layering Jesus' words to us, for all time, despite the glaring context of the twelve, of Jesus Himself, an inspired, driven, ignorant man such as you and I, uniquely transcending His culture with sufficient nature of perfect love, despite the glaring historical fulfilment to his listeners, within a couple of decades more of all that He figuratively said.

We still yearn for His words to be to us. Despite the objective fact that they were not, that they are not universal and that where we make them, where we generalize from the twelve disciples, they are not literal either.

But let us say that they were timeless and universal, the warnings that were given to the twelve were apostolically passed on to us. So? They are not literal.

Because none of us has failed the test surely? And all of us have.

In your more lucid moments, Martin, you have a habit of getting to the point! You say it, here, for me.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Moo:
quote:
leo: Maybe Matthew 25 is talking about non-believers - oi ethnoi.

Moo: AIUI oi ethboi referred to gentiles rather than non-believers.

I find it difficult to make sense of the passage if "ethnoi" in this instance does not include the Jews...But perhaps it does.

In koine generally, ethnoi means 'nations'. Jewish and Christian writers frequently used it to mean 'Gentile'. After looking at the Matthew passage, I agree that in this context it does not mean 'Gentile'. However, AFAIK, it was never used to refer to unbelievers.

Moo

[ 26. October 2017, 11:40: Message edited by: Moo ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Martin the Martian
quote:
Yes. We will be judged based on what we have done. All of us. And we’ll almost certainly all fail, which is where Grace and forgiveness come in. But I fail to see what’s so controversial about the idea that it’s what we give rather than what we receive that is important to God.

Will we not be judged on what Christ has done for us? I agree that God is concerned that we should show our love for him through repeated acts of faith and love. Our salvation, however, is not dependent on such actions, rather on our willingness to accept God's unconditional grace, IMO.

We won't be judged based on what Christ has done for us, no. We will be judged based on what we have done for others. But we will be forgiven based on what Christ has done for us, and that is truly Good News.

Grace doesn't mean our sins are erased, it means they are forgiven. It doesn't mean we are judged to be innocent, it means our sentence is commuted.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Martin the Martian

quote:
We won't be judged based on what Christ has done for us, no. We will be judged based on what we have done for others. But we will be forgiven based on what Christ has done for us, and that is truly Good News.

Grace doesn't mean our sins are erased, it means they are forgiven. It doesn't mean we are judged to be innocent, it means our sentence is commuted.

Not sure I agree with all this, bit I recognise it as a position held by many Christians. I'm not certain if it's appropriate to carry the matter further in the context of this thread, though there may be the case for a thread on the nature of judgement. Perhaps you'd like to start one.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
W Hyatt
quote:
I am one who sees the passage as being all about how essential it is for us to treat everyone around us with charity, so I find it difficult to see how the "least of these my brothers" can be Jesus referring specifically to his disciples, particularly when he includes the word “least."

If ‘the brothers’ is a reference to suffering humanity in general then do we not have a serious problem, for while it is commended for its charitable sentiments it is not only a denial of salvation by grace, but establishes a mark of works that is unrealisable by just about everybody? Who shall save me, wretched man that I am? For teaching on good works and salvation I, personally, am more reliant on Christ’s teaching in the parables of the Good Samaritan and the traditionally-named Prodigal Son. The Sheep and the Goats is a passage which causes great difficulty for both conservatives and liberals who are not of a very strong Calvinist persuasion.

Only if you assume that there are just two possibilities: salvation by faith alone or salvation by merit from good works. Instead, I believe that faith in Christ must be lived through self-compelled obedience before Christ can make it alive and capable of receiving his saving grace. Not because it has anything to do with merit, but because that is precisely how we exercise our spiritual freedom to accept being transformed into something we're not capable of becoming on our own.

We can't achieve perfect obedience and Christ doesn't require it, but that is not at all the same as saying that our salvation has nothing to do with how we live our life. Submitting our thoughts to him in our head does nothing to overcome our natural resistance to being changed. It's only when we also start to submit our words and deeds, our time and our effort that we start to really embrace our faith as something real. To me, Christian faith is believing that Christ's words and actions are true and worthwhile enough that we ought to live by them.

In any case, I still don't see how the text of the parable of the sheep and goats has anything to do with persecution.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Uh huh.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Moo:
quote:
leo: Maybe Matthew 25 is talking about non-believers - oi ethnoi.

Moo: AIUI oi ethboi referred to gentiles rather than non-believers.

I find it difficult to make sense of the passage if "ethnoi" in this instance does not include the Jews...But perhaps it does.
In koine generally, ethnoi means 'nations'. Jewish and Christian writers frequently used it to mean 'Gentile'. After looking at the Matthew passage, I agree that in this context it does not mean 'Gentile'. However, AFAIK, it was never used to refer to unbelievers.

Moo

That's confusing. Then what DOES it mean? Non-Jewish Christians? What are "the nations" here?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What are "the nations" here?

In this context, my guess is that 'the nations' mean all nations, i.e. everyone.

Moo

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What are "the nations" here?
In this context, my guess is that 'the nations' mean all nations, i.e. everyone.

That's comforting, inasmuch as that's what I've always believed it meant here. I never believed the bifurcation into "this judgment for those people and this other judgment for these people."

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Moo:
quote:
leo: Maybe Matthew 25 is talking about non-believers - oi ethnoi.

Moo: AIUI oi ethboi referred to gentiles rather than non-believers.

I find it difficult to make sense of the passage if "ethnoi" in this instance does not include the Jews...But perhaps it does.

The Jews used the term as referring to Gentiles - like the Yiddish 'goyim'.

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

The other argument I have heard is that the judgment passage in Matthew refers to the judgment of the nations, not the judgment of individual persons. This strikes me as eisengesis rather than exegesis.

To throw something into the mix relating to the OP...

The KJV is probably closest to a word-to-word translation of the Greek:

quote:

And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats:

Modern translations change the pronoun 'them', giving something like "he shall separate the people one from another", which conforms to the common view that this is about judging individuals: this person is a sheep, but that person is a goat. But we need to remember that we live in a culture which has become extraordinarily individualised.

However, the Greek has the pronoun, which raises the question as to its antecedent. The straightforward reading is that 'them' refers to 'all nations', and therefore that one 'nation' is a sheep, but another 'nation' is a goat.

That nations should be judged collectively is a concept which is common in the Hebrew Scriptures. For instance, the judgements at the start of Amos, or those in Jeremiah 46ff. Perhaps the clearest connection is in Joel 3:

quote:

In those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, I will gather all nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat.

There I will put them on trial for what they did to my inheritance, my people Israel, because they scattered my people among the nations and divided up my land.

It is generally agreed, I think, that the apocalyptic passages such as this in the synoptic gospels are a mixture of prophecy about the fate of Jerusalem, which came about in AD70, and another, more distant (and disputed) eschatological horizon. This judgement is then linked to OT judgements in that although a nation was the means for judgement on Israel, that nation would itself in the future be judged.

If Matthew was written particularly for Jews, this understanding of the 'parable' has some traction.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Judging nations is a truly repulsive idea.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Moo:
quote:
leo: Maybe Matthew 25 is talking about non-believers - oi ethnoi.

Moo: AIUI oi ethboi referred to gentiles rather than non-believers.

I find it difficult to make sense of the passage if "ethnoi" in this instance does not include the Jews...But perhaps it does.
The Jews used the term as referring to Gentiles - like the Yiddish 'goyim'.

(Jesuit) Donnahue suggests it is gentiles – and how they treat Christians

So Fitzmyer p.23

Strong has non-Jews:

Used elsewhere in Matthew to mean ‘Gentiles’:
4:15, 10:5 , 12:18, 21, 20:19, 25, 43

See also Acts 11:1, Romans 9:30, Galatians 2:8,

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Judging nations is a truly repulsive idea.

Indeed. I am not to blame for what our government is doing to the vulnerable.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Maybe the NT writers had the same argument that we do about faith versus works.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Maybe the NT writers had the same argument that we do about faith versus works.

I've heard Protestants say that Paul was a Protestant. This comes pretty close to that.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I've heard Protestants say that Paul was a Protestant.

Of course. Are his letters plain and easy to understand? How did they get that way except by reading German theology?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I've heard Protestants say that Paul was a Protestant.
Of course. Are his letters plain and easy to understand? How did they get that way except by reading German theology?

And drinking beer.

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

Should this be over in kerygmania?

I only ask for selfish reasons - I'd love to know what NigelM has to say on this but he only seems to post in Keryg...

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Bump!

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I revived this thread because of a tangent started in the thread Philosophy and being good for goodness sake.

Here is a link to the start of the tangent

Link to Sheep and Goats tangent

[ 31. January 2018, 15:47: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind in the Philosophy and being good for goodness sake thread:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
SecondRateMind

I was referencing this scripture

It is fascinating to see that the separation is of people like a shepherd separates sheep and goats. So the text makes it clear that sheep and goats are simply an analogy.
Indeed so.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The rest of the text makes it clear what the reasons for the separation are, and it points to active response to need compared with indifference to need. So in this context 'sheepness' corresponds to active response and 'goatness' to indifference.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So the reasons for separation seem to have little to do with the natural characteristics of sheep as animals. The thing is that when Jesus refers to his followers as sheep and himself as the good shepherd, what he is referencing is the obedience of the sheep to the shepherd, not the natural herd behaviour of sheep. Indeed, elsewhere he points to the helplessness of sheep without a shepherd as an analogy for people.
Maybe, maybe not. Would you contend that the sheep is saved by its works? By succouring the poor, healing the sick, visiting prisoners in gaol, etc? Is works alone what qualifies us for heaven?

It seems to me that this scripture, however analogous, depends for it's effectiveness on the differences in nature of sheep and goats. Their character, their way of being, rather than just their doing or believing.

The one flocks, and wants for leadership. The other pursues a more individual direction, and leads itself, according to its own priorities, ethics and beliefs. They may coincide with those of the sheep; they may not. But who is to say that being a sheep is more representative of God's intention for us, than being a goat? Presumably, having given us free-will, God intended for us to use it, and not have others dictate to us what is 'good', by which the powerful so often mean, what is 'good' for them.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I think what I said earlier about the meaning of disciple (Gr mathetes), both follower and learner has something to say here. Both aspects require both questioning and obedience and both aspects are evidenced in the dialogues between Jesus and the disciples. Trusting, unquestioning, obedience (sheep-like) and a questioning independent mind (goat-like) both have their strengths and weaknesses.

What makes anyone teachable? Trusting obedience may involve missing the real point of doing anything. I don't think that's necessarily part of growing up in Christ and taking responsibility for your own actions. And going your own way when there is guidance to the contrary may just be bloody-mindedness. I speak as a nonconformist here. Been there, done that, learned the hard way.

What we are talking about is relationship with Christ here. Being a bit goaty, a bit independent-minded is fine, provided it's leavened by experience, if it has got us to a place of deeper understanding that we are not always right. There is plenty of non-meekness of the disciples illustrated in the gospels, and Jesus makes good use of it as Teacher.

As I said in the other thread, we are probably all somewhere in between. The real issue is whether we become, increasingly, people who actively respond to need or are indifferent to it. Both obedience and questioning can help us on the road towards unselfish loving.

[ 31. January 2018, 16:36: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

I have to go away for a while; family duties call. But I hope to return to this topic as and when I get back.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Thanks for letting me know. All the best with family duties.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I've heard Protestants say that Paul was a Protestant.
Of course. Are his letters plain and easy to understand? How did they get that way except by reading German theology?
And drinking beer.

A.E. Housman:-

"And malt does more than Milton can/To justify God's ways to man"

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Here is a different take. This story is not about heaven or hell, but how we approach other God and other people. So for us to be God’s sheep, we must depend on Him to defend us. If we push, take, destroy and bully, we are goats.

As I look at all the examples given hungry/food; thirsty/drink; stranger/welcomed; naked/clothed; sick/cared for; imprisoned/visited, there is a certain amount of risk in each example. In a society that was experiencing scarcity to give someone food, meant you might have to skip a meal or two; to give someone who is thirsty something to drink may mean you are shorting what you need. Welcoming a stranger into your home can be very risky even today. Giving clothing to the naked means you have to do without. Caring for someone who is sick exposes you to the illness, and visiting the imprisoned may suggest you are somehow involved in the crime. However, if you trust in God, what matter does it make?

A good example of this was when most of Rome converting to Christianity. Rome had been ravaged by the plague. All those who could get out deserted the city. But the only ones who stayed and took care of the sick were the Christians. That was because they felt they had nothing to fear.

But I do not think this is limited to just Christians or even believers. I know of many humanists who follow this same ethic, sometimes even better than Christians

I really look at this as a parable. A story with a point. Do I think the Son of Man will appear in all his glory? Not in the sense of someone descending from the sky, but in the sense of the one who is hungry; the one who is thirsty; the strange one; the naked one; the sick one and the imprisoned one.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

If we take "ethnoi" here to exclude Christians, then how can he surround himself with a group that has no Christians, and use the demonstrative pronoun "these" when referring to "these my brethren"? I don't see how that can work.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

oi ethnoi simply means all nations. Jesus used the same term in Matthew 28:19 telling his disciples to go out into all nations.

Christians--or Christ-like people--come from all nations.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

"ethnoi"

Paul generally uses it to mean "Gentiles". Matthew also uses it to mean "Gentiles" in some places, but not all.

I quite like the Strong translation of "people group".

More proper to Kerygmania, probably, but I noticed something odd about Matthew 25 40 and 45. Verse 40, addressed to the "sheep" includes "adelphos" brethren (the least of these my brethren). But verse 40, addressed to the "goats" simply says "the least of these".

I suppose you can argue "my brethren" is implied in verse 45.

My perspective is that "ethnoi" (people group), because it is prefaced by "all", probably means Gentiles and Jews in this context; one of those instances in Matthew when ethnoi is used inclusively. I've never known how widely to take "my brethren" but "those who are blessed of my father" clearly includes Gentiles at least. And the text suggests surprise amongst the blessed. It also seems likely to include "some of the least"! Part of Jesus' ethic demonstrates that the least are capable of great faith, and of being generous with what little they have.

My own ethical inclination is to take "the least of these" as widely as possible. After all, how do you know otherwise? In the same way, how do you know who does eventually get counted "among the blessed". I'd argue for a reverent agnosticism on both points. We don't get to say.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0