|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: to whom will God show mercy?
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
God has shown mercy to all and will continue to do so.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lesser Weevil
Apprentice
# 10070
|
Posted
A couple of observations:
This thread seems to weigh heavily toward the image of divine judgment operating like a law court, with a comparison of our actions against a list of prohibited actions. What if, instead, it is an analysis of our total character (a “grokking” of our “being” if I may)? In that case, I’m not evil because I do evil things, and I’m not good because I do good things. Rather, my actions, whether good or evil, flow from my character/being.
And in the same vein, what if the standard used for judgment is not an arbitrary list of prohibited and required actions, but God’s own character? What if that distinction we name “good” and “evil” really is congruent with and flows from something essential in the foundation of Reality?
A separate question, on the status of our good Muslim doctor: is said good doctor “saved” because he is good, or is he good because he is “saved”? May it not be that we see the outworking of God’s saving grace in the lives of the just of all religions?
And finally, a deeper theological question (with lots of previous assumptions attached): If God in mercy saves our good Muslim doctor, who due to cultural and historical situation will not or even cannot make a knowledgeable confession of Christ, does that make it necessary to posit that the good doctor was saved through some means other than Christ’s redeeming work? In other words, is not the basis of human redemption always Christ’s life/death/resurrection, even if an individual cannot yet understand or acknowledge that?
--------------------
In case of dissension, never dare to judge till you've heard the other side.
Euripides, Heraclidae, circa 428 B.C.
Posts: 40 | From: Chicago | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyT:
From Paul Tillich's The Right to Hope at Religion-Online.
From his last paragraph: quote:
Participation in the eternal is not given to the separated individual. It is given to him in unity with all others, with mankind, with everything living, with everything that has being and is rooted in the divine ground of being. All powers of creation are in us, and we are in them.
Sounds like subjugating our individuality to the whole to me.
Is there no way to participate in eternal life as an individual? If not, what does it mean to say we "participate" in it?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
You play Rugby don't you Marvin?
Are you less of an individual when your team all comes together and plays as a team, rather than 15 disparate individuals all trying to please themselves? Or might you be more of an individual, at least as a Rugby player, when that happens?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
No. The bar is that high because that's where the bar is. I can't construct any image of heaven in my mind that doesn't involve people who choose never to sin, and have the power so to choose (as we don't).
It's going to be a pretty empty place then. Or somewhere filled with millions of identical perfection clones. Either way it doesn't exactly appeal...
Why do you assume that perfection equals identity? Why should a perfected GreyFace be a clone of a perfected Marvin the Martian?
quote:
quote:
It isn't, be perfect (or whatever translation you prefer) or God will be so pissed off he'll send you to Hell. It's, be perfect because perfection is the Heavenly state. Being in Heaven without being perfect is either a logical contradiction or a state of affairs that would destroy you or Heaven. Something like that, anyway...
Then none of us will make it intact. Only a shell of what we were, devoid of all character and interest, will remain. We'll be like Winston Smith at the end of 1984 - everything but blind obedience to the Party (God) will have been removed.
As we have according to Christian theology a generally undisputed example of a perfect human in Jesus Christ, are you claiming that he was devoid of all character and interest? That's an interesting position to take.
quote:
Sounds terrible. The only way to be saved is to completely subjugate yourself. To abandon any individuality you once posessed.
The very thought terrifies me. Is there another option?
Are you seriously suggesting that a self-centred ego is the only thing that allows for individuality? Don't the lives of the Saints suggest an enormous variety of goodness in those who have been noted by the Church as significantly sanctified?
I think you've bought into the bullshit about sitting on a cloud playing a harp all day.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
It isn't, be perfect (or whatever translation you prefer) or God will be so pissed off he'll send you to Hell. It's, be perfect because perfection is the Heavenly state. Being in Heaven without being perfect is either a logical contradiction or a state of affairs that would destroy you or Heaven. Something like that, anyway...
Then none of us will make it intact. Only a shell of what we were, devoid of all character and interest, will remain. ...
What we will be devoid of is sin and the consequences of sin.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Are you less of an individual when your team all comes together and plays as a team, rather than 15 disparate individuals all trying to please themselves?
Simple answer: Yes. I put aside what I want to do for the sake of the team.
quote:
Or might you be more of an individual, at least as a Rugby player, when that happens?
Only in the sense that without a team around me I couldn't play at all.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Why do you assume that perfection equals identity? Why should a perfected GreyFace be a clone of a perfected Marvin the Martian?
Well, I figure that if something is truly perfect, then anything which is different is by definition not perfect.
quote:
As we have according to Christian theology a generally undisputed example of a perfect human in Jesus Christ, are you claiming that he was devoid of all character and interest? That's an interesting position to take.
No, He wasn't devoid of those things. Mostly because there were so many different people around at the time to provide a comparison. But if that's perfection, that's what we'll all have to be like to enter heaven.
quote:
Are you seriously suggesting that a self-centred ego is the only thing that allows for individuality? Don't the lives of the Saints suggest an enormous variety of goodness in those who have been noted by the Church as significantly sanctified?
I thought the saints were those who were closest to perfection, not there already. They just have less that needs to be removed before they are perfect.
quote:
I think you've bought into the bullshit about sitting on a cloud playing a harp all day.
As I said, maybe we just have a different idea of what "perfect" means. I just don't see how you can have two different things that are both perfect in the same way...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
You would be judged by God and go to hell
This is for believing in Allah, Buddha or Moses? This is the Christianity I grew up with and it is as nauseating to me now as it was then. Which leads to the question raised by Little Weevil. Do those of other faiths get saved by some mechanism other than Christ? Christianity's exclusive view of itself as a means to salvation is something I'm unable to accept. I believe that Jews, Muslims and Buddhist can find salvation on their own terms.
To me, salvatrion through Christ is about obedience to his commandments. Which are love of God and neighbour and living the golden rule. In this, Jesus was our supreme exemplar. People of other religions are perfectly as capable as Christians in living a life dedicated to those principles. In fact all the world's major religions have their own version of the golden rule. If Christians had spent more time trying to live the religion of Jesus instead of slavishly following a religion about Jesus, the world would have been a nicer place.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is there no way to participate in eternal life as an individual? If not, what does it mean to say we "participate" in it?
I've never asked that question seriously because it never really occurred to me. The reason is that I think we can never really separate ourselves to reach an "individual" state. I could be projecting my own feeling in interpreting Tillich, but it seems to me that's what he is saying. To paraphrase him:
quote:
Participation in the eternal is not given to individuals separately because what is eternal is the whole. The individual cannot literally exist separately; not physically because he is a physical process depending on intakes, and not metaphysically because he is a conscious process that depends on intakes as well. Once intake happens, it is inevitable that the physical will interact with the physical and the metaphysical will interact with the metaphysical.
Ultimately, I would say that if one is a finite individual, brought into being from nothing at x time and dead and gone at y time, with nothing at all around that individual, just existing in a vacuum, that individual would have no participation in the eternal.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Apologies to the Lesser Weevil for getting your name wrong!!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Well, I figure that if something is truly perfect, then anything which is different is by definition not perfect.
Only by a very restrictive definition of "perfect". It is possible to have a definition of "perfect" which allows for multiple different things to all be perfect. If I have a perfect cheese sandwich, it doesn't mean that everything else has to be a cheese sandwich to be perfect.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
It is possible to have a definition of "perfect" which allows for multiple different things to all be perfect. If I have a perfect cheese sandwich, it doesn't mean that everything else has to be a cheese sandwich to be perfect.
But didn't Jesus say, "Ye must be a cheese sandwich, even as our Father who is in Heaven is a cheese sandwich?" I thought all of theology was an argument over which bread and which cheese to become...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I believe that Jews, Muslims and Buddhist can find salvation on their own terms.
How about atheists, secular humanists, Wiccans, Neo-Pagans, existentialists, agnostics, and the members of the Church of Satan, keeping in mind that the "official" Church of Satan in NYC does not condone animal or human sacrifice and conceptualizes of "Satan" only as an archetype of complete freedom apart from any constraint of religious authority?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Surely each of us are to perfect ourselves. Our Father in heaven is perfect. The Blessed Dead are perfect. But St Augustine is not exactly the same as God, neither is St Monica exactly the same as St Augustine. St Augustine's vocation is to become the perfect St Augustine, just as St Monica's vocation is to become the perfect St Monica. God, similarly, is the perfect God. But St Augustine, St Monica and God are each different.
Each of us are, as it were, a separate class. We do not become perfect by becoming identical to an abstract notion of perfection but by becoming more like ourselves. Similarly a perfect beef sandwich and perfect cheese sandwich are both, in their ways, perfect rather than there being one perfect sandwich (ham?) to which cheese and beef can only vainly aspire.
[ETA - this in response to tclune]
[ 25. August 2005, 17:35: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What Callan said is what I meant to say.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Are you less of an individual when your team all comes together and plays as a team, rather than 15 disparate individuals all trying to please themselves?
Simple answer: Yes. I put aside what I want to do for the sake of the team.
Surely what you want to do is win the match (Unless your secret ambition is to spend the game turning cartwheels in the centre circle and you reluctantly forbear for the sake of your team mates.) in which case...
quote:
quote:
Or might you be more of an individual, at least as a Rugby player, when that happens?
Only in the sense that without a team around me I couldn't play at all.
Ta da!
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Originally posted by JimmyT
quote:
How about atheists, secular humanists, Wiccans, Neo-Pagans, existentialists, agnostics, and the members of the Church of Satan, keeping in mind that the "official" Church of Satan in NYC does not condone animal or human sacrifice and conceptualizes of "Satan" only as an archetype of complete freedom apart from any constraint of religious authority?
I'm not suggesting that literally anything goes. I think religions can be salvific as long as they teach the golden rule as their central element. Atheists could certainly choose to live that way and I have little doubt that it is as salvific for them as it is for believers. I don't know much about Wiccans or Satan worshippers, but I can't imagine the latter encouraging their followers to grow in love for all creation.
IMO, any path which leads to that growth in love and progressive sloughing off of the personal acquisitive ego is leading its followers towards God's light whatever it calls itself.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Surely each of us are to perfect ourselves.
Yes yes, but Christianity says that we cannot do this in the sense of reaching the endpoint of perfection does it not? And so, we are never "fit for Heaven" in the afterlife. We must be made perfect by God, and He only gives the final dose of perfection after we've accepted his promise to do this through the atoning work of Christ, which gives us the pattern to almost but not quite reach perfection. Through unmerited grace, we are granted forgiveness for the imperfections if we were striving after the pattern of Christ believing it to be the right pattern. Something like that? That's how I've heard it for these many years. The details being that it's not only a "right pattern" but the "only pattern" and the pattern is the literal words of the Bible, including wearing a hat in church if you're a woman, and only if you obey the commandment to "do this in remembrance of me with a male priest acting in persona Christi" and six billion other requirements that have always looked to me exactly like the Pharisees and the Torah.
And on the "ta da" thing: why didn't I say that?
Exactamundo.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyT:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Surely each of us are to perfect ourselves.
Yes yes, but Christianity says that we cannot do this in the sense of reaching the endpoint of perfection does it not?
It does? Where?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lesser Weevil
Apprentice
# 10070
|
Posted
Callan,
You wrote:
quote:
We do not become perfect by becoming identical to an abstract notion of perfection but by becoming more like ourselves.
Do you mean that we become more like the abstract/ideal (in Plato's sense) image of ourselves?
--------------------
In case of dissension, never dare to judge till you've heard the other side.
Euripides, Heraclidae, circa 428 B.C.
Posts: 40 | From: Chicago | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyT:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Surely each of us are to perfect ourselves.
Yes yes, but Christianity says that we cannot do this in the sense of reaching the endpoint of perfection does it not?
It does? Where?
"Why do you call me good? Don't you know that no-one is good except my Father, who is in Heaven." seems to come pretty close to saying that.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I think religions can be salvific as long as they teach the golden rule as their central element.
The Satanists version is "do unto others as they do unto you" rather than "as you would have them do unto you." A corollary is "if a man smites you on one cheek, smash him on the other." I believe they accept that the other guy can do to them what they do to him, so they might get a bye here.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I don't know much about Wiccans or Satan worshippers, but I can't imagine the latter encouraging their followers to grow in love for all creation.
Well, the Satanists are part way there: they believe very strongly in respect for all life forms and destroy only in symbolic terms. But they only love those who deserve love and believe it is OK to define some people as not worthy of love.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
IMO, any path which leads to that growth in love and progressive sloughing off of the personal acquisitive ego is leading its followers towards God's light whatever it calls itself.
The Satanists fail miserably here I'm afraid. There cardinal rule is "indulgence, not abstinence." They are free to explore all seven deadly Christian sins. Finally they believe that archetypical "Satan's" achetypical "darkness" is the place to find ultimate satisfaction rather than "God's light."
For Satanists though, they don't do as bad as I thought they might. I tell you I was a bit surprised reading about them.
Will God show them mercy and turn them around? Are they an understandable reaction to overly restrictive religious rules, or repulsive, naturally rebellious jerks who refused to be reached?
I actually had a couple of Satanists on my staff. One was a gay got who was given AIDS by someone and it really pissed him off. He joined Satanists and mentally killed the guy over and over in his head to deal with it. The other was a black guy whose Dad was killed in Vietnam when he was a very small child. He was pissed off too--Dad died for the honkies. Both guys had pentagrams for screen savers, which kind of tipped me off. Very, very nice guys until you hit "the thing that pissed them off." Hoo-boy.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyT:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Surely each of us are to perfect ourselves.
Yes yes, but Christianity says that we cannot do this in the sense of reaching the endpoint of perfection does it not?
It does? Where?
"Why do you call me good? Don't you know that no-one is good except my Father, who is in Heaven." seems to come pretty close to saying that.
--Tom Clune
I typed "we cannot attain perfection" into Google and got this quote, which is typical of what I have heard in all strains of Christianity so far in my life.
quote:
Paul met with the various challenges in his ministry he recognised that humanity cannot attain perfection. We can strive for it, but we cannot attain perfection. He and we therefore ought to be engaged in an ongoing pursuit. Only by sharing in Christ's suffering and living in the tension of the "not yet" can we hope to participate in the glorious Resurrection.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
So Adolf Hitler calls out: "Oh Jesus Christ, save me!" and goes to Paradise. Whereas a merciful, god-fearing, blameless Muslim doctor, who can't bring him/herself to say the words goes to Hell? I don't think so.
As someone on the 'demon' thread said, I think we just have to trust that there will be a perfect resolution of these issues.
Or to put it another way:
So a crucified thief calls out: "Oh Jesus Christ, save me!" and goes to Paradise. Whereas a merciful, god-fearing, blameless Jewish pharisee, who can't bring him/herself to say the words goes to Hell? I don't think so.
It seems to me that eternal life has a lot to do with your opinion of Jesus Christ and not your own (or another's) opinion of your own blamelessness.
Can anyone be described as blameless whose sins are not forgiven at the cross?
I don't think so.
Jesus: There is salvation in no other name.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
You would be judged by God and go to hell
This is for believing in Allah, Buddha or Moses? This is the Christianity I grew up with and it is as nauseating to me now as it was then. Which leads to the question raised by Little Weevil. Do those of other faiths get saved by some mechanism other than Christ? Christianity's exclusive view of itself as a means to salvation is something I'm unable to accept. I believe that Jews, Muslims and Buddhist can find salvation on their own terms.
To me, salvatrion through Christ is about obedience to his commandments. Which are love of God and neighbour and living the golden rule. In this, Jesus was our supreme exemplar. People of other religions are perfectly as capable as Christians in living a life dedicated to those principles. In fact all the world's major religions have their own version of the golden rule. If Christians had spent more time trying to live the religion of Jesus instead of slavishly following a religion about Jesus, the world would have been a nicer place.
Hmmm, that last sentence.
Jesus didn't come to 'live a religion'.
He came to die.
Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
I would like to know on what basis the members of other religions feel they are saved/forgiven.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by JimmyT:
quote:
Yes yes, but Christianity says that we cannot do this in the sense of reaching the endpoint of perfection does it not? And so, we are never "fit for Heaven" in the afterlife. We must be made perfect by God, and He only gives the final dose of perfection after we've accepted his promise to do this through the atoning work of Christ, which gives us the pattern to almost but not quite reach perfection. Through unmerited grace, we are granted forgiveness for the imperfections if we were striving after the pattern of Christ believing it to be the right pattern. Something like that? That's how I've heard it for these many years. The details being that it's not only a "right pattern" but the "only pattern" and the pattern is the literal words of the Bible, including wearing a hat in church if you're a woman, and only if you obey the commandment to "do this in remembrance of me with a male priest acting in persona Christi" and six billion other requirements that have always looked to me exactly like the Pharisees and the Torah.
Well, Aquinas said that we would require grace to attain beatitude even if we had not fallen because we are natural creatures oriented to a supernatural end or, to look at it another way, because if God contains every perfection within himself it is not as if we can cut a deal on the basis of our own merits.
I suppose the thing to remember is that 'God is love' or in more dogmatic terms, as a Trinity formed of Father, Son and Holy Spirit he is, within Himself, koinonia or community. So ultimately one must relate to God as he is and not through slogans. So not all who say "Lord, Lord" will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but there are those at the last judgement who will ask "when did we feed you Lord, or when did we encounter you naked, or sick, or in prison" and will be told "when ever you did it for the least of these, you did it for me".
The point of the six billion other requirements (bit of an exaggeration there, Jimmy?) is to bring before us and sustain us in that relationship. But they are not, IMV, necessary for salvation. The saints of the OT who never came near a valid sacrament in their lives were better and holier people than, say, Pope Alexander VI.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If Christians had spent more time trying to live the religion of Jesus instead of slavishly following a religion about Jesus, the world would have been a nicer place.
Amen.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Jesus didn't come to 'live a religion'.
He came to die.
Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Depends what you mean by "the shedding of blood." I believe it means the struggle against evil, and the willingness to sacrifice our own will in favor of God's will. That is what Jesus did, and this is His victory.
Jesus did say that He came to "give His life a ransom for many" (Matthew 20.28). But He also said:
quote:
For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. John 18.37
The truth, or the light, was Jesus' means for overcoming sin. We give up our lives, or shed our blood, in order to follow Jesus' teachings to a new life. For
quote:
Wwhoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. Matthew 16:25
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would like to know on what basis the members of other religions feel they are saved/forgiven.
Obedience to Jesus. He said:
quote:
Matthew 7:21 Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
Matthew 25:40 And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did [it] to one of the least of these My brethren, you did [it] to Me.'
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
John 14:24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.
John 15:10 "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.
Jesus does not teach faith alone, so faith alone can't be the basis of forgiveness or salvation.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
It seems like most of the posts on this thread have accepted as an axiom that God's relationship to us is that of Judge to Accused. If that's true, then asking exactly what we've been accused of, what laws or rules we've broken, and whether there are any extenuating circumstances, and what punishment is appropriate, and what the purpose of the punishment ought to be, and how long it should last -- all of that makes sense.
As long as God's relationship with us is that of Judge to Accused.
But I don't think it is. In fact, I think it is absolutely the wrong way of looking at it. It is so wrong that any answers you get using that as an axiom are wrong. Even if you stumble on the right answer part of the time, it's still the wrong answer, because you were basing it on incorrect axioms. It's like doing math in base 8 instead of base 10 -- 2+2=4 is still true, but 6+6 does not equal 12. And if you don't understand what base you're supposed to be doing math in, you won't know why your answer is wrong, or how to get to the right answer.
God's relationship to us is like a physician to a patient. We're sick. In fact, we're suffering from a degenerative condition that is going to kill us. And he is able and willing to cure us. But he's not going to impose the cure on us against our will. If we were diabetics, he wouldn't put us in restraints in order to give us our insulin injections. But he has them for us, and will give them to us if we let him, and teach us to do it for ourselves, and support us while we learn.
Sin is not a rule that we break. Sin is the disease that's killing us. When God tells us, "Don't murder, don't steal, don't commit adultery," he's not giving us rules to trip us up. He's like a doctor telling someone with high cholesterol, "Don't eat lots of fatty foods," or someone with a bad liver, "Don't drink alcohol."
Obviously, if you'll come to the physician, keep your regular appointments, follow his instructions, you'll be healthier sooner. But what if you can't get to his clinic? Or what if you've been told that the medicine he offers is a fraud, so you stay away? Is he going to willingly let you die?
No, of course not. Doctors know that people who won't go see a doctor to get their blood pressure checked and get a prescription for medication can do a lot by managing their diet and getting enough exercise. It would be better if they were under a doctor's care. But the exercise doesn't cease to be effective just because they haven't seen the doctor. So doctors support education and public health measures to help people who can't or won't come see them.
And God does the same. He is not willing to let any of his patients die. He wants to heal all of us, and he will do everything we will let him do to make sure that happens.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
God's relationship to us is like a physician to a patient.
Why then is there not a Final Healing instead of a Final Judgment?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
I would like to know on what basis the members of other religions feel they are saved/forgiven .
Freddy said by following the commandments of Jesus. I agree with him, but also by following the precepts taught by Moses of the Buddha which include versions of the golden rule. In other words by following the moral requirements of that faith. I don't include in that unblanaced elements within Islam which promise a paradise full of virgins to suicide bombers. I mean morality which teaches love of God and neighbour. After all, Jesus said that entry to the kingdom came from a correct following of Deuteronomy 6.4 and Leviticus 19.18. (Mark 12.28-34)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
In other words by following the moral requirements of that faith. I don't include in that unblanaced elements within Islam which promise a paradise full of virgins to suicide bombers.
There seems to be an element of pick and choose here. What gives you the right to determine that a religion is 'unbalanced'? These people to whom you are referring are doing so in full sincerity and with complete faith that what they are doing is the right thing. What gives you the right to judge that they are wrong?
Josephine, I think JimmyT's question is a good one, and I would also like to know what makes you think your view is right and the other view you described is wrong? Again, I sense an element of judgementalism here that seems out of kilter with your desire to leave room for other views.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Freddy said by following the commandments of Jesus. I agree with him, but also by following the precepts taught by Moses of the Buddha which include versions of the golden rule. In other words by following the moral requirements of that faith. I don't include in that unblanaced elements within Islam which promise a paradise full of virgins to suicide bombers. I mean morality which teaches love of God and neighbour. After all, Jesus said that entry to the kingdom came from a correct following of Deuteronomy 6.4 and Leviticus 19.18. (Mark 12.28-34)
I agree with this also. Insofar as many religions have teachings that are consistent with Christianity, obedience to those teachings leads to salvation.
Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life because He is God. No one comes to the Father except by Him. Whatever is consistent with the Truth that He taught, or the Word of God that He is, is what brings people to the Father. Whatever is inconsistent leads people away from the Father.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can anyone be described as blameless whose sins are not forgiven at the cross?
Is there anybody whose sins are not forgiven at the cross? But don't take my word for it:
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
<big snip>
Sounds terrible. The only way to be saved is to completely subjugate yourself. To abandon any individuality you once posessed.
The very thought terrifies me. Is there another option?
I reckon JimmyT's option has got quite a lot going for it, Marvin. I reckon GreyFace over-egged the pudding (in the snipped bits>.
It really doesn't seem to me that we're asked to surrender out individuality, just take on board our self-centred individualism. Just recognise that our tendencies to selfishness are actually pretty harmful to ourselves and others (Thomas a Kempis said something very like that) and get some help with them. Once we see that, it looks like a pretty decent moral imperative. Come to think of it, it does have overtones of the Categorical Imperative.
But the rub is, it isn't very easy to do without help. Blast, there goes some of my individualism! So annoying.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
I would like to know on what basis the members of other religions feel they are saved/forgiven .
Freddy said by following the commandments of Jesus. I agree with him, but also by following the precepts taught by Moses of the Buddha which include versions of the golden rule. In other words by following the moral requirements of that faith. I don't include in that unblanaced elements within Islam which promise a paradise full of virgins to suicide bombers. I mean morality which teaches love of God and neighbour. After all, Jesus said that entry to the kingdom came from a correct following of Deuteronomy 6.4 and Leviticus 19.18. (Mark 12.28-34)
OK, I concur with that. When Jesus spoke to the rich young ruler, his answer to what must I do to inherit eternal life was to say that he must keep the commandments. But...
Paul tells us that it's impossible to keep the Law adequately in order to attain eternal life.
Romans 3 v 20
"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather through the law we become conscious of sin."
And James - who majors on works as well as faith - says:
"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." 2 v 10
Jesus said that the righteousness of the disciple must exceed that of the Pharisee. My goodness! How could anyone be more punctilious (great word eh?) than those guys? The entire sermon on the mount is, IMHO, an impossible ethic. Jesus gave it to do one thing. As Paul said, to show us how foolish it is to believe we can act good enough to get right with God. Jesus knew that my giving us impossible demands we would have to throw ourselves on grace and mercy. There is no way that I can get to heaven by pulling myself up by my shoelaces. It is by grace through faith I am saved - and my Christian lifestyle must then be worked out, proved, validated, by good works.
As far as following Buddha, Moses, Mohammed, Ghandi - any religious leader: fine.
A lot of what they say is good 'spirituality'. much of what they sa is true, valid and helpful.
It has wisdom, it has devotional value.
But It will not save.
And that's the bottom line.
What is the basis of salvation - not spirituality, not faith or religion, not golden rules or holistic welfare; not sense of worth, purpose or 'light' - but forgiveness of sins.
In other religions, under what basis does 'god' forgive sins?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can anyone be described as blameless whose sins are not forgiven at the cross?
Is there anybody whose sins are not forgiven at the cross? But don't take my word for it:
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)
I am not a Calvinist. I do not believe in limited atonement - ie that Jesus died to save those he had predestined to save.
I am a Wesleyan, which is not as wishy-washy and person-centred as Arminianism, relying as it does on prevenient grace. I believe that Jesus has made atonement for the whole world that 'whosoever will may be saved.'
That makes me not a universalist. If I was, I would believe that unlimited atonement automatically saves everyone because he died for the whole world. But that position is as bad as predestiantion because it rules out choice, free-will, and the integrity of the individual.
If predestination is horrible becuase it forces people into hell, then universalism (though kinder) is wrong because it forces everyone (even non-believers) into heaven.
Yes, there is a heaven for everyone; but it wouldn't be heaven if everyone went there regardless of righteousness or otherwise.
Can there be eternal life without repentance and faith?
Or sacraments?
IMHO, I think not.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Oh, no! I hate to seem a closet supporter of the Orthodox Plot(tm), but as usual ISTM Josephene has it spot on! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
In answer to your question, quote:
Why then is there not a Final Healing instead of a Final Judgment?
, JimmyT, it is precisely because IMHO we misunderstand the word "judgement", that we tie ourselves into these knots. If I might self-quote from another thread quote:
The word judgement is somewhat problematic, because, when used in a religious context, it is so tied up in our minds with punishment. In fact in secular legal terms, judgement is the revealing of the mind of the judge, the basis upon which s/he makes his or her decision. So I would see God's judgement as the declaration of His mind on all things. I don't think it is necessarily to do with harps or toasting forks.
I see nothing in the use of the word judgement that excludes the view that salvation is about healing, not reward or punishment, whether for our works or for our doctrine.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Mudfrog: quote:
What is the basis of salvation - not spirituality, not faith or religion, not golden rules or holistic welfare; not sense of worth, purpose or 'light' - but forgiveness of sins.
In other religions, under what basis does 'god' forgive sins?
Surely the basis of salvation is grace! Our sins are not the problem; As Mousethief pointed out quote:
Is there anybody whose sins are not forgiven at the cross? But don't take my word for it:
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)
. The problem is not our sins, but our sin. We can be forgiven our sins. That doesn't mean we are no longer sinners. To be freed from the power of sin, as Paul put it, that is the work of the atonement. But it has nothing to do with punishment.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Tentatively therefore, I propose that judgement might be about whether we actually want this and are prepared to do anything about it - which way are we heading, towards God and Heaven or away from them? The problems of faith versus works and Amazon tribes go away if this is true, and we can see that the practical teachings of mainstream Christian denominations are geared towards this. Detailed Catholic doctrine on sin with its system of confession and repentance is designed to orient the creature towards God and hasten deification. Protestant soteriology still emphasises that faith without works is dead - thus sanctification must proceed inevitably from justification.
This is roughly what I believe.
I remember a liberal stereotype from somewhere: "Ah, but it all depends on what you mean by Jesus Christ." So here goes: it all depends on what you mean by Jesus Christ.
Jesus is God, and classical theology seems to assume an identity between God and goodness. So it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest a sort of nebulous "faith in goodness" as an implicit faith in Christ, and conclude that a good Muslim may be saved. Not by following the precepts of Islam, but by his evident desire for the sort of things Christ stands for.
Or to work it from the other side: St James said that faith without deeds is dead. Observational evidence suggests the good Christian does the same sort of good deeds as the good Muslim. Therefore, they have the same sort of faith.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gauk
Shipmate
# 1125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
If people sin against me I can forgive them without ANY shedding of blood. If you say that God can't do this, that means that I can do something that God can't, which seems a little strange.
--------------------
Now the Sirens have a still more fatal weapon than their song, namely their silence ... it is conceivable that someone might possibly have escaped from their singing; but from their silence certainly never.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
And that's the bottom line.
What is the basis of salvation - not spirituality, not faith or religion, not golden rules or holistic welfare; not sense of worth, purpose or 'light' - but forgiveness of sins.
In other religions, under what basis does 'god' forgive sins?
Well if your a Buddhist you wouldn't believe that God has to forgive your sins, but that you need to get out of the wrong ways of thinking which make you sin. A Jew believes that any sin can be immediately forgiven by petitioning God for mercy. But there'ssomething we need to understand about the Law and its place in salvation.
It is a misunderstanding to which legalism easily fall prey that anyone is saved by the Law. Any Jews who have believed that have been led astray. Just as misunderstanding salvation by grace and faith wrongfully leads to a belief that there's no point trying to be good because its impossible and we're saved anyway.
Salvation OT style, though it didn't mean quite the same as it does to Hellenised Christianity, comes from belonging to God's covenant. It is therefore pure grace. As a measure of gratitude towards God, it is incumbent of members of His covenant to do His will to show themselves as a people seat apart for God. But God knows that they can't perfectly keep His laws and wants them to seek His mercy whenever they "displease" Him by sinning. To which He responds like a loving Father and restores them in His image. That is a perfectly rational approach and basis for God forgiving our sins.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I am not a Calvinist. I do not believe in limited atonement - ie that Jesus died to save those he had predestined to save.
Look, you asked a question and I answered it. Don't blame me if you asked it poorly, or asked the wrong question.
[ 26. August 2005, 13:33: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Paul tells us that it's impossible to keep the Law adequately in order to attain eternal life.
Romans 3 v 20
"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather through the law we become conscious of sin."
Paul was speaking of the ceremonial Jewish laws, such as sacrifice and washing, not about the Ten Commandments. The "rather" there, should be a "for."
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And James - who majors on works as well as faith - says:
"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." 2 v 10
This is an absurd understanding of James' point, which is derived from Jesus words:
quote:
Matthew 5:19 "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches [them,] he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
I agree that it is often said in the church that no one can fulfill the law, since whosoever offends against one commandment of the Decalogue, offends against all of them.
This form of speaking, however, is not the way that it sounds.
It ought to be understood as follows: that anyone who from purpose or from confirmation acts against one commandment, acts against all the rest. The reason is that to act from purpose or from confirmation is to deny altogether that it is a sin. Someone who denies that it is a sin, makes light of acting against all the rest of the commandments.
Everyone knows that a fornicator is not therefore a murderer, a thief, or a false witness, nor even wants to be such. But a person who is an adulterer from purpose and confirmation, makes light of all things relating to religion, and consequently pays no regard to murders, thefts, and false witness, not abstaining from them because they are sins, but for fear of the law or loss of reputation.
The case is similar, if anyone from purpose or confirmation acts against any other commandment of the Decalogue. He does then also offend against the rest, because he does not account anything a sin.
At the same time, the case is the same in the opposite situation, that is, with people who desire to do what is right from the Lord. These, if from the will and understanding, or from purpose and confirmation, abstain from one evil because it is a sin, abstain from all. This is even more true if they abstain from many.
For whenever anyone abstains, from purpose and confirmation, from any evil, because it is a sin, he is kept by the Lord in the purpose of abstaining from the rest. Wherefore if through ignorance, or any predominant lust of the body, he does an evil, it nevertheless is not imputed to him, because he did not intend it, nor confirm it with himself.
So that understanding of James is just not right. The Gospels teach everywhere that you can't be saved without obedience to God.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
In fact in secular legal terms, judgement is the revealing of the mind of the judge, the basis upon which s/he makes his or her decision. So I would see God's judgement as the declaration of His mind on all things.
See, there's one teeny tiny problem here Jolly Jape. In secular legal terms, once the judge "reveals his/her mind," not everyone gets to get up and leave. The innocent and the spectators get to walk out. The guilty have to take their punishment and big guys with guns slap handcuffs on them to take them where they are going for punishment. They don't get to say, "The judge was an idiot, I'm leaving with everybody else. Thanks for declaring your mind, judge. Real interesting stuff. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) Can you people believe this crap?"
If God does nothing but declare His mind on all things at some point, and that's all there is to Final Judgment of the Living and The Dead, there is neither healing nor judgment. There is only hot air.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyT:
See, there's one teeny tiny problem here Jolly Jape. In secular legal terms, once the judge "reveals his/her mind," not everyone gets to get up and leave.
The problem, of course, is that you're insisting that "judgment" be understood in secular legal terms. I simply don't believe that's the correct way to see it.
Rather, as I said before, if you're going to use a secular analogy, the correct analogy is medical. When you, or someone you love, is suffering from a complex or serious disorder, you will do anything you can do to find a doctor whose judgment you trust. When the doctor gives his judgment, he does not slap handcuffs on you or lead you away to punishment. Rather, he figures out exactly what is wrong with you, and what you need to do to be relieved of your current suffering, or to prevent future suffering.
Because the same symptoms can have many different root causes, whose judgment is trustworthy. If you've got a baby with a horrific diaper rash, it makes a difference whether that rash is caused by irritation from wet diapers, allergic dermatitis from the perfumes in the laundry soap, or a fungal infection. You want the doctor to offer his judgment, that is, to make the appropriate diagnosis and prescribe the appropriate treatment, based on his knowledge, experience, and wisdom. You don't take the infant to the doctor so he can punish the little one.
That's not what the doctor's judgment is for. And it's not what God's judgment is for, either.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
I left words out of the first sentence of the third paragraph, then missed the edit window.
It will make more sense if you read it as follows:
Because the same symptoms can have many different root causes, you need a doctor whose judgment is trustworthy.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And James - who majors on works as well as faith - says:
"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." 2 v 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an absurd understanding of James' point, which is derived from Jesus words:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 5:19 "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches [them,] he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry, but I don't see that I actually gave an understanding of James' point. I quoted directly from Scripture.
NIV
"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." 2 v 10
GNB
"Whoever breaks one commandment is guilty of breaking them all."
Jerusalem Bible
"You see, if a man keeps the whole of the Law, except for one small point at which he fails, he is still guilty of breaking it all."
JB Phillips
"Remember that a man who keeps the whole Law but for a single exception is none the less a law-breaker."
Jewish New Testament
"For a person who keeps the whole Torah, yet stumbles at one point, has become guilty of breaking them all."
New English Bible
For if a man keeps the whole law apart from one single point, he is guilty of breaking all of it."
KJV
"For whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."
I think it says it all. It's plain and simple.
There is no one who can possibly keep the entire law and so be declared blameless and therefore be saved by law-keeping.
Please, I would be interested if you could expound on this verse without discounting it or changing it's plain meaning. Don't read it in the light of your doctrine, just read it as it stands and tell me what it means.
You cannot get plainer than what it says.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
The problem, of course, is that you're insisting that "judgment" be understood in secular legal terms. I simply don't believe that's the correct way to see it.
I never insisted on secular legal terms; Jolly Jape set up her analogy that way and I went with it. Take a look at the first phrase in the quote at the beginning of my post.
So you want to return to the doctor's office analogy.
1. Why doesn't God heal us permanently now? Why do we need to limp around in this life until the Final Healing of the next?
2. If our children show the first signs of rejection of God, why don't we kill them and send them to God for healing? If they keep sinning, they might become so hardened that they will reject God for eternity. We take our kids in for shots even if they are screaming and say "NO!" Further, you said there are no rules, only sickness and advice. So kill the child and send them to the Great Physician.
Indeed, if Heaven is where we will be well because there will be no more sickness of any kind, and if we are all sick now because sin has not been eliminated from the universe, why don't we all kill ourselves and wait for our Final Healing? I can't see the function or purpose of a protracted period of disease. If there are no rules, why should we force ourselves to put up with it, or why should God force us to put up with it?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
