Why did you quote me Paul’s reference to a “test” if you aren’t prepared to discuss it?
Well, since you don’t want to finish what you started, I will have to guess at what you believe about the “test”.
If you pass the “test” - say, one week after you become a believer - Jesus sends you your irrevocable ticket to Heaven. Is that correct? If so, that would mean that, if later on in life, you don’t pass the test, you still get to keep your ticket to Heaven, wouldn’t it?
Even from the point of view of common sense, that doesn’t make any sense - why should you get your ticket to Heaven for initially passing the test, but failing the test later on?
It also doesn’t make sense scripturally: For example, Paul considered the road to eternal life as a “race”, and he did not consider that “race” finished until just before his death (2Tim 4:6-8) – meaning Paul considered the “race” to be last his entire life and finishes only at death. He also urged believers to run their “race” with “perseverance” (Heb 12:1), which makes sense only if they need to finish the “race”. And Paul believed that even he could be “disqualified” from the “race” (1Cor 9:27), which again, makes sense only if he believed he needed to finish the “race”. Matt 42:13 says, those who “endure to the end will be saved”.
Because I have already talked about it extensively. We are to test ourselves against the laws of love, and to examine our hearts to see what they really desire.
I will not answer any more questions until you have reread all of my posts in this thread.
A more apt metaphor than your “ticket to heaven” and one that is more biblically supported would be that of an adoption certificate. And not just any adoption certificate – one that is personally signed by a loving adoptive Father, indelibly and irrevocably.
About testing ourselves, I don’t know why you inferred it was a one time thing. We need to have tender consciences that are informed, among other things. The ‘test’ is a continuing one, not unlike being aware of the speed limit and looking at the speedometer. If you don’t care about the speed limit and you are not watching the speedometer (or willfully disobeying the speed limit), you are not passing the test and are you are on the broad road leading to destruction and not heading toward the narrow gate, to mix two wayfaring metaphors. Keep in mind that speed limits themselves are laws of love, as are many if not most civil laws, so the metaphor is not totally an abstraction, and we are talking about ‘works’ and ‘deeds’, not just faith. So testing our deeds (including the behaviors of our minds) is important. We are saved by works, if you will (and I know you will ), because we have to be on the right road… by faith.
Again, tax collectors were widely seen as cheats and frauds. So by paying 4 times the amount Zaccheus would have nothing left.
Yes he did walk away from salvation. He was asking about eternal life and Jesus told him to sell everything. You are amazing, btw. You represent typical evangelical Christians who are fighting tooth and nail passages they don’t like.
No way someone could be rich and follow Jesus who clearly said ”woe to you who are rich”.
What you are doing is very similar to how LGBTQ Christians looks at Scripture.
To Jesus, being perfect and saves are synonyms.
Why would the rich young man walk away sad if he could be saved, the very thing he was seeking, and keep his wealth? Your explanation makes no sense of the text but you need it to work for obvious reasons. Well, it doesn’t work.
Matthew absolutely preaches works salvation. Look at Matthew 25 about sheep and goats. You are saved by what you do, not by what you believe. Sermon on the Mount is where Jesus said: “be perfect as Heavenly Father is perfect “.
Make it even more interesting … Here’s an anecdote from an Internal Revenue Agent training class I attended in my early days as a new I.R.S. employee:
An I.R.S. agent was assigned the 1040 tax return of a fellow who had deducted a substantial amount of cash donations to his church, which happened to be a hefty portion of his net income.
Auditing the taxpayer’s paper records documenting the donation, the agent confirmed that the taxpayer had checks drawn on his personal bank account, totaling the claimed deduction amount, made payable to and deposited in his bona-fide church’s bank account: all checks appeared to be in order and seemed to be legal donations.
Exercising due diligence, the agent approached the church’s pastor and inquired whether or not the taxpayer was a member of the church and his function(s) in the church. The pastor reported that the individual in question was the most esteemed member of the church: an elder, a bible-study teacher, a role model for all, … ready to serve in any capacity at any time, … even as head usher.
“Head usher??? What’s that?” asked the agent. "The person who trains new ushers, who is available to serve as an usher if a scheduled usher doesn’t show up, who oversees the collection and count of the offerings; and who deposits the offerings in the bank.
The agent’s further investigation confirmed that the total offerings received in the church were, in fact, timely deposited … in the taxpayer’s bank account and a check was written that transferred the funds from the taxpayer’s account into the church’s account.
The taxpayer had claimed a deduction for the church’s total offerings received on his tax return, and had the checks “to prove” it. No money was stolen … from the church.
It’s a little difficult to put a ‘like’ on that. But it does exemplify someone who has not been testing themselves (honestly, anyway) and who should have serious doubts about the legitimacy of their adoption!
It wasn’t about wealth, it was about looking for guarantees. The problem with your interpretation is that it doesn’t jibe with how the disciples understood what Jesus was saying. When the disciples heard this they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” Were the disciples rich? Were most of the people in Israel rich? Of course not. So why wasn’t their reaction one of, “it is a good thing all of us are poor.” But that is not what they said. And how did Jesus answer the question the disciples asked? He said, “with men this is impossible.” And here we see why the man went away disappointed. The guarantee the man was looking for was impossible. There is no enough. There is no way of “getting it done.” Not by obeying the commandments and not by giving everything you have away. “With men this is impossible.”
Jesus and Paul both taught a gospel of salvation by the grace of God. Not by what you do, nor by what you believe.
This is only one of many such anecdotes and if you take them as absolute in the way you do here, then they will contradict each other. So what is given here is not some absolute rule by which people will be saved. The point of the anecdote is that salvation is about a personal relationship with God and yes that relationship is not what many of the religious might think. It is not about regular attendance at church or praying a lot because God will see our relationship with other people as part of and representing our relationship with Him. So you are only correct to the degree that you cannot say what you do has no bearing on salvation. But to say that Jesus is teaching salvation by works is even more incorrect. What we hear Jesus asking of people over and over again is faith, which is part of a gospel of salvation by the grace of God. But you are correct in saying that faith doesn’t mean the belief in some set of religious dogmas. Nothing Jesus says supports that idea. Faith is indeed very much about doing what is good and right, but not because it will earn you anything, but for its own sake, because it is good and right. Without that, any claim to faith is nothing but empty words.
Perhaps the disciples realized that they had to give up even the little that they did have? Look, you will find no teaching of Jesus where Jesus would say… “it’s okay to be rich”, or “you don’t have to forsake your possessions”. No, Jesus is teaching the opposite. Woe to the rich. Jesus demands forsaking of possessions. He says that one must be absolutely perfect, just as God in heaven is perfect.
What does it mean? Well, here is where interpretation comes in but the problem with interpretation is that it’s not inspired. Everyone has their own. You want to harmonize Paul and Jesus, what’s stopping you? You are free to your opinion but in the process you will be creating yet another Gospel, where Jesus just happens to allign with Paul.
What I find very curious is how typical Christians have absolutely no problems with twisting a text that is otherwise inconvenient.
Imagine the outcry if someone were to say… “God is hate”. Oh no, you’d hear, this is clearly false. “God is LOVE”
Imagine the outcry if someone were to say “Jesus doesn’t want you to believe”, they’d say “Jesus was talking about faith and belief a whole lot”.
But when it comes to Luke 14:33, you can twist. You can say…“Jesus doesn’t want you to forsake any of your possessions” and there will be no outcry.
When it comes to Matthew 5, you can also twist. You can say… “Jesus doesn’t mind if you resist an evil doer”. There won’t be an outcry because some of Jesus’ teachings would really mess with people’s lives if they followed them.
Disagree. Matthew 25 is clearly teaching that salvation is by works. Regardless of faith.
Jesus told people that to enter life, they need to keep the commandments. Jesus did not come to abolish the Law (of Moses). Where as Paul said that Christ DID abolish the law. Paul did say that salvation is by faith apart from works. Not the same.
I beg to differ. We hear Jesus teaching a salvation by works. Repent was the start of Jesus’ message, same message as John the Baptist preached. Jesus was absolutely talking about salvation by works. Perhaps John’s Gospel can be used to teach a salvation by faith, but even that Gospel has works woven into it.
John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.
Also, I think John’s Gospel is clearly different from the earlier Synoptic Gospels and the theologies, including theology of salvation is different.
…is about the heart, its desires and motivations and will, at the essence of our being. Works, behaviors, matter matter a lot, but they are not what repentance is about. It is in no way a salvation by works.
So you say. But, as I’ve said, this was also John the Baptist’s message and he was about works.
Luke 3:7 John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 9 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”
10 “What should we do then?” the crowd asked.
11 John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”
12 Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”
13 “Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them.
14 Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?”
He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”
I don’t think John even mentioned “faith” or “belief”
You seemed to have overlooked that part. Fruit is works, repentance is heart. That latter comes first, logically and chronologically. And ‘belief’ is implicit. Why else would you repent?
It is not talking about a mere verbal or intellectual consent, either. Justification and salvation are used synonymously there… it is not excluding those who are speech-impaired or mute.
This is where the concept of “buy one, get one free” comes from. You are really buying both. Salvation where repentance is required is absolutely based on works. As you said, it’s not a mere verbal or intellectual consent. Works are required. And without these works, there is no salvation. But that sounds meritorious (because it is), so there is a mental gymnastics game that is required where by you can say salvation is a gift, apart from works, but works will inevitably follow a genuine salvation such that if there are insufficient works, then salvation likely has not happened.
I grew up in a church that taught that salvation can be lost. On the other hand, Calvinists believe that genuine salvation cannot be lost. However, practically these two systems are no different, because believer continues to worry about their salvation. In the “salvation can be lost” camp, believer worries that their sin makes them lose their salvation, in the “salvation cannot be lost” camp, a believer is worried their works are insufficient to show whether their faith is genuine.
That is not what I said. You are inferring something additional that is external. It is a change in the heart first that is required. If the repentant thief on the cross had not had a chance to say anything further like he did in defense of Jesus, his heart was already repentant and Jesus would still have said the same thing.
There is a distinction to be made between behaviors of the brain, i.e., verbal and intellectual assent, and the attitude of the the heart, i.e., humility and repentance.
Something else you are overlooking, from back quite a while above (and repeated at least once):
There are also a couple of posts about the Christians’ sure hope (not just wishful thinking… “I sure hope Mommy and Daddy take us to Disneyland for vacation.”).
Arguing with an atheist about the Bible is an exercise in absurd futility. They have no interest in making sense of the Bible, but the exact opposite of pushing the silliest reading of the text as possible. But it is no more than a strawman tactic serving no purpose.
When the disciples asked in Matthew 19 “who then can be saved,” Jesus did not say, “those who give up all their possessions,” nor did he say, “those who fed, gave drink, and clothed every stranger, and those who visited all the sick and imprisoned.” Jesus said no such thing. He said, “with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” This is the gospel of salvation by the grace of God taught by Jesus. No it does not mean that what we do doesn’t matter. Jesus never taught any such thing as that. But nor did Jesus EVER teach that all we had to do was this or that. With the man asking the question of what was required in Matthew 19, Jesus continued to ask more until the man gave up and went away. It was never to say that what you do doesn’t matter but only that what you do will never be enough.
So Matthew 19 does not mean that giving up all possessions is a requirement any more than Luke 14:26 means hating all your family is a requirement, and no more than John 6 means you must be a cannibal. Jesus ridiculed such literal and legalistic understandings of scripture and what he said, and this is what we see in Matthew 13 – saying we must be free to avoid the meaning He intends with such tactics. He doesn’t say why, but I think it is to minimize the harm so often done by religion in the world. Unfortunately there is little to likewise minimize the harm done by atheist ideologies.
), because we have to be on the right road… by faith.
on that. But it does exemplify someone who has not been testing themselves (honestly, anyway) and who should have serious doubts about the legitimacy of their adoption!