Spinoff: Law vs. Grace?

[Edgar]

@Dale

Redemption and salvation have somewhat different meanings with respect to Christians, but I definitely would not use ‘redeemed’ with respect to unbelievers.

You wouldn’t, but Scripture does – it says the Cross redeemed all mankind , not just believers. For example:
“he is the expiation of our sins, and not for ours only , but the sins of the whole world ” (1John 2:2);

“Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men , so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men ” (Romans 5:18);

“He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves, but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption” (Hebrews 9:12);

“Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world ” (John 1:29);

“But God shows his love for us, that while we were still sinners , he died for us” (Romans 5:8).

So Jesus died for all mankind – past, present, future – which includes not just believers, but unbelievers as well. We did nothing to be redeemed by the Cross – it was a totally unconditional gift from God - so even unbelievers and haters of God are redeemed.

This means, of course, that redemption and salvation are not the same thing.

@Dale

I would say that all are ‘saved’ by the cross

In the context of Christianity, to be “saved” means to be saved from eternity in Hell, thus spending eternity in Heaven instead. So it is incorrect to say “all are ‘saved’ by the cross”, because that would mean:
(a) everyone who has ever lived or ever will live will gain eternal life in Heaven (even those who hate God), and
(b) gaining eternal life in Heaven would not require faith in Christ, because the Cross has already “saved” them.

The Cross per se does not save; it redeems – the Cross makes it possible to be saved. So all mankind is not “saved” by the Cross; rather, all mankind is redeemed by the Cross.

[Edgar]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

I would strengthen this statement to declare (with Paul, and with Christ himself) that love is the only Rule.

In that case, why do you repeatedly condemn “rules” and “rule-keeping” as if those things belong to some sort of false “legalist” religion?

And once that “Rule” reigns in your heart, you will no longer see it as a mere ‘rule’.

It is a rule nevertheless – and when it comes to God’s rules, we must strive to obey them, even when part of us doesn’t want to (ie, when temptation visits).

You are correct that holiness is important - more than important - essential

I agree, but do you realize that you’re preaching salvation through faith and works? Holiness involves keeping God’s commandments (1Peter 1:15-17), which is works.

The source of that holiness for us is Christ and Christ alone.

It doesn’t matter what the “source” is – what matters is striving to conform to the will of God through obedience, because (a) you want to please God, (b) it expresses your love for him and (c) you know that one day you will be judged for your deeds. So if God says, “Don’t steal”, well, you don’t steal.

Besides, if for example you are tempted to steal, and you decide not to, how do know that that decision not to steal is the result of your own free will or the influence of the Spirit, or a combination of the two?

He will make us holy, and our obedience to his one commandment of Love: love in our hearts for God and for neighbor, will provide the fruit of that holiness.

I would say Christ cannot “make” us holy, as that sounds like our free will has been replaced by some kind of robotic compulsion to obey, which means our obedience is no longer an expression of our love for God.
Rather, I would say the grace that Christ sends us allows us to more easily conform to God’s will, based on our own free will. Grace works only if we use our free will to cooperate with it to produce obedience. Grace can be overridden by willful disobedience.

Let’s not pit James against Christ and Paul.

Who is pitting James against Jesus and Paul? James, Jesus and Paul all preach salvation through faith and works.

@Mervin_Bitikofer

I suspect that a stubbornly rampant legalism may be part of the problem here. Legalists have a lot of trouble with the concept of love: for them rules are an “all-or-nothing” affair. If anyone suggests that maybe life and love is not all about the letter of the law, the legalist can’t help but see this as a “total abandonment of law”. After all, they say, to break even the smallest part of any law is to break all of it - and they happily supply a scripture reference that in fact says as much. For them, with regard to law they only see two possibilities: 0% and 100%. They are blind to the entire real world that lives between those two numbers.

Who are these “Legalists”? I’ve been involved with all manner of Christians over the years and have never ever come across a “legalist” who preaches that 100% obedience to God’s commandments is necessary for salvation. Can you name one church, denomination or person that preaches this “all-or-nothing” doctrine?

[Edgar]

@mitchellmckain

I reject his profile as it appears to be contradicted by the record of his posts.

Please explain this fascinating comment.

[LM77 (Liam Maguire)]

@Edgar

“he is the expiation of our sins, and not for ours only , but the sins of the whole world ” (1John 2:2);

“Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men , so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men ” (Romans 5:18);

Quick question, what translation are you using here, Edgar? Thanks.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@mitchellmckain

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.

That doesn’t seem true in Vlad’s case. I read him as sharing the way his understanding of the Bible has led him away from faith. I don’t get the impression he is always happy with the outcome.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@SuperBigV

We hear Jesus teaching a salvation by works.

His. . . . .

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@Edgar

In that case, why do you repeatedly condemn “rules” and “rule-keeping” as if those things belong to some sort of false “legalist” religion?

Because I want to take my cues from Christ and his apostles.

@Edgar

…do you realize that you’re preaching salvation through faith and works? Holiness involves keeping God’s commandments (1Peter 1:15-17), which is works.

I agree. As long as we know that our works aren’t the things that initiated our salvation. They are a result of it.

@Edgar

It doesn’t matter what the “source” is – what matters is striving to conform to the will of God through obedience, because (a) you want to please God, (b) it expresses your love for him and © you know that one day you will be judged for your deeds. So if God says, “Don’t steal”, well, you don’t steal.

It very much matters to me what [who, actually] the source is. If it isn’t Christ, then this entire discussion is pointless. As for the rest of that … sure I agree. Don’t steal.

@Edgar

I would say Christ cannot “make” us holy, as that sounds like our free will has been replaced by some kind of robotic compulsion to obey, which means our obedience is no longer an expression of our love for God.

I think I agree with this too. Certainly Christ does not compel us against our own will. That wouldn’t be love.

@Edgar

Rather, I would say the grace that Christ sends us allows us to more easily conform to God’s will, based on our own free will. Grace works only if we use our free will to cooperate with it to produce obedience. Grace can be overridden by willful disobedience.

Amen to that!

@Edgar

Who are these “Legalists”?

There isn’t one group of people somewhere (I don’t think) who self-identify as “legalists” - a pejorative term in (nearly?) all contexts. It’s a bug-a-bear that tends to infect our thinking across all denominations and traditions. I’m glad to hear that you’re backing away from it now. As well you should. Leave it in the dust-bin of false theologies where it belongs and continue to pursue Christ instead.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@Edgar

Who are these “Legalists”?

Romans 10:5 Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on the law shall live by it. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, Do not say in your heart, “Who will ascend into heaven?” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 or “Who will descend into the abyss?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

Thus according to Paul, legalists are anyone who thinks they have the means to say who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.

Jesus describes them in Luke 11 and Matthew 23 as those making up a bunch of weird rules so that they can play the lawyer to use such rules to condemn others (“shut the kingdom of heaven against men”) while dodging these rules with technicalities to continue with evil themselves.

@Edgar

Please explain this fascinating comment.

Absurd claims are easy to make. Evolution is not contradicted by the fossil record. That is an absurd claim to make.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

My point in referring to your profile was right after Vlad said that you represented typical evangelical Christians (and I even quoted him). Your profile clearly says that you are Catholic. That is not an absurd claim to make. I accept your profile.

[Terry_Sampson]

@LM77

Quick question, what translation are you using here, Edgar? Thanks.

1 John 2:1-3. He is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world.

Translation:

1. New American Bible (Revised Edition)
   Scripture texts, prefaces, introductions, footnotes and cross references used in this work are taken from the New American Bible, revised edition © 2010, 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Inc., Washington, DC. OR
2. Revised Standard Version OR
3. Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

[Edgar]

@Dale

I’m afraid you’re not getting it. Children need to learn and gain confidence, as do professionals. They need to be tested by practice, but when they have ‘passed the test’ of performance, they get confidence and assurance. Likewise Christians. They do not have to live their lives doubting and wondering. And when they have seen their Father at work in his intervening providences, any doubt should subside quickly and assurance correspondingly grow. But we are forgetful creatures, and need to keep reminding ourselves to pay attention to the right things and not be distracted by our own ills and the ills around us (there is no shortage!).

It seems to me that you haven’t answered my question, which specifically concerned your comment regarding Christians who consider themselves “ already adopted and heirs ”:

@Dale

And yet again, one more time, they are also standards for believers who are already adopted and heirs to test themselves against, for assurance .

In response to my question, you’ve haven’t discussed those who are “already adopted and heirs” - who believe they are 100% certain of getting to Heaven. Instead, you discuss those who may be “ doubting and wondering ”, who may be “ misleading themselves ” and “ who may not be sure of their salvation ” – an entirely different matter.

So my initial question remains:
If Christians who are “already adopted and heirs” know they are 100% certain of getting to Heaven, why do they need to “test themselves” against a “standard” for “assurance” that they are going to Heaven?

@mitchellmckain

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.

Ain’t that the truth - well said!

In the same vein, atheists love to poo-poo the idea that the Bible contains many historical accuracies - they prefer to believe that the Scriptures are a bunch of fairy tales and myths penned by superstitious and ignorant primitives.

[Edgar]

@SuperBigV

You are amazing, btw

Thank you, but I’m nowhere near as “amazing” as your theory that Jesus said all Christians must live in abject poverty!

Btw, can you name one Christian denomination in the entire world that agrees with your “amazing” poverty theory?

After that, please point out which verse in the NT says it is sinful to make a comfortable living.

Then please explain how any Christian hospital, orphanage or charity can exist without money?

Can a modern Christian own a car? What about a bicycle? What about a television? How about a phone? Or a tennis racket? Or shoes? Can a Christian play golf? Can a Christian live in a house, or must all Christians be homeless and live on the streets?

What you are doing is very similar to how LGBTQ Christians looks at Scripture.

Oh dear. That sounds pretty bad!

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.

Fair point.

To Jesus, being perfect and saves are synonyms.

News to me. Please explain how you arrived at this conclusion.

@mitchellmckain

The real point here is that I will justify this claim I make after he justifies his own claim that evolution is contradicted by the fossil record.

Your comment is way off topic, so all I’ll say about it is this:

That depends on what you mean by “evolution”. If by “evolution” you mean, “change over time”, then, yes, the fossil record provides overwhelming evidence of “evolution”. But if by “evolution” you mean, “a contiguous process of gradual biological change and diversification arising from a common ancestor”, then the fossil record often contradicts “evolution” (Exhibit A: the Cambrian explosion).

@LM77

Quick question, what translation are you using here, Edgar? Thanks.

I was probably using my Ignatius Catholic Bible (I don’t have it here at the moment, but I think that’s what it’s called).

[SuperBigV (Vlad K. I'm an Agnostic Atheist)]

@Edgar

Btw, can you name one Christian denomination in the entire world that agrees with your “amazing” poverty theory?

Jesus did say people will fall away from the truth, didn’t he?

@Edgar

After that, please point out which verse in the NT says it is sinful to make a comfortable living.

Jesus said, woe to the rich. Woe to the well fed. Luke 6:24, Luke 6:25

@Edgar

Then please explain how any Christian hospital, orphanage or charity can exist without money?

Would have been a good question to ask Jesus. Either words have meaning or they do not.

Now your turn. Find Jesus’s words where he said it’s okay to be rich.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@SuperBigV

Jesus said, woe to the rich. Woe to the well fed. Luke 6:24, Luke 6:25

Talk about taking things out of context!!! Lets read the WHOLE thing!

Luke 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: “Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. 21 “Blessed are you that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. “Blessed are you that weep now, for you shall laugh. 22 “Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man! 23 Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets. 24 “But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation. 25 “Woe to you that are full now, for you shall hunger. “Woe to you that laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep. 26 “Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.

This is not forbidding people to be rich or well fed any more than it is forbidding people to laugh or to be spoken well of. LOL It is simply saying that these things are temporary. Nor is this saying that the poor and hungry are automatically rewarded in the afterlife. Doing poorly in life is no more a reliable measure of our worth and heavenly approval than is success. The punch line is in Matthew 6 and Luke 12 telling us to store up our treasures in heaven rather than in the temporary things of the earth. A more immediate punch line is in verse 37 of the same chapter in Luke,

Luke 6: 37 “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; 38 give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For the measure you give will be the measure you get back.”

We should not judge people at all let alone according to such silly things as success, wealth, and hunger. These things already have their rewards and penalties and we can expect something else entirely in heaven and hell where the measure is quite different and for God alone (and whatever natural laws He has in place) to make.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@MarkD

That doesn’t seem true in Vlad’s case.

Of course it is. I will only grant you that it is wrong to paint everyone in a group with the same brush and agree that all atheists are not the same any more than all theists. Yet the most basic bias of our motivations are unavoidable. It is like that basic discovery of psychologists that our beliefs are a part of the process of perception itself. There is no point in denying this. We can strive for objectivity as an ideal in some things, and yet acknowledge that our success in doing so will always be limited to some degree (even where objectivity is actually worth pursuing).

So… I guess I will take your word that Vlad is not trying to deceive us, if that is what you mean. AND I will grant that my comment was in good portion a product of my own frustration in arguing my point of view that the passages don’t have to be understood in such a way.

@MarkD

​I read him as sharing the way his understanding of the Bible has led him away from faith.

Exactly! Therein lies the subjectivity in his reading of the Bible.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

Interesting when you consider that in 70 AD the rich and ruling class in Jerusalem were the targets of their fellow Jewish radicals in the Jewish War, starved and many killed before Rome ever invaded.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

Of course there are always those getting rich by taking advantage, such as tax collectors lining their own pockets. But others do well simply because they work harder than anyone else. In 70 AD Jerusalem there were plenty of collaborators getting wealthy by working with the Romans. Obviously, Jesus would not have approved of selling out people for such temporary advantages. But while Jesus shared some of the sentiments of the “radicals” (i.e. zealots), He also had severe criticisms of them as well.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

I would have thought for someone who had been all in for the Bible he might still be processing his decision. He doesn’t strike me as being as snide and resentful as many ex-religious atheists I’ve met. He seems to be someone who wonders how all of you can be reading the same book as him and yet not understand it as he does. That’s just my impression, there is no reason to take my word for it.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

True. My impression is that the persecution of the wealthier class was more widespread than just the obvious collaborators, and included just about anyone considered successful. Of course that is from Josephus, here filtered out by Joel Anderson: The Jewish War Series (Part 12): Zealot Terrorism in Jerusalem, Chaos in Rome, and a Two-Year Delay to the War – Resurrecting Orthodoxy

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

Revolutions are notoriously indiscriminate! That is true of mob actions generally, isn’t it?

One of the reasons the American revolution was somewhat different than most is because it was largely a misnomer. The American revolution was to preserve the established order rather than to overthrow it.