Purveyor of Confusion

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Great! Let's start where others have left off:

Romans 10:9-10 - Jesus asserts [the way] for salvation is by your faith.
Matthew 25:31-46 - Jesus asserts [the way] for salvation is by how much you help others.

Which one is not hard and fast? And further still, what happens to the ones whom can do neither?

I'm surprised you ask, after all you've read the Bible. The issue of Faith and Works is a big one that crops up a lot in the New Testament writings. James (the book) and Paul both have major sections on this.

Those that major on works for salvation will do good deeds in order to earn their way into God's good books, but the New Testament condemns such act as filthy rags (used toilet paper as one preacher put it).

But James points out that Faith without works is pointless (as does Paul if you read carefully). The point that they all are making is that works (good deeds) will spring out of faith, but it is the faith that saves not the works.

Bear in mind firstly that Matthew 25 is a parable, not a list of steps to salvation. It has a purpose in warning, but it is not intself a teaching in the way that the Sermon on the Mount is). And in Romans 10 Jesus doesn't actually assert anything. Paul does (not that this makes much difference). And what he asserts if you read a little wider is that the person who is concerned with whether they will go to Heaven or Hell is not someone who is getting their righteousness by faith (Ro 10:6-7), rather the person of faith is acknowledging Jesus as Lord.

If one is going to be literal (and I've seen others try this) what about the Rich Young Ruler who asked 'What must I do to be saved?' and was told to give up his wealth, yet Jesus didn't require that of everyone. So it is an individual requirement. That the young man couldn't do it is indicative of how much a hold his money had on him.

So to sum up, if one wants 'hard and fast' I'd go with Romans because Matthew is a parable. But even as a parable it is very valuable. Consider that both passages talk about confessing Jesus is Lord, but in the parable the contrast is between those for whom the words drive them to do good deeds and those for whom they are just words. Read Romans and you will see that Paul concurs with that thought throughout... as does James... as does Acts...as does most of the rest of the New Testament.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Does true blasphemy negate all?

What is 'true blasphemy'?

[That is kind of a rhetorical question ]

 

[cvanwey]

No. My scenario was merely to show you a way that your "contradiction" can be reconciled easily. It was a refutation for your claim there was a contradiction. So I made up a scenario in which both Bible verses can be reconciled easily.
A claimed contradiction, in contrast, does not allow for two Bible verses to be reconciled.
I'm not even saying my scenario is real. It might be real. Maybe there are other ways to reconcile the verses.
I'm just showing you that there is at least manner to reconcile the two Bible verses you said they were contradictory. If they were contradictory as a matter of fact, there would be no possible scenario to reconcile the verses.

The verses speaks about the 'the age to come.' You, yourself, stated to start literally. When you read the verse, it states:

"but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

We ask ourselves, [where] does God mean here? Seems logical, He means not in Heaven; being that He is speaking about an unforgivable offense in this context.

For you to shrug your shoulders, and call it 'conjecture', seems to be special pleading. I do not recall God speaking about levels of heaven, but instead just heaven? You either go there, or you don't. Or as you and @dcalling say, "1 or 0". If you can 'prove' otherwise, like I stated prior, maybe you should look into Mormonism as a better fit?

for not being able to back their assertions up using scirpture.

???? You'll understand why I do this, below.

BTW they didn't intend to refute a claimed "contradiction", then it would have been ok to just present a scenario to show that it is possible to have two verses at the same time.

Neither did I here. My case is to demonstrate that Matthew 12:32 states that if you commit this sin, you will not go to heaven.

And if this is true, (then) the clarified verse contradicts Romans 10:9-10 (i.e.) 'That faith is enough.'

However, In general, a source besides the Bible is worthless if they can't back up what they say using scripture.
So I recommend: go to churches, ask, check if what they say can be backed up by scripture... and if you're still confused, come back to the thread and ask here.

Done all that. Doing it here. I ask you again, can you ask God for me now? Or is it not yet time? What does He say about it? Churches give conflicting responses. I want THE response, since Scripture itself does not clarify the verse. Now you can reference above, where I stated "???"

Ah no, here we disagree. Luke 12:33 teaches you need to sell everything. Most of the stuff I had could not be sold.
I was poor, so I kept the money for myself.

Ah yes @thomas_t . Again, read the verse literally:

"33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples."

It does not state anything about 'selling'. You have stuff. You can still give it up, give it away, burn it, throw it in the garbage, other. Since you did not follow this literal request, do you feel Jesus deems your faith worthy anyways? If so, how so?

@dcalling is right in telling you there is a difference between cursing God and blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Two different things.

Thus far, we agree there is a difference, in the since that Jesus states you can blaspheme Him, but it is different if you should happen to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

AGAIN, blasphemy can mean differing things. But God cares not to specify. God uses 'speak against' for both (A) and (B) below. Hence, to blaspheme means to 'speak against', as the verse demonstrates.:

"32 Anyone who speaks a word against (A) will be be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against (B) will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

You see how that works? You can speak again (A), but don't speak against (B). See the difference now?

my stance makes great sense.

No, unfortunately, it doesn't.

Here I stay with @dcalling . It's a 1 or 0 question.

People can't have varying degrees of 'faith'????? Really?

I stay with my opinion that Bible does not claim that someone who committed an unforgivable sin, even if it's only hypothetically, cannot be admitted to heaven.

That's unfortunate, because you have little/no cause for this conclusion? Your only argument, thus far, has been that we can chalk it up to 'conjecture.' Well, we can do that with virtually any verse then

 

[cvanwey]

So the agreement anyone who accepts the New Testament has is this: Jesus is the cause and goal of the Christian Life (see Hebrews 12:2, if you are interested).

But your cited agreement, among Christians, is not about salvation; the most important part.

But if you want to know the path to salvation and you are an intelligent thinking person then you should start with reading the gospels to see what they say.

I did, and it seems there exists direct conflict about the path.

What God requires from an individual for their journey to Jesus is going to be different from what he requires from another person. There may be overlap, but the only total agreement will be in the destination.

Well, though I understand what you are saying, let me tell you why it is irrelevant.

If it happened to be about faith. Sure, your personal journey to faith is, of course, going to differ from the one next to you. But in the end, you either achieve enough of it, or you do not. And if 'faith' is God's meter-stick for salvation, and you do not achieve the required goal, then you are hosed.

And if it should happen to be about the number of works alone, how many are required?

I think you see where I'm going here

 

[cvanwey]

I'm not sure I agree. I decided to read it and now there is one more!

That's not what I said. I said...

"How many professed Christians, would remain Christian, if they were to decide to read the Bible? I tell you what would happen for sure, you would have less. How do I know this? Because I decided to read it, and now we know there is one less."

It could only be the same number, or less. Your response merely means the Bible reinforced your prior belief.

In fact I think the problem is one of not understanding. I see atheists like Dawkins quote that they know more about the Bible than Christians do. An easily verifiable thing... that shows that he and they don't know as much as they like to think.

Why is this relevant?

On the other end of the spectrum, I see people like Ken Ham, whom build an entire theme park around their beliefs. Does that show or demonstrate that he knows more than atheists?

Irrelevant.

Tell me what [you] know.

Oh, sure.. they are experts on all the dodgy laws and embarrassing parts of the Bible. All the things that they think are contradictory. But they are certainly not au fait with the bigger picture and it becomes a whole lot easier to reconcile dodgy laws and embarrassing parts when one sees the bigger picture.

Depends... Does any of it conflict with the 'bigger picture'? And if so, is that okay?

It may not be true for you but a number of atheists that I have chatted with over the years talk about how they realised that what they had been taught about God was all wrong when they started to read the Bible, so they became an atheist. But the logical next step is not to disbelieve in God but realise that what they had been taught was wrong and to find the right teaching.

I would agree, that to discard or dismiss an entire set of asserted principles, simply because the teacher 'incorrectly taught some points', might be in haste.

Just like I would think to dismiss evolutionary theory, because my teacher sucked, would be in haste.

So in my opinion (and experience) when people read their Bible more they get a stronger faith, not a weaker one and when they come across passages and ideas they don't understand they don't just throw the whole thing in the air in disgust, but rather go and talk to someone who has been there before them (and there always is).

For me, it would take more than faith to continue believing in it.

Falling away only tends to occur when people are told to follow the rules (and don't question them).

No, not true. I feel away because I do not believe the assertions. All these cited contradictions and contradictory rules are just side dishes really.

However, I broach them here to get other Christian's take, and to demonstrate that the collective authors of this Book provide confusion. That is the goal of this thread.

 

[cvanwey]

Isn't that like picking up a novel, reading the first chapter and then throwing the book away because you didn't like how it ended?

Depends. If the Book states the Book is based on all actual events; and you find, from the jump, it likely wasn't, many may not waste their time engaging or reading further.

Or maybe, just skip directly to the end.

 

[cvanwey]

but it is the faith that saves not the works.

Noted. You are going with 'faith.'

Bear in mind firstly that Matthew 25 is a parable, not a list of steps to salvation. It has a purpose in warning, but it is not intself a teaching in the way that the Sermon on the Mount is).

In post #229, you stated:

"For the most part it is very obvious. E.g. when Jesus is telling a parable, he is not being literal, though the meaning of the parable is literal. There are actually very few instances where Jesus' words are ambiguous."

So, in a nutshell, you are saying that the message behind the parable is still literal. Noted....

The parable speaks clearly that Jesus will judge based upon how much they help others. And further, that the saved/unsaved hinge upon such acts/deeds/works. He makes no tie-in to faith here.

So why is this assertion to be taken less than any other assertion, which, BTW, seems to be in direct contrast, to the assertion of faith?

If one is going to be literal (and I've seen others try this) what about the Rich Young Ruler who asked 'What must I do to be saved?' and was told to give up his wealth, yet Jesus didn't require that of everyone. So it is an individual requirement. That the young man couldn't do it is indicative of how much a hold his money had on him.

I'm not concerned with this one. Why? Jesus is demonstrating to the guy that His faith is NOT secure. Jesus uses it as a mechanism to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words.

But in great contrast, look at Luke 14:25-33. Have [you] given up everything to follow Him? If not, why does this verse exclude you?

So to sum up, if one wants 'hard and fast' I'd go with Romans because Matthew is a parable. But even as a parable it is very valuable. Consider that both passages talk about confessing Jesus is Lord, but in the parable the contrast is between those for whom the words drive them to do good deeds and those for whom they are just words. Read Romans and you will see that Paul concurs with that thought throughout... as does James... as does Acts...as does most of the rest of the New Testament.

I'm afraid I disagree...

They both provide mutually opposing methods for salvation. Matthew makes no mention of faith. Romans makes no mention of works. You state you think Romans is more hard and fast, but have not given sufficient reason to discard Matthew. You said it yourself, "There are actually very few instances where Jesus' words are ambiguous."

 

[cvanwey]

What is 'true blasphemy'?

[That is kind of a rhetorical question ]

Well, that's part of the point. God does not really distinguish clearly. This is especially important, as we speak about Matthew 12:31-32. And yet, you state that Jesus' words are hardly ever ambiguous?

What is your take on this verse? Does 'blasphemy' negate faith?

 

[dcalling]

You have missed my point. If you want to give an anecdotal attestation, so can I.

"I had a neighbor whom lost her young daughter to a drunk driver. This neighbor was a professed Christian. After his daughter died, he cursed his believed God, told God that he no longer wants anything to do with Him, or any of His perceived plans. He rebuked His prior relationship, and stated that 'no God could exist, and allow such an injustice.' A few months later, he started to go to church again. He again asked God to come into his life."

Thus, according to [YOU], this person twisted God's characters. And not only that, he turned away from Him. He then later asked Him back in. Thus, according to Scripture, and according to you, my neighbor's later requests for God's repentance went ignored. He is now forever doomed, due to a momentary bout of thinking.

In your example the professed Christian clearly does not know God. I know it is very hard for you to understood, but no matter what happened to me I won't blame God, because I know God is good.

Have you read the book of Job? Satan attacked him many times, took his money, then his kids, then his health. His wife think he is a fool still standing with God. You can see God commented to satan that no matter what happens, he won't turn away.

I'm sorry that some judged you prematurely, based upon attributes for which you have no control. Moving forward...

Your assertion is unfounded. Please please please look at the verse, in it's entirety. You are adding stuff, that quite frankly, is not there:

"31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

All the verse is saying, is that you can 'blaspheme' me, meaning Jesus, but just don't blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

I agree with you, in that there is a difference. Like I stated prior, it's okay to call me names, but it's different, or not accepted, to call so-and-so names.

Again, blasphemy has NOT been defined in these contexts. Hence, it leaves it for you to rationalize what God means, when He does not give any attributes, terms, or conditions, of such 'blasphemy'. You are adding stuff, that, quite frankly, is not there.

Blasphemy can mean more than one thing. God cares not to differentiate what constitutes blasphemy in these verses. Hence, the confusion.

And again, for something seemingly so gravely important, it's odd that God tells you what NOT to do, but gives no parameters as to what exactly to avoid.

I did read it many time, it is very clear to me. And Holy Spirit is not just a person (I dislike Holy Spirit been called a person, God is one). To me, blasphemy of Holy Spirit means rejection of salvation, defy God's character when you clearly know that is wrong.

My previous post below:
I already answered. It is not clearly defined, yes, just one sentence, blasphemy against Holy Spirit.
But you can see the meaning by looking at the first 2 sentence, that blasphemy against God or Jesus is all forgivable. And we all know what blasphemy against God/Jesus is, and Jesus put one line about "blasphemy against Holy Sprite", which is clearly different than regular blasphemy, and clearly very hard (or have to have evil intention to do), so definitely not millions of Christians are committing to it, else God will clarify it.

Blasphemy against Holy Spirit is clearly not something ordinal man can commit. It can only be committed if you truly know God and still lie about His character.

 

[cvanwey]

In your example the professed Christian clearly does not know God.

Wow. Okay. Good to know.

And not all Christians are nearly as devoted as Job. But I guess you are

Cough cough, "No True Scotsman." Again..... Nothing new... Going in circles....

I did read it many time, it is very clear to me. And Holy Spirit is not just a person (I dislike Holy Spirit been called a person, God is one). To me, blasphemy of Holy Spirit means rejection of salvation, defy God's character when you clearly know that is wrong.

My previous post below:
I already answered. It is not clearly defined, yes, just one sentence, blasphemy against Holy Spirit.
But you can see the meaning by looking at the first 2 sentence, that blasphemy against God or Jesus is all forgivable. And we all know what blasphemy against God/Jesus is, and Jesus put one line about "blasphemy against Holy Sprite", which is clearly different than regular blasphemy, and clearly very hard (or have to have evil intention to do), so definitely not millions of Christians are committing to it, else God will clarify it.

Blasphemy against Holy Spirit is clearly not something ordinal man can commit. It can only be committed if you truly know God and still lie about His character.

AGAIN, blasphemy can mean differing things. But God cares not to specify. God uses 'speak against' for both (A) and (B) below. Hence, to blaspheme means to 'speak against', as the verse demonstrates.:

"32 Anyone who speaks a word against (A) will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against (B) will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

You see how that works? You can speak against (A), but don't speak against (B). See the difference now?

 

[thomas_t]

The verses speaks about the 'the age to come.' You, yourself, stated to start literally. When you read the verse, it states:

"but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

We ask ourselves, [where] does God mean here? Seems logical, He means not in Heaven; being that He is speaking about an unforgivable offense in this context.

" the age to come" should not be declared equal to "heaven" or "not heaven". The first expression talking about time... the second one talking about a location. You can't equate space and time in the Bible (we are no Einsteins, Christian people are simple people, that's why God puts things simple).

AGAIN, blasphemy can mean differing things. But God cares not to specify.

But we know: God wants to be understood. So, in my opinion, it means saying something disparaging about the spirit of someone (God in this case). Jesus used normal language... so take it normally, please.

Different levels of faith are possible... when it somes to daily life questions.
Faith needed for salvation - i.e. believeing that Jesus is there - is a 1 or 0 question. Bible describes the 1 or 0 nature of faith in him in Matthew 18:6.

Or as you and @dcalling say, "1 or 0".

that's was with regard to faith in him or not.

Ah yes @thomas_t . Again, read the verse literally:

"33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples."

It does not state anything about 'selling'. You have stuff. You can still give it up, give it away, burn it, throw it in the garbage, other. Since you did not follow this literal request, do you feel Jesus deems your faith worthy anyways? If so, how so?

I was talking about Luke 12:33, your verse is Luke 14:33.
I merely put it in context (12:33).
burning or throwing away stuff that can still be used it not the way you should deal with things on God's earth, so I think selling is meant here.

I ask you again, can you ask God for me now? Or is it not yet time? What does He say about it?

no, if someone claims contradictions in the Bible... it's his disciples who are there to sort that out. That's why we're talking here.
That's not the tone in which we should speak to God, I think, that's why I leave your case to the thread, here.
The Bible is God's Holy word, lets dig in here.

 

[dcalling]

Wow. Okay. Good to know.

And not all Christians are nearly as devoted as Job. But I guess you are

Cough cough, "No True Scotsman." Again..... Nothing new... Going in circles....

It is different than the "No true scotsman" fallacy, see the counter examples No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

So in this case, let invoke the scripture you keep quoting, that we need to give up all possessions to follow Christ, to be his follower. I did refuse to give all my possessions to you , but I need to value God more than my possessions (and family). if I curse God because I lost my possessions (or family), I am definitely not a true Christian.


It might sounds harsh, but God stated many times that the doors to Heaven is narrow. "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." Matthew 7:13

AGAIN, blasphemy can mean differing things. But God cares not to specify. God uses 'speak against' for both (A) and (B) below. Hence, to blaspheme means to 'speak against', as the verse demonstrates.:

"32 Anyone who speaks a word against (A) will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against (B) will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

You see how that works? You can speak against (A), but don't speak against (B). See the difference now?

Yes I do see your point, but you should have seen my point as well, I will summarize here in short. You need to put it in context. Here God show us what CAN be forgiven, i.e. blasphemy against God and Jesus, which is 2 CLEAR examples, and what not very clear, blasphemy against Holy Spirit, might not be something that we can fully understand as humans, that related to supernatural beings or people who is not chosen. This is what we call hidden messages of God, as when we teach Newton's laws in elementary school, we don't need to put in Quantum physics to confuse the students.

 

[cvanwey]

(we are no Einsteins, Christian people are simple people, that's why God puts things simple).

First of all, at the time the Bible was written, most were illiterate. Thus, only the educated ones were reading.

But further still, the Bible was written for all. The 'simple', the 'intellectual', and all in between. If God is truly omniscient, God would surely know people would still be reading these verses thousands of years from now. Seems odd that God would not think to clarify His true meaning, using more accurate and less erroneous verbiage?

When you read the verse, in context, it gives the impression that the 'age to come' is not one you want to end up within.

But we know: God wants to be understood. So, in my opinion, it means saying something disparaging about the spirit of someone (God in this case). Jesus used normal language... so take it normally, please.

If He wants to be understood, then He might be mindful to write His threatening messages in a universal manor. Otherwise, seems logical that He would know that to provide ambiguously undefined terms will cause many/most to be confused, or at least feel a lack in clarity.

If you read Matthew 12:31-32 entire, it is 'simple'. Speaking against Jesus is fine. Speaking against the Holy Ghost, not fine! - and NOT forgiven. Simple.

If you wish to make more out of it than what is written there, you need to prove it. But good luck, as the verse(s) do not reference a specific context, nor footnote other verse(s).

Different levels of faith are possible... when it somes to daily life questions.
Faith needed for salvation - i.e. believeing that Jesus is there - is a 1 or 0 question. Bible describes the 1 or 0 nature of faith in him in Matthew 18:6.
that's was with regard to faith in him or not.

This does nothing to address my concern. Yet again...

Romans 10:9-10 states faith, no works.
Matthew 25:31-46 states works, no faith.

You choose faith. Let's just say I'm a Christian, and I choose works. Now we do battle... Who's right?

You adhere to Romans 10 entirely. I did this when I was younger, but am now starting to waiver a bit, just a little bit. I still have a good hunch He was real, died, and resurrected for me, but am starting to question. But ultimately, due to the compulsory nature of the claim, (namely the verse you mentioned Matthew 18:6), and also to 'Pascal's wager', I stick around. But either way, I work in a homeless shelter, volunteer, give to the poor, etc.

Again the question becomes....

(For you) - How much faith is ENOUGH faith?
(For me) - How many works are ENOUGH works?

And further, faith can have many levels. It's not binary code, or a light switch.

I was talking about Luke 12:33, your verse is Luke 14:33.
I merely put it in context (12:33).
burning or throwing away stuff that can still be used it not the way you should deal with things on God's earth, so I think selling is meant here.

I was never speaking about Luke 12. Luke 14:25-33 entirely, the whole time; where He is addressing the 'cost of being a follower"

He states to give up everything. Which is to mean, any and all kept possessions will either distract from Him, or prove you may value any of these possessions as much or more than Jesus. He wants you to have none of them and follow Him.

So, have you given up all to follow Him? It does not sound like you have; according to this entire passage. I then ask...

Is Jesus going to consider you a follow of Him anyways? Is He going to make an exception for you? Or maybe, He deems your faith less-that-adequate?

no, if someone claims contradictions in the Bible... it's his disciples who are there to sort that out. That's why we're talking here.
That's not the tone in which we should speak to God, I think, that's why I leave your case to the thread, here.
The Bible is God's Holy word, lets dig in here.

You mean to tell me God will not respond? Have you no faith? We are getting nowhere here. I'm asking questions, trying to clarify verse, and we are not yet at resolve. At some point, it must be okay to seek God's direct advice, in accordance with the claims of prayer (Matthew 7:7); especially in times of conjecture about Scripture?

Can you ask Him for me? Have you no faith?

 

[thomas_t]

Otherwise, seems logical that He would know that to provide ambiguously undefined terms will cause many/most to be confused, or at least feel a lack in clarity.

He provided things in brevity. The confusion comes from somewhere else, I guess. There is no confusion within the Bible itself.

Can you ask Him for me? Have you no faith?

I do have faith, I think. But I also think God doesn't allow himself to be set under pressure to much, I think.
If the question still is "contradiction yes or no"... I won't ask him for clarification in any matter. It's the wrong approach as I see it.
I think it has to be clear who is the ruler and who is ruled. God is the ruler... and it is not up to us to have him run into issues like "did you contradict yourself, God?" we are no judges. God is. This is what man needs to realize, I think.
In my opinion, it's better to say "God, I don't see through here. But even if I don't, blessed be your name!"

He states to give up everything. Which is to mean, any and all kept possessions will either distract from Him, or prove you may value any of these possessions as much or more than Jesus. He wants you to have none of them and follow Him.

Jesus did not give up everything himself.
He always had clothes on in public.
recently, when I went running in the field, I ran into a naked guy. I changed my route. But it was annoying. It's an annoying thing to see naked dudes in the field.
So if I gave up everything, including my clothing, I would have annoyed my environment by walking around naked, I think.
Nakedness at least for boys, as I see it, can come across as saying "all this area belongs to me, I can do whatever I want. I don't care."
This is being rude.
So it is allowed to put Luke 14:33 in lights of Luke 12:33.
BTW, there are other verses of how people gave up things in the Bible. Acts 2:44 is a prominent verse of people giving up their possesions, meaning "everything" as I see it.
It is an interesting passage because this church was commended for having acted righteously, see same chapter.
However, they still had some clothes on, because it says they were of good reputation back then Acts 2:43.
So we really need to see your verse in context, here.
When you tell seomone "you need to give up everything", you don't mean clothing, either, please.
Moreover, Christians would have a problem in their youth groups, I think. "Give up everything, girls, including your clothes, please"... well, which parents would allow their children to attend such a circle? Jesus was no amateur in building churches, btw.
I think we should understand Jesus in a way it makes sense.

This does nothing to address my concern. Yet again...

Romans 10:9-10 states faith, no works.
Matthew 25:31-46 states works, no faith.

as stated before: the Romans verse applies to individual persons, the Matthew verse to groups such as entire nations, in my opinion. Groups can't have faith in their hearts, since they don't have hearts. I said this before, already.

 

[cvanwey]

It is different than the "No true scotsman" fallacy, see the counter examples No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

I didn't realize Wiki was a reliable source?

You are effectively saying that no 'true Christian' would ever turn their back on God; not matter what - (reference Job).

My 'counterpoint', is that yes, humans do smite God. People do turn away from God. And many later decide to go back. Just like children may do to their parents. Just like spouses might do to one another. --- Friends, family, etc... But in the case for God, assuming your argument is that 'blasphemy' means to do something very specific only, God would never forgive you, if you should decide to reconsider.

And not only that, I'm far above and beyond defending THIS position. WHY? Because you have yet to demonstrate or articulate that the verse in Matthew 12:32 is saying anything above and beyond 'speaking against', which again, can mean virtually anything. Again, God cares not to elaborate or define what this is in reference to...

So in this case, let invoke the scripture you keep quoting, that we need to give up all possessions to follow Christ, to be his follower. I did refuse to give all my possessions to you , but I need to value God more than my possessions (and family). if I curse God because I lost my possessions (or family), I am definitely not a true Christian.

Luke 14:33 simply states to give up everything to follow Him. It does not state to give them to another person. You clearly have not done this, and yet, expect that God will consider your faith genuine. How are you so sure He does; in light of the fact you have not given up everything to follow Him?

Maybe [you] are not a true Christian?

It might sounds harsh, but God stated many times that the doors to Heaven is narrow. "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." Matthew 7:13

Yes, and that verse would actually make perfect sense. Most are not willing to give up everything to follow Him. Including [you]... Because you haven't

Yes I do see your point, but you should have seen my point as well, I will summarize here in short. You need to put it in context. Here God show us what CAN be forgiven, i.e. blasphemy against God and Jesus, which is 2 CLEAR examples, and what not very clear, blasphemy against Holy Spirit, might not be something that we can fully understand as humans, that related to supernatural beings or people who is not chosen. This is what we call hidden messages of God, as when we teach Newton's laws in elementary school, we don't need to put in Quantum physics to confuse the students.

No. You need to read the verse for what it says. You are adding unnecessary stuff there, without warrant or cause to do so.

According to your rationale, the verse might as well state...

"Anyone whom grows a tail, is not allowed in heaven." It's an unnecessary verse. You claim non-believers cannot commit this sin. You claim the truly unfaithful cannot commit this sin. You claim the faithful cannot. So no one can anyways.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

But your cited agreement, among Christians, is not about salvation; the most important part.

Oh yes it is. You cannot separate Christ from salvation. Acts 4:11-12

Well, though I understand what you are saying, let me tell you why it is irrelevant.

If it happened to be about faith. Sure, your personal journey to faith is, of course, going to differ from the one next to you. But in the end, you either achieve enough of it, or you do not. And if 'faith' is God's meter-stick for salvation, and you do not achieve the required goal, then you are hosed.

And if it should happen to be about the number of works alone, how many are required?

I think you see where I'm going here

Actually where you are going is further and further away from salvation. You are right in saying that if you do not achieve the required goal, then you are hosed... but the goal is Jesus. It's not that difficult to grasp.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

That's not what I said. I said...

"How many professed Christians, would remain Christian, if they were to decide to read the Bible? I tell you what would happen for sure, you would have less. How do I know this? Because I decided to read it, and now we know there is one less."

It could only be the same number, or less. Your response merely means the Bible reinforced your prior belief.

No my response was to YOUR post. I had no prior belief. I had no belief. I was an atheist. I read the Bible (strictly speaking the New Testament and Genesis as well as dipping into other OT writings) and then I was a Christian. I was pointing out that your argument doesn't hold up as I read the Bible and I became a Christian. That's a net gain of zero. Later in my life I read the Bible from beginning to end and I remained a Christian.

How many professed Christians would remain Christian if they were to decide to read the Bible? The answer is certainly a lot more than you think. I went to Bible college. My college required that every student read the whole Bible once per year. If even half the students each year did that then you would have around 15-20 people who read the Bible and remained Christian. And that was just one Bible College.

So your argument from your own experience is not only countered by my own, but trumped by the numerous other people who have read the Bible more times than I have and still remain Christian.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

However, I broach them here to get other Christian's take, and to demonstrate that the collective authors of this Book provide confusion. That is the goal of this thread.

Do you think you have succeeded in that goal? I didn't see it in the responses I read. Well apart from your responses that is.

 

[dcalling]

I didn't realize Wiki was a reliable source?

I am de-referencing your reference of "true Scots man", you got a better source I am all ears.

You are effectively saying that no 'true Christian' would ever turn their back on God; not matter what - (reference Job).

That is not what I said. What I said is no true Christian could ever curse God AFTER they know God's character. I have said it again and again and again. Please don't twist my word. I caught you multiple times.

My 'counterpoint', is that yes, humans do smite God. People do turn away from God. And many later decide to go back. Just like children may do to their parents. Just like spouses might do to one another. --- Friends, family, etc... But in the case for God, assuming your argument is that 'blasphemy' means to do something very specific only, God would never forgive you, if you should decide to reconsider.

And not only that, I'm far above and beyond defending THIS position. WHY? Because you have yet to demonstrate or articulate that the verse in Matthew 12:32 is saying anything above and beyond 'speaking against', which again, can mean virtually anything. Again, God cares not to elaborate or define what this is in reference to...

Luke 14:33 simply states to give up everything to follow Him. It does not state to give them to another person. You clearly have not done this, and yet, expect that God will consider your faith genuine. How are you so sure He does; in light of the fact you have not given up everything to follow Him?

Maybe [you] are not a true Christian?
Yes, and that verse would actually make perfect sense. Most are not willing to give up everything to follow Him. Including [you]... Because you haven't

Exactly, it did not talk about give to anther person. So as long as I don't value the possession above God, they are all God's. Christians is only a temporary property manager for God under this world, everything belongs to God.

No. You need to read the verse for what it says. You are adding unnecessary stuff there, without warrant or cause to do so.

That is only your personal opinion.

According to your rationale, the verse might as well state...

"Anyone whom grows a tail, is not allowed in heaven." It's an unnecessary verse. You claim non-believers cannot commit this sin. You claim the truly unfaithful cannot commit this sin. You claim the faithful cannot. So no one can anyways.

Satan can, as he knows God and still revolted, spread lies about God's character

Old post copy pasted here.
You need to put it in context. Here God show us what CAN be forgiven, i.e. blasphemy against God and Jesus, which is 2 CLEAR examples, and what not very clear, blasphemy against Holy Spirit, might not be something that we can fully understand as humans, that related to supernatural beings or people who is not chosen. This is what we call hidden messages of God, as when we teach Newton's laws in elementary school, we don't need to put in Quantum physics to confuse the students.

 

[cvanwey]

He provided things in brevity. The confusion comes from somewhere else, I guess. There is no confusion within the Bible itself.

Again, every denomination thinks they are right, and back it with Bible verse(s). So yes, the authors provide confusion.

I do have faith, I think. But I also think God doesn't allow himself to be set under pressure to much, I think.
If the question still is "contradiction yes or no"... I won't ask him for clarification in any matter. It's the wrong approach as I see it.
I think it has to be clear who is the ruler and who is ruled. God is the ruler... and it is not up to us to have him run into issues like "did you contradict yourself, God?" we are no judges. God is. This is what man needs to realize, I think.
In my opinion, it's better to say "God, I don't see through here. But even if I don't, blessed be your name!"

According to Scripture, backed by other Scripture, you can. Please ask God, so we can clear this up, once and for all. Does He mean you are going to a 'lesser' heaven, or hell, when you speak against Him? I'll be waiting. Oh, and please reference (Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23)

Jesus did not give up everything himself.
He always had clothes on in public.
recently, when I went running in the field, I ran into a naked guy. I changed my route. But it was annoying. It's an annoying thing to see naked dudes in the field.
So if I gave up everything, including my clothing, I would have annoyed my environment by walking around naked, I think.
Nakedness at least for boys, as I see it, can come across as saying "all this area belongs to me, I can do whatever I want. I don't care."
This is being rude.
So it is allowed to put Luke 14:33 in lights of Luke 12:33.
BTW, there are other verses of how people gave up things in the Bible. Acts 2:44 is a prominent verse of people giving up their possesions, meaning "everything" as I see it.
It is an interesting passage because this church was commended for having acted righteously, see same chapter.
However, they still had some clothes on, because it says they were of good reputation back then Acts 2:43.
So we really need to see your verse in context, here.
When you tell seomone "you need to give up everything", you don't mean clothing, either, please.
Moreover, Christians would have a problem in their youth groups, I think. "Give up everything, girls, including your clothes, please"... well, which parents would allow their children to attend such a circle? Jesus was no amateur in building churches, btw.
I think we should understand Jesus in a way it makes sense.

You are not Jesus. There's a lot of things Jesus did, in which you cannot. But Jesus asks would-be followers, in verses Luke 14:25-33, to give up everything. Sure, keep a pair of clothes. Why not But do you need technology, pictures, etc.. So why haven't you?

as stated before: the Romans verse applies to individual persons, the Matthew verse to groups such as entire nations, in my opinion. Groups can't have faith in their hearts, since they don't have hearts. I said this before, already.

Jesus addresses humans. Stop bantering semantics and answer the dang question already .

One author states that Jesus asserts humans to have faith for salvation.
Another author states that Jesus tells humans to help others for salvation.

Never to the two shall meet. Neither one references or footnotes the other.

Which one do you dismiss, or not deem hard and fast, and why?