Actions

[razeontherock]

If all you need to do is accept God's love and charity, then

You've heard of Constantine? His practice of Baptism was not unusual at the time; wait until you're on your deathbed, and hope you get Baptized before you die, so late that you don't have the chance to defile yourself afterwards. THAT type of thing would line up with what you're saying here, but hopefully you can see how thoroughly wrong this is?

IOW, life after Baptism necessarily involves more than "accepting God's love and charity," and serves to prove our Faith.

 

[razeontherock]

Indeed. It is my biggest problem with Christian theology: morality is undermined by grace while ironically the one who the faith is based around (Jesus) talks almost entirely of good works and moral action.

Grace is a Pauline construction. Jesus emphasized doing morally good things for the glory of God.

It is error to consider that Paul "constructed" anything. Take a gander at my thread http://www.christianforums.com/t7478962/ Wrap your head around all that and you'll see what I mean.

Further, morality is NOT undermined by Grace!

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
(Romans 6:2) God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"

This is not an easy read! Have you heard any of John Piper's teaching on Romans?

 

[razeontherock]

Because just Him, Jesus and the Holy Spirit chilling in the Nowhere was getting a little boring

I can appreciate humor, but this misses the mark. By a mile.

 

[razeontherock]

Morality is not undermined, but exposed by grace. If you remove all reward for morality then one has to decide to be moral or not without reward and this speaks volumes of the true person.

Wow. That is great! Somebody needs to quote that ...

This could and SHOULD become a thread topic somewhere. GT?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Do you notice the problem with what you're saying?

Nice quote

I guess I have never quite wrapped my head around the idea that Christians say that you don't have to earn eternal life when it seems fairly clear that you do. Its easy to get into semantic word games but essentially you have to make a choice and this choice has consequences.

If you make the wrong choice there are some nasty consequences.

If you make the right choice then there are some pleasant consequences.

Making the right choice is an action that must be performed such that you receive the pleasant consequences.

How is this any different from the notion of "earning" something?

You must "do" something such that you receive the reward.
If you have done that thing, then you have earned the reward by doing that thing.

Eternal life is not "given freely". It is still up to YOU to perform the action of making the right choice.

If eternal life was given freely, everyone would go to heaven. Its not like that though, at least not Biblically. There are consequences for our choices.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Try injecting the idea that actions have no consequence into the first story in the Bible, and see what you come up with. Or try that with ANY story in the Bible, for that matter ...

You've come across some good ideas that I've seen, but this doesn't (yet) seem to be one of them. (Not really sure I know where you're going with this though)

I'm assuming you're referring to Cain and Abel. Yes, actions matter in this story but according to Christian theology, Jesus came specifically to get rid of this type of situation, didn't he?

How do you hold the idea of "Saved by Jesus Christ" and "Works have Consequences" together without running into contradictions regarding the purpose of Christianity and the path to eternal life?

If you are Saved by Jesus Christ and you are washed of your sins by his blood, then you are on the path to eternal life in Him.

This seems wholly independent of your moral actions. So either being Saved by Jesus Christ is true and works have no consequences or being saved by Jesus Christ isn't the whole story and works do have consequences.

I don't see how you can have both ideas held together.

 

[98cwitr]

Please enlighten me. It seems that so long as you have the idea of the afterlife in the equation you are forced to consider "what's in it for you" because you're looking at heaven or hell. If, on the other hand, you don't believe in an afterlife, then it seems that you can truly do good for others selflessly without worrying "what's in it for you" eternally.

If things I "do" determine my eternal fate, then I sure would like to know what it is that I'm "doing" wrong!



Please explain this statement

I cannot Enlighten you...only God can; through His Spirit. He blinds the blind and makes those who will ever see have Vision.

The first step here is to imagine yourself as self-less...literally without self (as Paul tells us "You are not your own..."). If you cannot do this, you will never gain Knowledge.

As far as explanation of the clay pots and sparrows...see Romans 9 + Matthew 10.

If you look for answers from men, you will find a little guidance and much fallacy. Turn to the Word first, inquire of God for Knowledge, turn to men lastly for communion with those who have Knowledge. Flee from the fool.

God will assure; God will convict.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Morality is not undermined, but exposed by grace. If you remove all reward for morality then one has to decide to be moral or not without reward and this speaks volumes of the true person.

Brilliant quote. I think the magnitude of this quote cannot be overstated.

However:

An atheist applies to the second sentence of this quote. An atheist does not see reward, so an atheist who is strives to be morally good speaks volumes of the nature of that atheist.

So, from this perspective, while on Earth, the atheist and the Christian can do the same amount of good actions and this can speak volumes about the nature of the two people's hearts and personalities.

So, the only incentive to receive grace is such that eternal life is forthcoming when you die. If Christianity is false, then the atheist and the Christian are on perfectly equal footing because this Earth is all there is. If Christianity is true, the atheist gets screwed over while the Christian gets to go to heaven based purely on belief. How is this fair? Both the Christian and the atheist are striving to do good actions without these actions implying a reward. But then the Christian gets rewarded anyway...

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I can appreciate humor, but this misses the mark. By a mile.

Obviously. It was as sarcastic as I can be. Sometimes sarcasm is missed over the internet though

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I cannot Enlighten you...only God can; through His Spirit. He blinds the blind and makes those who will ever see have Vision.

The first step here is to imagine yourself as self-less...literally without self (as Paul tells us "You are not your own..."). If you cannot do this, you will never gain Knowledge.

While I read the Bible, I suggest you read "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand. It is a challenging read for any Christian but any true knowledge-seeking Christian should enjoy it

 

[98cwitr]

That said, I don't believe that anyone can be completely and utterly selfless with the exception of martyrdom...but it is an ideology in and of itself.

 

[razeontherock]

Nice quote

I guess I have never quite wrapped my head around the idea that Christians say that you don't have to earn eternal life when it seems fairly clear that you do. Its easy to get into semantic word games but essentially you have to make a choice and this choice has consequences.

If you make the wrong choice there are some nasty consequences.

If you make the right choice then there are some pleasant consequences.

Making the right choice is an action that must be performed such that you receive the pleasant consequences.

How is this any different from the notion of "earning" something?

You must "do" something such that you receive the reward.
If you have done that thing, then you have earned the reward by doing that thing.

Eternal life is not "given freely". It is still up to YOU to perform the action of making the right choice.

If eternal life was given freely, everyone would go to heaven. Its not like that though, at least not Biblically. There are consequences for our choices.

Oh, I DO appreciate what you are struggling with here! And I encourage you to continue struggling with it, and point out that you should NOT be content with your current stage of progress on the subject. (In fact I do believe that is one truth that should be constant in this life, and no doubt our greatest challenge! But I digress) I hope you don't find this discouraging, and I apologize I find no better way to put it, but the Truth needs to be exposed.

What comes to mind here is how many posters have engaged me, by referring to their own cognitive dissonance as reason to turn their back on Christianity. In each individual case, my thoroughly reasoned response after lengthy probing and discussion, has been that they ... "withered," to use a Biblical term for it. Such apparent contradictions are G-d's way of urging us, to know Him better! "Thy rod and thy staff comfort me"

So ponder WHY the Bible states we cannot earn Eternal Life, (EL) Salvation, Justification, righteousness, etc etc. And do note I try not to get too wrapped into all the theological jargon, as different people and groups will use the same term to mean very different things. I urge you to focus on that mustard seed sized speck of "the real thing," which is Christ in you, our ONLY Hope of Glory. John the Baptist said it well, He must increase, and you / I / we must decrease. We no doubt have an active role in this, which can perhaps better be described as taking up our Cross and following Jesus. And yet if we allow ourselves to fall into the mindset (and rut) of thinking this earns us something, we have already entirely missed the point. A good deal of Jesus' words focus on this phenomenon! Consider the parable of the Prodigal Son, but with the focus upon the elder Brother, and you will see a clear demonstration of exactly what I'm saying here. He fell into the trap of thinking our Father is a hard man, reaping where He did not sow ...

The most powerful answer to this trap? A thankful heart. I've been meaning to change my mood back to "thankful," thanks for the reminder. satan really cannot do anything against a thankful heart, if we refuse to yield our thankfulness. And where a spirit cannot work, it will take it's flight! If our heart is thankful towards G-d, His Spirit IS at work, and He will make His home there

For all our thought, it is still the simplicity of the Gospel that gives it it's Power!

 

[bling]

A better system would be one where moral actions have a purpose. If all you need to do is accept God's love and charity, then morality and good and evil might as well be thrown out the window.

Would you rather have people do wonderful things because of what has already been do for them or to get something?
Which type of Love does God have?

 

[Sophrosyne]

Brilliant quote. I think the magnitude of this quote cannot be overstated.

However:

An atheist applies to the second sentence of this quote. An atheist does not see reward, so an atheist who is strives to be morally good speaks volumes of the nature of that atheist.

So, from this perspective, while on Earth, the atheist and the Christian can do the same amount of good actions and this can speak volumes about the nature of the two people's hearts and personalities.

So, the only incentive to receive grace is such that eternal life is forthcoming when you die. If Christianity is false, then the atheist and the Christian are on perfectly equal footing because this Earth is all there is. If Christianity is true, the atheist gets screwed over while the Christian gets to go to heaven based purely on belief. How is this fair? Both the Christian and the atheist are striving to do good actions without these actions implying a reward. But then the Christian gets rewarded anyway...

morality does have its rewards for those who reject salvation, they don't have as many sins that they are punished for in eternity in Hell.
I think you are essentially saying that salvation is unfair because it is absolutely free (no way to earn it). It sort of is like a father giving two sons the same gift because he loves them both equally even though one son mistreats his father and is less moral than the other. The son that treats his father better gets upset because he thinks the other son doesn't deserve the gift but the issue is not about fairness or the sons themselves (gift recipients) but about the father (giver) and his love towards his sons.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

morality does have its rewards for those who reject salvation, they don't have as many sins that they are punished for in eternity in Hell.

Are you quantifying sins? I thought sin was sin and no sin is better or worse than any other because they are all equally bad...

I think you are essentially saying that salvation is unfair because it is absolutely free (no way to earn it).

No, I'm saying you do have to earn it, it just takes very little effort. You still have to perform the action of making the proper choice. Its a small effort which unfairly has massive consequences. Making this choice has no link to your moral actions but still leads to the best possible outcome in the afterlife. So morality doesn't matter in the long-run (aka eternity). Morality only matters while on Earth.

It sort of is like a father giving two sons the same gift because he loves them both equally even though one son mistreats his father and is less moral than the other. The son that treats his father better gets upset because he thinks the other son doesn't deserve the gift but the issue is not about fairness or the sons themselves (gift recipients) but about the father (giver) and his love towards his sons.

This is actually basically the opposite of my argument. This analogy doesn't describe the situation at all.

1st sentence: I'm saying that the father does not give the same gift equally to both sons. He punishes one and gives the gift to another.
1st sentence: I'm saying that both sons functionally strive to act in accordance with the father's will to the best of their abilities in as many areas of life as possible. But neither son is perfect. Far from it.
2nd sentence: Neither son treats the father better or worse.
2nd sentence: The bad son does not receive the gift so the "good son" has no reason to get upset about it.
Last sentence: The father should give the gift to both sons if he truly loved them unconditionally. Unconditionality means that regardless of the sons' actions, beliefs, words or thoughts, the father wants to and is able to give both of them the gifts out of pure love and desire to see their joy in receiving the gift.

In your analogy, I assume "father" is "God", "good son" is "Christian", "bad son" is "Non-Christian", "gift" is "eternal life".

 

[Sophrosyne]

Are you quantifying sins? I thought sin was sin and no sin is better or worse than any other because they are all equally bad...

As far as punishment sins do vary, would you think (if there was punishment in Hell as I believe) that a fair God would punish someone for stealing a piece of bubble gum the same as a mass murderer?
But for the sake of trying to "work" or "earn" eternal life on our own merits, ANY sin is enough to make us fail so in that sense alone the equality exists.

No, I'm saying you do have to earn it, it just takes very little effort. You still have to perform the action of making the proper choice. Its a small effort which unfairly has massive consequences. Making this choice has no link to your moral actions but still leads to the best possible outcome in the afterlife. So morality doesn't matter in the long-run (aka eternity). Morality only matters while on Earth.

Actually the effort is not necessarily little, as the struggle to believe and have the faith to honestly accept the gift of salvation can be very hard for some taking years to get to that point, but it is not in any sense a work that we do. It is essentially a choice of the heart. There are rewards in heaven for works that are done that are not related to attempting to earn salvation, but getting in the gates requires no works whatsoever.
Again your issue is that you think salvation is unfair. It is a gift.

This is actually basically the opposite of my argument. This analogy doesn't describe the situation at all.

1st sentence: I'm saying that the father does not give the same gift equally to both sons. He punishes one and gives the gift to another.

wrong, you have two sons both guilty of crimes. Their father is the judge and issues both pardons. He hands them to both sons, one opens the envelope and accepts the pardon the other refuses his pardon and is punished instead.

1st sentence: I'm saying that both sons functionally strive to act in accordance with the father's will to the best of their abilities in as many areas of life as possible. But neither son is perfect. Far from it.

both sons are guilty of sin (a punishable crime to God in that sense)
all sins must be punished for (God is a God of perfect justice too).

2nd sentence: Neither son treats the father better or worse.

your concept of sin doesn't allow you to connect the dots.

2nd sentence: The bad son does not receive the gift so the "good son" has no reason to get upset about it.

Both were offered the same gift, regardless of who accepts it the outcome is seen to the sons as unequal.

Last sentence: The father should give the gift to both sons if he truly loved them unconditionally. Unconditionality means that regardless of the sons' actions, beliefs, words or thoughts, the father wants to and is able to give both of them the gifts out of pure love and desire to see their joy in receiving the gift.

There is a conditions to the gift of eternal life though to accept it. God will not give the gift to someone that rejects him because the gift is essentially a part of him in a sense.

In your analogy, I assume "father" is "God", "good son" is "Christian", "bad son" is "Non-Christian", "gift" is "eternal life".

No..... the good son is a relative term only which relates to essentially a worldly view of "less sinful". Both sons are not Christian because salvation cannot be given to a Christian (it is redundant, one cannot be saved twice).

 

[razeontherock]

I'm assuming you're referring to Cain and Abel. Yes, actions matter in this story but according to Christian theology, Jesus came specifically to get rid of this type of situation, didn't he?

How do you hold the idea of "Saved by Jesus Christ" and "Works have Consequences" together without running into contradictions regarding the purpose of Christianity and the path to eternal life?

If you are Saved by Jesus Christ and you are washed of your sins by his blood, then you are on the path to eternal life in Him.

This seems wholly independent of your moral actions. So either being Saved by Jesus Christ is true and works have no consequences or being saved by Jesus Christ isn't the whole story and works do have consequences.

I don't see how you can have both ideas held together.

Ok, good discussion! Notice those 4 words I emphasized, and please do continue to own those. There are many, many things I do not understand, even about the Bible, and helping you along is truly the most self-serving thing another can do. Hopefully one day you will be in the position to return the favor.

So I was referring to Adam and Eve, considering that to be the first story in the Bible, because Genesis 1 is really just a declaration of who G-d is, specifically that he is greater than the gods of the surrounding cultures.

Cain and Abel also demonstrates that actions have consequences. An interesting twist to this story, is that satan was attempting to deal Christ a death blow before He had a chance, and Cain's actions didn't thwart G-d's plan at all. Just like our actions don't stop G-d's purposes; He continues on with or w/o us.

"Jesus came specifically to get rid of this type of situation, didn't he?"

NO!! Since finding Jesus in my life, I have NOT been removed from all possibility of sin. Quite the opposite, the Spirit "drives us into the wilderness to be tempted."

"How do you hold the idea of "Saved by Jesus Christ" and "Works have Consequences" together without running into contradictions?"

By understanding the nature of things. The consequences are not eternal, but temporal. Each step forms a path. Their total will be judged, future tense.

I'll try to remember what another poster wrote recently, something to the effect (about forgiveness) that if our moral actions have no reward, our true morality comes to the surface. My extension of this is that it does so in this lifetime, so we can better see what it is, and make amends.

 

[razeontherock]

I think you are essentially saying that salvation is unfair because it is absolutely free (no way to earn it). It sort of is like a father giving two sons the same gift because he loves them both equally even though one son mistreats his father and is less moral than the other. The son that treats his father better gets upset because he thinks the other son doesn't deserve the gift but the issue is not about fairness or the sons themselves (gift recipients) but about the father (giver) and his love towards his sons.

Or it is like 2 workers that work for their agreed upon identical wage, one who works all day (their whole life) one who only works a few hours (repents late in life) and both get the same pay, as agreed.

Now is the time to work through all such issues!

 

[Sophrosyne]

Or it is like 2 workers that work for their agreed upon identical wage, one who works all day (their whole life) one who only works a few hours (repents late in life) and both get the same pay, as agreed.

Now is the time to work through all such issues!

Another analogy I came up with. The wages of sin is death. Based upon this, Jesus took our place in front of a firing squad. Each sin is akin to an expert shot shooting at Jesus with a gun. The first son (good one) has only one guy shooting at Jesus.... bang one shot, Jesus is dead. The second son has 10 guys shooting at Jesus... 10 bullets hit.... Jesus is dead.
Now the son that is "good" argues with Jesus that it is unfair that the other son got eternal life based upon 10 bullets vs his only 1 bullet.

 

[razeontherock]

Oh that is GOOD, in a "if you can't say amen, at least say ouch" kind of way ...