Love One Another and the Cross

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

really? i had all that stuff memorized at like, 14,

Be honest. You said you never heard of the explanation of law's purpose as I laid it out. Then you say things like this. It's not hard to comply and be honest about these things.

No more can be said.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Be honest. You said you never heard of the explanation of law's purpose as I laid it out. Then you say things like this. It's not hard to comply and be honest about these things.

No more can be said.

i just never heard it applied to Christ's imperative that "Love God and your neighbor is 9/10ths of the law and prophets," no. It seems to torture the context, to me, and make what Christ is saying here moot. Gal 6:14 puts it even more directly, 14For the entire law is fulfilled in one statement: Love your neighbor as yourself. And that is Paul!

Now yes of course keeping the law (a la Job) as a means to salvation fails; the law was given to reveal sin, we couldn't keep even one law, all that. Job kept them all, i guess, was called righteous, yet prayed to God at the beginning (of Job), and did not pray to Father until the end. Job is a chronicle of a law-keeper's change of heart.

But these are two different concepts, and the Gal reference provides that the law is fulfilled by this, if Christ's phrasing--which at least includes God, lol--seems ambiguous. Ha so here i am leaning on Paul now, when your best argument seems to rely on...well, God in Christ's

[shazeep]

i'm seeing that it comes down to one's motivation for doing good works; the state of one's heart. If you are volunteering at the soup kitchen because that is expected of you by your peers, or even if you just feel that that is what is expected of you, then that is salvation by works (SBW), and this is not some hidden, subtle thing, even if it is hard to describe; anyone who volunteers can attest to how easy it is to recognize the people who are there because they have to be, people "doing hours." You don't even have to ask.

What is in others' hearts becomes revealed pretty quickly; it is what is in our own that is hidden. Faith without works is dead; so what is faith? Verbally agreeing with the pastor? But obviously some are truly converted at the altar. But for many others, the majority i think, finding faith is a fragile process. Faith--like salvation, i think--is not an on/off thing, 'either you have faith or you don't,' even though it is often portrayed that way. Faith must be built, for most people. Faith can be lost. It can be misunderstood, and it can be misapplied.

Either you have faith or you don't (), and your works are a reflection of your faith.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i just never heard it applied to Christ's imperative that "Love God and your neighbor is 9/10ths of the law and prophets," no. It seems to torture the context, to me, and make what Christ is saying here moot. Gal 6:14 puts it even more directly, 14For the entire law is fulfilled in one statement: Love your neighbor as yourself. And that is Paul!

Now yes of course keeping the law (a la Job) as a means to salvation fails; the law was given to reveal sin, we couldn't keep even one law, all that. Job kept them all, i guess, was called righteous, yet prayed to God at the beginning (of Job), and did not pray to Father until the end. Job is a chronicle of a law-keeper's change of heart.

But these are two different concepts, and the Gal reference provides that the law is fulfilled by this, if Christ's phrasing--which at least includes God, lol--seems ambiguous. Ha so here i am leaning on Paul now, when your best argument seems to rely on...well, God in Christ's

The explanation I gave for Paul's words about Law's purpose is pretty much standard amongst all those who accept Paul's words as inspired as the rest of the bible. It may only be obscure to those who don't delve into the details Paul teaches in each chapter with overall context in mind.

Anyway, I totally disagree that Christ would not have approved of Paul's message, and feel all the bible as we have it complements itself throughout.

I still would like to see how you can explain you don't espouse salvation by works without just saying you don't.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i'm seeing that it comes down to one's motivation for doing good works; the state of one's heart. If you are volunteering at the soup kitchen because that is expected of you by your peers, or even if you just feel that that is what is expected of you, then that is salvation by works (SBW), and this is not some hidden, subtle thing, even if it is hard to describe; anyone who volunteers can attest to how easy it is to recognize the people who are there because they have to be, people "doing hours." You don't even have to ask.

I disagree. Salvation by works is what people believe in when they do not regard Christ's work on the cross as solely responsible for what saves and makes us righteous. Being made righteous is what saves us, you know. So, the question is what makes us righteous.

HE was wounded for OUR transgressions. HE was bruised for OUR iniquity. By HIS stripes WE are healed. The travail of HIS soul, not our good works of love, satisfied the Father when it comes to OUR acceptance. Isaiah 53.

What does the cross play in your theology if you think a muslim can be saved without faith it even took place? THIS is the whole issue with you, Shazeep.

Whether a work is done out of love or done for fear of going to hell otherwise, it's still salvation by works. And THAT exalts self.

What is in others' hearts becomes revealed pretty quickly; it is what is in our own that is hidden. Faith without works is dead; so what is faith? Verbally agreeing with the pastor?

You're hung up on what we can know about another. It's what God sees in the heart. When the tell me what they believe, of corse I don't really know if they're genuine. But so what? They have to answer to God, not me. What faith is is trust in what God's word has said to the extent we do not require visible evidence to know it's true.

That's all.

But what need to we have faith in is the real question. And the bible plainly teaches that we need to have faith in the fact God sees Christ's death on the cross as us to be our means of salvation.

But obviously some are truly converted at the altar. But for many others, the majority i think, finding faith is a fragile process. Faith--like salvation, i think--is not an on/off thing, 'either you have faith or you don't,' even though it is often portrayed that way. Faith must be built, for most people. Faith can be lost. It can be misunderstood, and it can be misapplied.

Either you have faith or you don't (), and your works are a reflection of your faith.

I agree works reflect our faith. But works don't save and faith needs to be narrowed down as to what our faith is in.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The explanation I gave for Paul's words about Law's purpose is pretty much standard amongst all those who accept Paul's words as inspired as the rest of the bible. It may only be obscure to those who don't delve into the details Paul teaches in each chapter with overall context in mind.

Anyway, I totally disagree that Christ would not have approved of Paul's message, and feel all the bible as we have it complements itself throughout.

I still would like to see how you can explain you don't espouse salvation by works without just saying you don't.

well, i have been trying to figure out how; after all, they will appear the same from an observer's pov. I mean, how is Faith without works is dead not salvation by works? It is a matter of what state the heart is in. And i don't mean to say that Christ would not have approved of Paul's message, but that Paul was likely given for a snare. There can be no argument that a girl walking in to 711 in a bra is in sin on some level--even if one's personal standards of modesty don't apply--but the point is a pure heart would not even notice such things. ya, that helped

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

What does the cross play in your theology if you think a muslim can be saved without faith it even took place? THIS is the whole issue with you, Shazeep.

but i never said that a Muslim could be saved, Mike; i just stated that you cannot know, and prolly don't know what "salvation" is anyway. Sure, you have some concept of it, and some works you require--because works is what they are--before you might call someone "saved," but that does not mean that God waits for a sinner to find an OP church and go through the mechanics before He judges their heart. And what is faith? Same thing. We have a conception of it, but it is different for everyone; i know OPs praying faithfully for Christ to be with them through their chemotherapy, arg. Of course i am too chicken to laugh, or even speak, when the group is asked to agree "in faith" for things like this.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Whether a work is done out of love or done for fear of going to hell otherwise, it's still salvation by works. And THAT exalts self.

funny that the process of OP salvation may be described by the 2nd one though, huh? and to make the first one true, you sure have to ignore a lot of Scripture that indicates otherwise.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

but i never said that a Muslim could be saved, Mike; i just stated that you cannot know, and prolly don't know what "salvation" is anyway.

Since you claim we cannot know what salvation is, when the bible simply states it in plain terms, we are way too far apart -- further than I thought, and now I know why -- to be able to discuss. Because, if I use scripture, you'll only say it is an entrapment and I did not get the truth from such a scripture since my answer disagrees with what you believe. It makes you the arbiter of what truth is, since anything that disagrees with your view is considered misinterpreting scripture and falling into an intentional entrapment from God.

All in all, if you genuinely feel we cannot know for sure, then you would respond that I, as in me, MAY BE RIGHT. That would be the only honest conclusion from a stance that we do not know. But you've never once hinted that, so I cannot believe you are honest about this. Nothing personal, since I don't know you to let it be personal. But to those who believe the Bible cannot be taken arbitrarily, and we can believe what it says, this discussion can be better made, since otherwise you and I share no common base or foundation whatsoever, really. Too bad, since I really want to discuss how the cross fits into righteousness, because I believe the cross is more precious to me than anything we could study in the bible, and since you're the only one discussing it at all, I had hoped we could converse beyond what's it been like. But now I more clearly know why it's been like this.

[shazeep]

well, you say that Scripture clearly defines salvation, but Zaccheus and not one but several parables indicate that we humans are apt to get it wrong. So, you have some Paul, reams of legalese, likely given for a purpose, that allow you to disqualify, essentially, the Words of Christ, and you have to also ignore lots of other Scripture, but you can still point to Scripture to enforce your opinion.

There is a good argument that inducing someone to "follow" Acts 2:38 is just reducing spirituality, or salvation, down to a physical formula, some steps that need to be followed to be "saved," but when pressed, you falter at how you define someone who is saved. But of course defining and finding those who are "lost" is easy, innit? ya we're great at that. See the trap?

does this somehow invalidate Acts 2:38? Of course not. It just questions your understanding of it. Humans grasp for understanding and definition, but we see as through a mirror, darkly. So we come up with a definition, of God, say, that a bunch of our peers agree with, and that becomes fact to us, even though it is not, or at least certainly cannot be proven, even with our own dogma. (And the whole point is that i am not the arbiter of truth; i can freely admit that Acts 2:38 at the altar produces conversions, i have seen them; those people are leaping for joy, not running around poking fingers at others' sins).

And the fruit is always, always, always to discern an "us" and a "them," so that "they" must be wrong, because after all "we" are certainly "right." Cue Blessed Assurance. A Spanish Inquisition, iow, is all it is. "i, a human, have learned the only way, and you must follow it or you are lost." You become the blessed intermediary.

so, failing the argument, you have justification for dismissing me, but see that that is because that is all you have left in order to retain your "hold" on things. And since that didn't come out very nice, let me say that i am just describing human nature, something we do unconsciously, i do it too. We have a need to be "right," which is only natural--but needs to be overcome--and this can be used against us in our search for God. "i have God, and you talk different, therefore you must not know God" and can be discounted and dismissed out of hand.

[shazeep]

Understand I AM also points to this. See how we are possibly obsessed with our futures, but God is all about right now. Your next decision, that produces an action, will either be righteous, or it will not, iow the Holy Spirit will be in it, or It will not. Zaccheus experienced salvation "today" whether he ever went and did the works that you would consider mandatory for "future" salvation because there possibly is no such thing, it is just a great way to get you away from now. The whole religion becomes geared to the sweet by and by, and let the devil take today

talking about Jesus is great; even seeking peers that seek Christ, all that. But talking about Christ is considered "witnessing," when it may not be--i don't think Christ is served by talking. And you cannot accept Christ with your mouth; be we accept "bona-fides" as evidence of salvation!
Many will say "Lord, Lord."