06 Oct 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasNemesio's response is quite accurate.
[b]How many deathbed confessions that you know of have led to salvation?
One. My mother-in-law's sister died last year. On her deathbed she repented of her sins and confessed Christ as her Lord and Savior. This was an older woman who had been fiercely atheistic her entire life. It wasn't until after many months of suffering from a terminal ill ...[text shortened]... al life.
I believe in Him.
Now, tell me why I shouldn't trust that I have eternal life?[/b]
As for the other question, we should all trust in Christ and believe that He will find us worthy for salvation. But you and me trusting in ourselves is different from a pastor about to baptise 200 and telling them all that from this day on they are saved and cannot lose their salvation. He just cannot know that.
06 Oct 08
Originally posted by Rajk999Maybe he's thinking about it because my interpretation is one to which he's not previously considered.
Nemesio's interpretation is kinda the opposite of yours.
How can both be reasonable?
Two opposite interpretations to a given passage could be equally reasonable. Consider this:
I couldn't recommend the applicant too highly.
This could mean that the applicant is not particularly worthy of recommendation, or that because
he is so good, I lack the capacity to recommend him to the degree that he is worth. These are
opposite and equally justified interpretations. In the absence of context, no one argument could
be presented to make one interpretation more valid than the other.
However, given some context, one interpretation would most certainly be preferred over another.
So, perhaps PinkFloyd wants to mull over things but wanted to acknowledge to me that he thought
that my interpretation was worthy of study. Is it too much for you to have someone acknowledge
another point of view as reasonable that you have to get in his face about it?
There is only two things that inspire me to get in someone's face: 1) When a person agrees that
position X is the most reasonable position, but they decide to believe not-X anyway; and 2)
When a person pretends to be discussing something, but is really just sticking their head in the
sand and insisting that 'you just don't understand' (secret decoder ring approach).
Even if PinkFloyd ultimately disagrees with my interpretation, as long as he validates his own,
opposite point of view with a (Biblically) justified explanation, it's totally fine. If he engages in
#s 1 or 2 above, then I think jumping up and down is a justified response.
Nemesio
06 Oct 08
Originally posted by NemesioDo you think PF justified his position that James' reference to dead faith implies salvation anyway.
Maybe he's thinking about it because my interpretation is one to which he's not previously considered.
Two opposite interpretations to a given passage could be equally reasonable. Consider this:
I couldn't recommend the applicant too highly.
This could mean that the applicant is not particularly worthy of recommendation, or that because
he ...[text shortened]... n
#s 1 or 2 above, then I think jumping up and down is a justified response.
Nemesio
Do you think that James' reference to dead faith implies salvation anyway?
06 Oct 08
Originally posted by NemesioChrist use the word 'worthy' as follows :
It is Biblically unsound to think that anyone is 'worthy' of salvation.
Nemesio
Luke 21: 36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.
What exactly is unbiblical about sayiing 'worthy of salvation' ?
06 Oct 08
Originally posted by Rajk999
Do you think PF justified his position that James' reference to dead faith implies salvation anyway.
He made an assertion. I countered it with my own, and provided my reasoning why. I was under
the impression that he was going to think about it. You seem to want him to answer before he's
had a chance to mull it over. I say give the guy a break.
Do you think that James' reference to dead faith implies salvation anyway?
I don't think it is Biblically justified.
Nemesio
06 Oct 08
Originally posted by Rajk999Jesus does not use the word 'worthy.' To wit:
Christ use the word 'worthy' as follows :
Luke 21: 36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.
What exactly is unbiblical about sayiing 'worthy of salvation' ?
agrupneite de en panti kairo deomenoi iva katischusnte ekphugein tauta panta ta mellonta ginesthai kai stathenai emprosthen ton uiou ton anthropou.
But be alert at every time praying that you may be able to escape all these things being about to happen and to stand before the son of man. St Luke 21:36
This passage speaks about having the capacity (translations often use 'strength'😉 to escape 'these
things' (mentioned in the previous verses -- drunkness, dissipation, and worldly worries).
Worthy is a dreadful translation. Why you're still using the KJV to inform your theological framework
is mystifying to me, if you left all the other stuff behind (as you said in your post about rejoicing).
The reason that it is not Biblical to say 'worthy of salvation' is because that suggests that one
can earn it for himself. If one can earn it for oneself, then it's no more a gift than your paycheck
is from your employer.
Further, it would be incumbent upon the person maintaining that they are worthy of salvation
to describe the standard by which someone becomes worthy. If feeding the poor is the standard,
then how many poor, or what percentage of accumulated wealth qualifies, and so forth. This
runs counter to other NT theological notions of salvation in which it occurs by virtue of grace
through faith (which entails being a good worker, of course).
Nemesio
06 Oct 08
Originally posted by NemesioI would gladly give people a break if they need time to think.
Originally posted by Rajk999
[b]Do you think PF justified his position that James' reference to dead faith implies salvation anyway.
He made an assertion. I countered it with my own, and provided my reasoning why. I was under
the impression that he was going to think about it. You seem to want him to answer before he's
had a chance to mu ...[text shortened]... aith implies salvation anyway?[/b]
I don't think it is Biblically justified.
Nemesio[/b]
I often say things that on reflection are not correct and I would eventually retract.
But PF made this same statement about James a couple months ago and when i took him up on it he ignored me.
I think he had enough time, or he is using MDR to claim I cannot understand.
06 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioI appreciate your points about us not being able to determine 'worthiness' and the fact that we cannot earn salvation. I will never say that I think I am worthy, or Epi is worthy of salvation. If I did then I will be as guilty as those pastors who advise the newly baptised that they are saved. Being 'saved' or being 'worthy of salvation' is a determination that can only be made by Christ. In my response to Epi my point is that we hope that Christ will find us worthy, not that I think we are worthy. And Christ is capable of knowing what are the requirements for reaching that standard of worthiness (even though He did not use that word)
Jesus does not use the word 'worthy.' To wit:
agrupneite de en panti kairo deomenoi iva [b]katischusnte ekphugein tauta panta ta mellonta ginesthai kai stathenai emprosthen ton uiou ton anthropou.
But be alert at every time praying that you may be able to escape all these things being about to happen and to stand before the tue of grace
through faith (which entails being a good worker, of course).
Nemesio[/b]
Thanks for the tip on the KJV. I use the KJV in conjuction with a Strong's concordance. What translation do you use?
07 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999I think that the authors of the Bible maintain that the 'requirement' is faith,
I appreciate your points about us not being able to determine 'worthiness' and the fact that we cannot earn salvation. I will never say that I think I am worthy, or Epi is worthy of salvation. If I did then I will be as guilty as those pastors who advise the newly baptised that they are saved. Being 'saved' or being 'worthy of salvation' is a determination ...[text shortened]... JV. I use the KJV in conjuction with a Strong's concordance. What translation do you use?
where faith entails all of the elements we've discussed time and time again
(sincerity, outward expressions of compassion). And, I don't think that, even
having met that requirement, the authors would assert that the reward of
salvation is thus earned.
That is, irrespective of the magnitude of faith, salvation is unmerited. Thus,
the notion of 'worthiness' is not really part of the equation.
That, I think, is the thrust of the authors of the NT texts.
Nemesio
Edit: I use the USB Greek transliteration along with the accompanying
study aids on translation that they publish. I also look at the NAB and
accompanying notes, including the Jerome Biblical commentary. I also
read the Jesus Seminar's translation for contrasting opinions and a broader
contextual discussion. I also consult the NIV and NRSV if I'm interested
in seeing a few more opinions.
If I'm interested in reading nice poetry, I like the KJV and the Douai-Rheims,
both of which offer beautiful, albeit often poorly translated, renditions of
the text. They are the best for setting Bible texts to music (if you want
to set it in English).
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by NemesioThanks
I think that the authors of the Bible maintain that the 'requirement' is faith,
where faith entails all of the elements we've discussed time and time again
(sincerity, outward expressions of compassion). And, I don't think that, even
having met that requirement, the authors would assert that the reward of
salvation is thus earned.
That is, irrespect ...[text shortened]... They are the best for setting Bible texts to music (if you want
to set it in English).
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by Rajk999It sounds like you have Joel Osteen on the brain.
Nemesio's response is quite accurate.
As for the other question, we should all trust in Christ and believe that He will find us worthy for salvation. But you and me trusting in ourselves is different from a pastor about to baptise 200 and telling them all that from this day on they are saved and cannot lose their salvation. He just cannot know that.
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by NemesioI was indeed, cogitating your points, Nem. And I agree that one could equate the "dead faith" described by James as being the same as Paul's tinkinling cymbal--it's a pretty good analogy. I still maintain that neither being a tinkling symbol nor a person of "dead faith" automatically sentences them to eternal damnation. I would agree that such a person MIGHT be rare (thief on the cross examples are likely not the norm), but I still believe God is quick to forgive, and that means taking those who come to Him late in life and/or after a life of less-than-stellar Christian character. I really find this a small matter of disagreement among fellow Christians. With the many doctrinal schisms of the past, this one ranks up there with "what color should the altar cloth be this Sunday?"
Originally posted by Rajk999
[b]Do you think PF justified his position that James' reference to dead faith implies salvation anyway.
He made an assertion. I countered it with my own, and provided my reasoning why. I was under
the impression that he was going to think about it. You seem to want him to answer before he's
had a chance to mu ...[text shortened]... aith implies salvation anyway?[/b]
I don't think it is Biblically justified.
Nemesio[/b]
Oh, and did Rajk say something? Your post seemed to be a response to his response to me, which of course, I didn't see.
08 Oct 08
Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I still maintain that neither being a tinkling symbol nor a person of "dead faith" automatically sentences them to eternal damnation. I would agree that such a person MIGHT be rare (thief on the cross examples are likely not the norm), but I still believe God is quick to forgive, and that means taking those who come to Him late in life and/or after a life of less-than-stellar Christian character.
I maintain that the thief on the cross did all the works he possibly could do, given the timing of
his epiphanic moment: He rebuked the other thief. He spoke the truth. And he addressed Jesus
with humility.
Consider the parable of the workers in the vineyard, one of the most compelling of Jesus' various
presentations (St Matthew 20:1-16). Some people worked from the very beginning, some worked
from midday, some worked from the afternoon, and some only toiled for an hour. But all received
equal pay. It's not the work that you did, it's that you were willing to work at all, so to speak.
I really find this a small matter of disagreement among fellow Christians. With the many doctrinal schisms of the past, this one ranks up there with "what color should the altar cloth be this Sunday?"
Don't mistake me. I think signs, symbols and rituals can be powerful reminders of faith issues.
I don't think that they have to be powerful reminders -- I don't think one has to ritualize
worship in order to get close to God -- but for the mindful worshiper, they can serve in the same
manner as Buddhists use bells. They can bring focus, attention, and result in introspection.
So, yes, I would care deeply about the color of the altar cloth because I think that colors have
acquired meaning (both biologically and sociologically). I think that a homogeneity of symbols
can arouse great spiritual fervor for some without distracting others.
Nemesio