Blood sacrifice, i.e. animal sacrifice

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Your not the first I've spoken with who calls Paul' teaching "complex" in order to give him the benefit of the doubt. But none have been able / willing to unravel the "complexity" and provide a coherent all inclusive explanation. I think the tendency is a, "it's in the Bible, so it must be coherent", attitude. Often "complexity" is ultimately nothing mor relation to grace, the law and faith, but that is another story.

[/b]I am not saying it is incomprehensible or incoherent, just that it is complex -- a few quotes hastily excised from their context will not be very illustrative of the breadth of his belief. There is an Anglican bishop who is an eminent authority on this subject, N.T Wright, who has dealt with this issue. Anyway, I think from the quote I gave, it can be seen that Paul does not see a profession of faith as saving in itself. Anyway, I think from the quote I gave, it can be seen that Paul does not see a profession of faith as saving in itself.

Or that his position is incoherent. For instance, can the following be reasonably reconciled with something that points to requiring something more that that?

Romans 10
8 But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

At several points in the Scripture, Jesus does mention eternal life. For example, he says 'Everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life' (Matthew 19:29). Jesus says that 'He who loses his life gains it' (implying that self-sacrificing death leads to a new and greater life.) Eternal life figures prominently in Jesus' teaching. At many other times, Jesus also teaches about eternal fire and hell. He clearly believes that the afterlife will be eternal and in it, God will enact divine justice, punishing evil-doers and rewarding followers.

I think you may have misinterpreted what I was saying. I'm wasn't questioning that Jesus taught of "eternal life". I was trying to point out that if Jesus subscribed to the "a person no longer fears death or temptation and can therefore lead a moral life" theory and believed it the best approach, then why didn't he teach it?

Originally posted by knightmeister
What's more, it wasn't really "my speculation". It was speculation that I had come across and merely asked for vistesd's opinion on it since he is much better grounded in the ancient Jews and Judaism than I.

------------ToOne-----------------------------

Oh , come on. Don't try and pull that one out of the bag. You talk as if you merely stumbled ...[text shortened]... ing to something symbolic and significant , especially if his name is Jesus.

Try rereading my post again. You seem to not be able to comprehend it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I am not saying it is incomprehensible or incoherent, just that it is complex -- a few quotes hastily excised from their context will not be very illustrative of the breadth of his belief. There is an Anglican bishop who is an eminent authority on this subject, N.T Wright, who has dealt with this issue. Anyway, I think from the quote I gave, it can ...[text shortened]... a moral life" theory and believed it the best approach, then why didn't he teach it?

You are completely disingenuous. I have shown that Paul sees the possibility of a believer losing salvation by immorality. I gave the quote. I urge you to include that in your exegesis of Romans.

I think you may have misinterpreted what I was saying. I'm wasn't questioning that Jesus taught of "eternal life". I was trying to point out that if Jesus subscribed to the "a person no longer fears death or temptation and can therefore lead a moral life" theory and believed it the best approach, then why didn't he teach it?

Jesus offers the possibility of eternal life. Is there any more compelling incitement than that to lead a moral life?

Originally posted by Conrau K
You are completely disingenuous. I have shown that Paul sees the possibility of a believer losing salvation by immorality. I gave the quote. I urge you to include that in your exegesis of Romans.

[b]I think you may have misinterpreted what I was saying. I'm wasn't questioning that Jesus taught of "eternal life". I was trying to point out that if Jesus s of eternal life. Is there any more compelling incitement than that to lead a moral life?

[/b]You are completely disingenuous. I have shown that Paul sees the possibility of a believer losing salvation by immorality. I gave the quote. I urge you to include that in your exegesis of Romans.

If you believe that that quote can reasonably be reconciled with the following, then show how.

Romans 10
8 But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Jesus offers the possibility of eternal life. Is there any more compelling incitement than that to lead a moral life?

Are you speaking of the teachings of Jesus here? Or what Paul taught ?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You are completely disingenuous. I have shown that Paul sees the possibility of a believer losing salvation by immorality. I gave the quote. I urge you to include that in your exegesis of Romans.

If you believe that that quote can reasonably be reconciled with the following, then show how.

Romans 10
8 But what does it say? “THE WORD IS ...[text shortened]... lead a moral life?[/b]

Are you speaking of the teachings of Jesus here? Or what Paul taught ?[/b]

If you believe that that quote can reasonably be reconciled with the following, then show how.

I do not see why any reconciliation is necessary. It is one thing to say that by belief in Jesus Christ each individual will be saved; it is another to say that all a person has to do is believe. You have imposed this dichotomy. Paul clearly says that salvation is lost by immorality.

Are you speaking of the teachings of Jesus here? Or what Paul taught ?

I am not speaking of either actually. It just seems to me a matter of fact that the offer of eternal life would lead to a moral life. Hence, it would not be contradictory to say that faith in eternal life leads to salvation and the moral life leads to salvation, since one entails the other.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]If you believe that that quote can reasonably be reconciled with the following, then show how.

I do not see why any reconciliation is necessary. It is one thing to say that by belief in Jesus Christ each individual will be saved; it is another to say that all a person has to do is believe. You have imposed this dichotomy. Paul clearly says that sa ...[text shortened]... rnal life leads to salvation and the moral life leads to salvation, since one entails the other.[/b]

I do not see why any reconciliation is necessary. It is one thing to say that by belief in Jesus Christ each individual will be saved; it is another to say that all a person has to do is believe. You have imposed this dichotomy. Paul clearly says that salvation is lost by immorality.

Paul says that YOU WILL BE SAVED. Not that you may be saved. Not that it may lead to your being saved.

If not this, then what do you think is the absolute minimum requirement for salvation?

I am not speaking of either actually. It just seems to me a matter of fact that the offer of eternal life would lead to a moral life. Hence, it would not be contradictory to say that faith in eternal life leads to salvation and the moral life leads to salvation, since one entails the other.

Seem you've gone off on a tangent. The following question is still open: "I was trying to point out that if Jesus subscribed to the 'a person no longer fears death or temptation and can therefore lead a moral life' theory and believed it the best approach, then why didn't he teach it?".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I do not see why any reconciliation is necessary. It is one thing to say that by belief in Jesus Christ each individual will be saved; it is another to say that all a person has to do is believe. You have imposed this dichotomy. Paul clearly says that salvation is lost by immorality.

Paul says that YOU WILL BE SAVED. Not that you may be saved. N ...[text shortened]... ead a moral life' theory and believed it the best approach, then why didn't he teach it?".[/b]

Paul says that YOU WILL BE SAVED. Not that you may be saved. Not that it may lead to your being saved.

If not this, then what do you think is the absolute minimum requirement for salvation?

Yes, ThinkOfOne, I am quite capable of reading. You do not need to capitilise letters. What I dispute is not the words but your interpretation which fails to acknowledge other Pauline teachings (for example, that immorality will incur divine punishment.)

When Paul says that by belief in Jesus Christ (which mind you, he characterises as a belief of the heart) will save, this does not necessarily exclude that there will be other requirements in that process of salvation. For example, in city streets, there are signs warning 'vandals will be prosecuted.' This does not mean that at the very moment someone commits vandalism, they suffer instant punishment. What it means is that, if they commit vandalism, it will instigate a process leading to prosecution -- camera footage will be reviewed; the person will be identified, arrested and served; he will enter court and enter a plea, and then, depending on his answer, punishment will eventually be decided for him.

This is how I interpret Paul's doctrine of salvation. He does believe that belief in Christ will save. This belief, however, is not like any intellectual assent. It is not like saying 'I believe in climate change'. It is a movement of the heart which, in his philosophy, is the seat of the will. Such a belief however necessarily entails a moral life. This is why he cautions believers to keep moral lives -- because their belief intimately involves their life. So when he says that belief in Christ saves, this does not exclude morality (he frequently urges believers to be moral). Rather, it is analogous to James' saying 'Faith without works is dead' because true belief of the heart will result in a moral life.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Try rereading my post again. You seem to not be able to comprehend it.

Seems to me that there are an awful lot of us around here who "can't comprehend" what you are saying either.

We must all be children , liars and hypocrites!

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Paul says that YOU WILL BE SAVED. Not that you may be saved. Not that it may lead to your being saved.

If not this, then what do you think is the absolute minimum requirement for salvation?

Yes, ThinkOfOne, I am quite capable of reading. You do not need to capitilise letters. What I dispute is not the words but your interpretation which fails ith without works is dead' because true belief of the heart will result in a moral life.[/b]

Yes, ThinkOfOne, I am quite capable of reading. You do not need to capitilise letters. What I dispute is not the words but your interpretation which fails to acknowledge other Pauline teachings (for example, that immorality will incur divine punishment.)

When Paul says that by belief in Jesus Christ (which mind you, he characterises as a belief of the heart) will save, this does not necessarily exclude that there will be other requirements in that process of salvation. For example, in city streets, there are signs warning 'vandals will be prosecuted.' This does not mean that at the very moment someone commits vandalism, they suffer instant punishment. What it means is that, if they commit vandalism, it will instigate a process leading to prosecution -- camera footage will be reviewed; the person will be identified, arrested and served; he will enter court and enter a plea, and then, depending on his answer, punishment will eventually be decided for him.

The fact remains that he said "will" and not "may lead to". To compare it to vandalism signs is disingenuous. With the vandalism signs those other things are understood. The people of Rome are presumably being taught how things work which is an entirely different context.

This is how I interpret Paul's doctrine of salvation. He does believe that belief in Christ will save. This belief, however, is not like any intellectual assent. It is not like saying 'I believe in climate change'. It is a movement of the heart which, in his philosophy, is the seat of the will. Such a belief however necessarily entails a moral life. This is why he cautions believers to keep moral lives -- because their belief intimately involves their life. So when he says that belief in Christ saves, this does not exclude morality (he frequently urges believers to be moral). Rather, it is analogous to James' saying 'Faith without works is dead' because true belief of the heart will result in a moral life.


You're going to have to explain how a belief that "God raised [Jesus] from the dead" "necessarily entails a moral life." All it requires is that one truly believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. If the premise was a belief in the moral teachings of Jesus and the standard of belief was that they walk the walk, I could buy it. From my experience and what I gather from others (including many Christians), Christians are no more moral than non-Christians. So it doesn't really hold water.

You also say, "when he says that belief in Christ saves" though Paul says, "with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." Evidently Paul believed that lip service is what was required for salvation.

Try reading Romans 1-10. He seems to be telling them that they are justified by faith alone, but exhorts them to lead moral lives anyway which, to me, paints a different picture from how you interpret Colossians. You seem to lean pretty heavily on the idea that in Colossians "Paul clearly says that salvation is lost by immorality", but, from what I can tell, many believe that there is punishment but that it in no way affects their salvation. I can see where they can make that case. I didn't see where Paul states that.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Yes, ThinkOfOne, I am quite capable of reading. You do not need to capitilise letters. What I dispute is not the words but your interpretation which fails to acknowledge other Pauline teachings (for example, that immorality will incur divine punishment.)

When Paul says that by belief in Jesus Christ (which mind you, he characterises as a belief of t see where they can make that case. I didn't see where Paul states that.[/b]

The fact remains that he said "will" and not "may lead to". To compare it to vandalism signs is disingenuous. With the vandalism signs those other things are understood. The people of Rome are presumably being taught how things work which is an entirely different context.

I don't deny he said 'will'. As I have admitted, ad nauseum, to Paul, a belief in Christ of the heart really will save because it will lead a person into a moral life. I think it is your turn to go on the defense. If Paul really does believe in cheap salvation (even though this idea does not really emerge historically until the time of Luther), why all the exhortations to avoid sin?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]The fact remains that he said "will" and not "may lead to". To compare it to vandalism signs is disingenuous. With the vandalism signs those other things are understood. The people of Rome are presumably being taught how things work which is an entirely different context.

I don't deny he said 'will'. As I have admitted, ad nauseum, to Pau ...[text shortened]... lly emerge historically until the time of Luther), why all the exhortations to avoid sin?[/b]

Do you really expect me to know the motivations of Paul? If you want some guesses, let me know, though I don't know what the point would be.

Did you see the rest of my post? I explained why your assertion about "a belief in Christ" doesn't really hold water amongst a number of other things.

Also, I hope that you understand that your comment that "even though this idea does not really emerge historically until the time of Luther" is irrelevant. The fact that the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun did not emerge historically until relatively late in the game doesn't make it any less true.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do you really expect me to know the motivations of Paul? If you want some guesses, let me know, though I don't know what the point would be.

Did you skip the rest of my post? I explained why your assertion about "a belief in Christ" doesn't really hold water amongst a number of other things.

Also, I hope that you understand that your comment that " ...[text shortened]... not emerge historically until relatively late in the game doesn't make it any less true.

I don't expect you to understand his motivations; I only expect you to read things in context. Paul clearly sees a relationship between belief and morality. Throughout Romans, he urges believers to keep to the moral life or else suffer damnation:

9
Let love be sincere; hate what is evil, hold on to what is good;
10
love one another with mutual affection; anticipate one another in showing honor.
11
Do not grow slack in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord.
12
Rejoice in hope, endure in affliction, persevere in prayer.
13
Contribute to the needs of the holy ones, exercise hospitality.
14
6 Bless those who persecute (you), bless and do not curse them.
15
Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.
16
Have the same regard for one another; do not be haughty but associate with the lowly; do not be wise in your own estimation.
17
Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all.
Romans 12: 9-17

Belief in Jesus Christ should lead a person to be humble, loving, obedient and empathetic. It is hardly 'cheap'.

Also, I hope that you understand that your comment that "even though this idea does not really emerge historically until the time of Luther" is irrelevant. The fact that the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun did not emerge historically until relatively late in the game doesn't make it any less true.

There is a huge difference. The Scriptures are culturally mediated. So if Paul really believed in cheap salvation, a sensible person would expect that his audience would understand that; a sensible person would expect that Christians in the following centuries, who were close to Paul, his culture and his successors, would also understand. It is completely different.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I don't expect you to understand his motivations; I only expect you to read things in context. Paul clearly sees a relationship between belief and morality. Throughout Romans, he urges believers to keep to the moral life or else suffer damnation:
[quote]9
Let love be sincere; hate what is evil, hold on to what is good;
10
love one another with m ...[text shortened]... o Paul, his culture and his successors, would also understand. It is completely different.

I don't expect you to understand his motivations; I only expect you to read things in context.

Yet you asked me to provide what amounts to speculating about his motivation.

Throughout Romans, he urges believers to keep to the moral life or else suffer damnation: ...
Belief in Jesus Christ should lead a person to be humble, loving, obedient and empathetic. It is hardly 'cheap'.

I see nothing in the passage you cited that even implies suffering damnation.

What's "cheap" is salvation being granted for less than becoming righteous, i.e. one with God.

There is a huge difference. The Scriptures are culturally mediated. So if Paul really believed in cheap salvation, a sensible person would expect that his audience would understand that; a sensible person would expect that Christians in the following centuries, who were close to Paul, his culture and his successors, would also understand. It is completely different.

One would hope that the teachings of someone would be preserved by successors. However, history shows that man often does not do so. For example, look at how the teachings of Jesus were superseded by the teachings of Paul and others.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I don't expect you to understand his motivations; I only expect you to read things in context.[/b]

Yet you asked me to provide what amounts to speculating about his motivation.

Throughout Romans, he urges believers to keep to the moral life or else suffer damnation: ...
Belief in Jesus Christ should lead a person to be humble, loving, obedien e, look at how the teachings of Jesus were superseded by the teachings of Paul and others.

I have given you quotes which show that Paul believes that immorality will lead to divine punishment. I have shown quotes with Paul discoursing on the need to behave righteously. There is hardly anything 'cheap' about his soteriology. It is so clear. You pick out Romans 10 and then make yourself deaf to the volumes of other teachings.

One would hope that the teachings of someone would be preserved by successors. However, history shows that man often does not do so. For example, look at how the teachings of Jesus were superseded by the teachings of Paul and others.

Of course. Teachings overtime can be misconstrued and corrupted. But a sensible person would expect at least some record of this teaching if it cut at the heart of Paul's theory of salvation. You are worse than the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses who all hold some theory of instant apostasy, as if the church had these straightforward teachings and then everyone immediately forgot them. It is bizarre and totally implausible.

Thanks to Rajk, here is a very clear statement against cheap salvation in Romans 2:

1
1 Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things.
2
We know that the judgment of God on those who do such things is true.
3
Do you suppose, then, you who judge those who engage in such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?
4
Or do you hold his priceless kindness, forbearance, and patience in low esteem, unaware that the kindness of God would lead you to repentance?
5
By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God,
6
who will repay everyone according to his works:
7
eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works,
8
but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.
9
Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek.
10
But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek.
11
There is no partiality with God.
12
All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it.
13
For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified.
14
For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law.
15
They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them
16
on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people's hidden works through Christ Jesus.

Paul teaches that God will reward those according to their good work. Paul goes onto to say that those who steal, commit adultery and practice hypocrisy will be duly punished. This is a clear repudiation of cheap salvation and an affirmation of Jesus Christ' call to repentance. To be sure, Paul does argue that belief has a necessary role in salvation but as I have said, I think Paul considers belief and moral life as intimately tied together. Belief of the heart (where the will and passions are located) impels the person into righteousness.