The Boundaries of Reality

Originally posted by knightmeister
Besides, you said someone was saved as soon as they believed in Jesus Christ; James says you are wrong. Romans 10:9, which you are so fond of, says you are saved whether you do any works at all.
marauder------------

Yes , they all say these things in isolation , but if you put them together and look at the bigger picture?

Where's Matthew 25:31-46 fit into your "big picture"?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I tell you what: for a change just specifically say what you mean. Your style of debate is utterly tedious and predictable. You are falling back on Secret Decoder Rings and fallacious attacks on my so-called "agenda".

You telling someone to think for themselves is hilarious.

So you chose not to do the experiment nor answer any of the questions? Ah...another learning opportunity goes begging. Stop insulting and start thinking , address the experiment!!!

Originally posted by no1marauder
Read this and weep:

James 2:21: 21 [b]Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?

I notice you dodged the question on James 2:23. Where did you find your version with "God counted him righteous because of his faith"? Or did you just make it up?

EDIT: I think I see; you were usin ...[text shortened]... common fundie tactic here). Maybe you should take a Bible out rather than rely on cliff notes.[/b]

Your antagonism is refreshing. I'm not above using cut and paste, but in this case I didn't. Check the New Living Translation.

Read this and weep:

James 2:21: 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?

Yes, but you still (for some unknown reason) either refuse to reconcile or are incapable of reconciling James 2:21 with the fact that Abraham was declared righteous because of his faith, before he offered up Isaac. The works which Abraham accomplished by faith (i.e., circumcision, offering up Isaac, etc.) arose out of the same faith whereby God declared him righteous. Abraham shows his faith by his works (James 2:18), but his faith precedes his works (Romans 4:9-11).

If Abraham did not have any deeds, then it would have been plain that his faith was empty. And if his faith was empty, then God would not have declared him righteous. It happened to be, though, that Abraham's faith was genuine. And God, knowing the hearts of all men, declares him righteous according to his genuine faith.

There is a proper order to things: God declares people righteous before they have any works, granting them eternal life (John 10:28) the moment they believe with all their heart, "for with the heart one believes and is justified" (Romans 10:10).

Originally posted by knightmeister
The boundaries are anything but 'arbitrary'. Just do what Jesus asks and follow Him. And not just when it doesn't get in the way of the desires of the self.

---think of one----

I have had a lightbulb moment here. The reason why you are hard to argue with on this issue is that you are absolutely right (in one way) . There are loads of exhortation ing christ , do you think they are inferior to you? Or are they your equal in God's sight?

I think I understand what you're trying to say, but I can't buy it. It's been my experience that one truth cannot be used to deny another truth. If two truths seem to be in opposition, it's usually an indicator that one or both are not really true.

Let's take a look at what it means to 'believe in' something. A man says he believes in fidelity in marriage and promises his wife he'll be faithful to her. A very attractive woman pursues him and he breaks down and has an affair. Perhaps he 'believes in' fidelity in marriage, but evidently he believes in satisfying his lustful desires even more. Does he truly believe in fidelity in marriage?

So when does one 'believe in' Jesus? When he says he does? Or when he follows the teachings of Jesus ? What's the cut-off point? When does Jesus become Lord? When is Jesus above all? When does he become one of Jesus' flock?

Perhaps Jesus tells us. Here a few verses to consider.

While the following is directed toward wealth, I would think it would apply to all desires of the self.
Luke 16:13
"No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth."

Jesus explains who are members of his flock:
John 10:27-28
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.

Jesus give clear warning of how he knows who are his sheep and who are not:
Matthew 7:21-23
Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will tell me in that day,'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?' Then I will tell them,'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'

If the cut-off is at following the teachings of Jesus, it is very clean and the above verses ring true and a number of other things fall into place. If the cut-off is elsewhere, then what do you do with the above verses?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I think I understand what you're trying to say, but I can't buy it. It's been my experience that one truth cannot be used to deny another truth. If two truths seem to be in opposition, it's usually an indicator that one or both are not really true.

Let's take a look at what it means to 'believe in' something. A man says he believes in fidelity in marri If the cut-off is elsewhere, then what do you do with the above verses?

Let's take a look at what it means to 'believe in' something. A man says he believes in fidelity in marriage and promises his wife he'll be faithful to her. A very attractive woman pursues him and he breaks down and has an affair. Perhaps he 'believes in' fidelity in marriage, but evidently he believes in satisfying his lustful desires even more. Does he truly believe in fidelity in marriage?

THINK OF ONE---------------------

However , you have painted an extreme version of this analogy. A better analogy would be the man who , being pursued , finds the whole thing quite flattering and drifts into flirting behaviour once in a while. He sees this happening and tries to push her away. At an office party he has a drink or two and ends up kissing her but then immediately pulls away and leaves the party feeling guilty. He goes home to his wife and confesses everything. She is upset but she sees he is human and has been pursued and recognises that despite having made a mistake he has a deeper committment to her. His imperfections have temporarily got in the way but his still believes in her.

I guess for you that any kind of "fall" is completely unforgivable because unless he follows a line 100% straight he cannot be said to believe in fidelity? The problem with belief is that it is a messy business that is interfered with by feelings and desires. I believe that my plane will not crash but I still experience anxiety when it lands. I believe in my own competence at work but there are moments when I doubt this or feel inadequate. Does this mean I don't actually believe? Or has my belief become temporarily suspended by feelings?

Your world view takes no account of these subtlties. It's all or nothing again. A man believes (and does 100% ) or he doesn't (0% )

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I think I understand what you're trying to say, but I can't buy it. It's been my experience that one truth cannot be used to deny another truth. If two truths seem to be in opposition, it's usually an indicator that one or both are not really true.

Let's take a look at what it means to 'believe in' something. A man says he believes in fidelity in marri ...[text shortened]... If the cut-off is elsewhere, then what do you do with the above verses?

I think I understand what you're trying to say, but I can't buy it. It's been my experience that one truth cannot be used to deny another truth. If two truths seem to be in opposition, it's usually an indicator that one or both are not really true. THINK OF oNE-----------

Ok let's test this out then....(apologies fro re-posting this)

Let me give you a thought experiment. My 9 year old daughter plays football (soccer) and she is always going for slide tackles and getting left on her backside. I corrected her one day and told her that she needed to stay on her feet and channel the attacker down the wings. She played a match and was very ineffective and didn't tackle. They lost 0-3. After the match I asked her what went wrong and why she wasn't tackling . "Why didn't you get stuck in?!" I said. She complained vociferously ," you said 'stay on your feet' and I did as you said!!!" she said indignantly.


Question- How , in the child's mind, are the to two truths "stay on your feet" and "get stuck in" seen as opposing? Are these truths opposing?

You see what children do is see things in black and white terms . It's hard for them to hold two opposing truths together in their minds at the same time. Either A must be true or B , but they can't BOTH be right.

Children don't see the grey areas in between . They want clear truths that can be applied in ALL situations and contexts. They don't want truths that are sometimes applied and not at others.

The answer to the above is that what she needs to do is pick her moments . If you have watched football you will know that there are times when you need to stay on your feet (especially when you are the last man in defence) but also there is a time to get stuck in (when it's time to remind the opposition that you won't let them walk the ball into the net) All good defenders apply good timing. They know when to apply which truth and they understand the context of that truth. The truths "saty on your feet" and "get stuck in" are BOTH opposing but also COMPLIMENTARY. The world is full of truths like these.

Myself and ephin are looking at the context , you and marauder are not. When I hear James say "stay on your feet" I do not see it as contradicting the OT (or other passages) which say "get stuck in" because I know that they are there NOT to deny each other but to keep each other in check.

You see the whole point of all these passages is to keep men in balance between these two extremes. (Just as I am trying to keep my daughter from diving in too quickly WITHOUT losing her competitive edge)

There are two big mistakes that can be made here.

1) To go down the road of thinking that it 's works , works, works that saves you and that at the end of time you present a pile of good deeds to God which he tots up and decides that you have got enough to purchase your ticket to heaven. This is obviously no good because men don't get assured and the role of faith is denied opening the door to pride (look at me God I did more than him!)

2) The opposing mistake is to think that you just have faith and then sit back with a cigar without it meaning anything at all. The occasional coin in a charity can or a life doing what you like with a bit of repentance when you feel overly guilty , but then carry on just the same.

Now the point is that God wants NEITHER these does he? He wants a healthy balance between these two truths and so is placing the boundaries around us to keep us from falling too far one way or another. He wants us to recognise his gift of faith but also to then move on and exercise it genuinely.



There are some defenders that need to be encouraged to get their kit dirty lest they fall asleep in a match , and others who spend all the game on the floor watching strikers skip past them. They both need complimentary instruction from two truths that at first sight seem contradictory. Contradictory, that is, until one gets the grey matter moving.....

Originally posted by knightmeister
Let's take a look at what it means to 'believe in' something. A man says he believes in fidelity in marriage and promises his wife he'll be faithful to her. A very attractive woman pursues him and he breaks down and has an affair. Perhaps he 'believes in' fidelity in marriage, but evidently he believes in satisfying his lustful desires even more. Does ...[text shortened]... ties. It's all or nothing again. A man believes (and does 100% ) or he doesn't (0% )

"No servant can serve two masters."

Is God master or are desires and feelings master? If God isn't always master, then there is a lack of humility.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think I understand what you're trying to say, but I can't buy it. It's been my experience that one truth cannot be used to deny another truth. If two truths seem to be in opposition, it's usually an indicator that one or both are not really true. THINK OF oNE-----------

Ok let's test this out then....(apologies fro re-posting this)

Let me give adictory, that is, until one gets the grey matter moving.....

The problem is that they are half-truths. They are only situationally true. If you would have told her that there are situations where she needs to stay on her feet and that there are others where she needs to tackle, there wouldn't have been a misunderstanding. You could have given her various scenarios to help her to be able to distinguish the difference. You could have given her the benefit of your experience. I don't blame her for being indignant. She's just now learning the game. She doesn't have the experience to understand the difference. She isn't a mind-reader.

The question you need to ask yourself is this: Does Jesus deal in truths or half-truths? I have to believe that Jesus would deal in truths. I have to believe that He says what He means and means what He says. Do you believe Jesus? Do you believe in Jesus?

Originally posted by knightmeister
So you chose not to do the experiment nor answer any of the questions? Ah...another learning opportunity goes begging. Stop insulting and start thinking , address the experiment!!!

No, I'm not playing your games. Directly say what you mean; your constant attempts to control any thread by such childish antics is annoying and distracting to serious debate.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Your antagonism is refreshing. I'm not above using cut and paste, but in this case I didn't. Check the New Living Translation.

[b]Read this and weep:

James 2:21: 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?

Yes, but you still (for some unknown reason) either refuse to reconcile or ar ve with all their heart, "for with the heart one believes and is justified" (Romans 10:10).[/b]

The New Living Translation is a fundie re-write made up in 1996. No serious scholar would use it or quote it. It does what you do; re-write the Bible to fit in with the author's pre-conceived ideas.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The New Living Translation is a fundie re-write made up in 1996. No serious scholar would use it or quote it. It does what you do; re-write the Bible to fit in with the author's pre-conceived ideas.

The NLT has its weaknesses, like every version of the bible; it is a thought for thought translation rather than a word for word translation, so it's bound to be less formal. However, none of this changes the fact that you are wrong: a person cannot earn God's grace. Grace means, "unmerited favor," and that is what faith is all about. Stop trying to avoid the issue.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
The NLT has its weaknesses, like every version of the bible; it is a thought for thought translation rather than a word for word translation, so it's bound to be less formal. However, none of this changes the fact that you are wrong: a person cannot earn God's grace. Grace means, "unmerited favor," and that is what faith is all about. Stop trying to avoid the issue.

God's "grace" is granted to all according to the NT. Faith is insufficient for salvation, however, as Jesus expressly states in Matthew 25 and as James also makes clear. Paul was wrong if he meant to say faith alone was sufficient though it is very doubtful that is what he meant (more likely what he referred to as "works" were the types of things done by the Pharisees i.e. Works of the Law rather than what Jesus and James were referring to - acts of kindness, charity and mercy to our fellow Men).

Originally posted by no1marauder
God's "grace" is granted to all according to the NT. Faith is insufficient for salvation, however, as Jesus expressly states in Matthew 25 and as James also makes clear. Paul was wrong if he meant to say faith alone was sufficient though it is very doubtful that is what he meant (more likely what he referred to as "works" were the types of things done by ...[text shortened]... Jesus and James were referring to - acts of kindness, charity and mercy to our fellow Men).

If there was ever an example of the dangers of reading the Scriptures without a basic understanding of correct interpretative skills, your rants on these subject is it.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If there was ever an example of the dangers of reading the Scriptures without a basic understanding of correct interpretative skills, your rants on these subject is it.

Not everybody has your Secret Decoder Ring; most of us have to read what is actually written in the NT rather than flipping the pages over and studying the messages that can only be seen under ultra violet light.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Not everybody has your Secret Decoder Ring; most of us have to read what is actually written in the NT rather than flipping the pages over and studying the messages that can only be seen under ultra violet light.

That's rich stuff coming from a man who practices law wherein understanding of any rule demands a comprehensive view of all things related, i.e., history, language, audience, underlying intent of legislature, etc., etc.

Morevoer, we are reading the account looking backward--- now 2,000 years past the time that our Lord Jesus Christ was here on the planet. When He was face to face with His closest disciples and they had difficulty understanding the meaning behind the parables or etc., and you expect to just sit right down and figure it all out based on (at best) superficial translated readings?

You cannot find a consensus among experts with regard to the right to bear arms--- itself fastened to a document only a few hundred years old--- any of them going to great lengths to prove original intent by referencing contemporary understanding, among other things. But when it comes to plumbing the meaning of Scriptures 2,000 years old, well, by golly, the straight-forward reading is the only one!