Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
No it is not. You speculate negative things about my motivations with precisely zero evidence to support such speculations. And you have made other dismissive statements, such as suggesting that I cannot read.
No I am not. I am not speculating about your motives. It is one thing to suggest that you appear to be assuming something, it is quite another to make negative statements about another poster' motivations.
This is decidedly not the point. Jesus tells the man to do something and thereby get eternal life. We simply do not know the ultimate stance of that fellow. But that is hardly a warrant to assume that the man was not capable of entering into faith, receiving the Spirit, and thereby empowered to do obtain life.
Please do not take this exceedingly rude tone with me. Suggesting that I have a twisted mind hardly makes your position more believable.
No it is not. The fact that a person can be deemed to be guilty of breaking all the law does not make that person unfit for the awarding of eternal life.
In this part of Romans 3, Paul is describing the state of man outside faith in Christ. As Paul argues in Romans 8, if not elsewhere, the person in Christ and with the Spirit leaves that hopeless state behind. One should therefore not argue that this bit of Romans 3 speaks against ultimate salvation by good works.
Please quote the Matthew text properly. Jesus does not suggest these men are particularly righteous, as your words "best of religious men" here suggest. Here is what Jesus actually says:
No. Jesus never states that perfection is a requirement for eternal life - it is one thing to exhort followers to perfection, it is a different matter altogether to specify the "passing mark" for obtaining eternal life.
Again your use of such rhetorical language "you are perverting" is most unfortunate and really does not advance your argument. I have already addressed James 2:10 - just because one is deemed to have broken the entire law of Moses does not make one automatically unfit for eternal life. We are simply never told by Jesus or by Paul exactly what the "standard" is. If I am mistaken show me - show me where either Paul or Jesus or anyone clearly sets out a "standard" in respect to the good works required to obtain eternal life.
No. For one thing, Romans 3:10 clearly describes the state of man before entering into faith. And you have not many any case at for any kind of specified standard specifically in relation to the awarding of eternal life.
I have never stated that it was necessary to keep the entire law to be saved. We are simply not told what the standard is. However, it is important to understand that we are assured that if we let the Spirit do its work, we will indeed "pass"
Again with the "heretic" stuff. You are taking the low road here. If you actually had a case that I have in any sense misrepresented the scriptures, then perhaps such a claim would have some purchase.
You are simply not honouring the words as spoken. It is you, not Jesus, who has this 100 % figure. The fact is that Jesus never asks for perfection here - the words Jesus gives us simply do not support this "100 %" interpretation:
I do not add to what Jesus said. But you do take away from what he said, neither do you obey what he said. In no way do you love him with all your heart, strength, soul, and mind. It is impossible for you to do it.
Since the error here is clearly yours, I suggest that your rude comment is especially inappropriate. Of course, it would be innapropriate in any event.
There really is no doubt - you have indeed added to what Jesus said. Twice in your post you used the figure 100 %. There is nothing in these words that require us to see Jesus as calling for "100 %" observance of this teaching:
I see no argument here. Paul tells us, in Romans 2 and Romans 8, and elsewhere (2 Corinthians 5 for example) that ultimate salvation is according to good works. Now we have Jesus telling the man basically the same thing - live a certain way and you will get eternal life:
It is ironic that you accuse me of a lack of understanding. There is no inconsistency at all between what Jesus says to both men. To the one, He says "do this (show) and you will live". To the other, He says "believe and you will live"
Thou shalt love the Lord your God with ALL your heart.
Why this rudeness? It will only make readers think that this kind of tactic is the only option available to you, given how the substantive arguments have gone.
Again, you apply this unrealistic standard that every statement of Jesus' must be qualified by an entire theology. The fact that Jesus does not tell the scribe or the rich young ruler that they need to believe in him in order to be able to do the "saving" good works does not mean Jesus does not believe it. Jesus made a habit of speaking cryptically - this is all over the place in the gospels. So the fact that Jesus does not "lay it all out on the table" in response to every question He fields should not be surprising.
You forget what you actually wrote:
DHK said:
People exaggerate and say things they don't mean.
No. Romans 4:4-5, a text often used to argue that Paul cannot have meant what he wrote in Romans 2 (and Romans 8 for that matter) about how eternal life is granted according to “how we live”. Here is the relevant material, and I include stuff from the end of Romans 3 for context – remember, it is not Paul who inserts “chapter breaks”:
This is not an appropriate way to argue the point. Jesus demonstrably does not speak in direct literal terms - this is really the point. Jesus tells Caiaphus that he will see him "coming on the clouds". Is this to be taken literally? No, of course not.
Please do not use this inflammatory and entirely inappropriate "you are suggesting that Christ is a liar" argument. It is old and exceedingly misleading.
Clearly a faulty argument. You have no idea of the way or ways in which I am (or am not) loving my neighbour in the life I lead. I cannot be in two places at once you know. Your argument seems to be that if I am not doing every conceivable good deed to my neighbour, I am not "loving" him.
Chapters one to three demonstrate how all--both Gentiles and Jews are sinners. They cannot be justified by works: whether good works or the works of the law (as the Jews thought they could). In chapter 4 Paul uses Abraham as an example of one who is justified by faith and not by works (whether it be of any kind of works is irrelevant). One cannot be justified by works, period. One is justified by faith and faith alone. That is the main point made by Paul.
No, you have missed the point entirely. Paul's point is that one is justified by faith, and by faith alone. Works, no matter what kind of works they are do not justify. He does not define works on purpose. The kind of works are irrelevant. Works of any kind do not justify. What justifies is faith in the work of Christ.
There is nothing to indicate that it is a metaphor.
Which part of the Bible do you wish to deny?
Paul's entire argument is that justification is by faith alone, and not by works. That is the only point that he is making here. You are reading into the text things that are not there.
There is not justification of works.
No, the point is a lot more simple than that. To say that Jesus did not speak in literal terms is to deny what Jesus said.
Again, not to believe Jesus is to deny what he says. Yes, he is coming in the clouds. He has said this many times throughout Scripture. Do you deny his coming as well, and how he describes his coming. You doubt the veracity of his coming.
It is not a matter of Jesus using cryptic statements at all. I can easily go the Greek and tell you what he said.
Then don't suggest he didn't mean what he said.