tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post1169739668619539676..comments2024-01-24T04:02:06.466-05:00Comments on Why I De-Converted from Evangelical Christianity: The Calvinist God and the Chilean MinersKen Pulliamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-88699037079996296142011-09-05T19:07:13.043-04:002011-09-05T19:07:13.043-04:00A more precise analogy is:
Chilean president would...A more precise analogy is:<br />Chilean president would go to a prison and choose by his own will to forgive 3 prisors and set them free!! <br />The miners were not condemned to that position. <br /><br />The best lessons to be taken from the chilean miners salvation is:<br />- they were anable to save themselves. They were dead if left on their own.<br />- they didn't have a choise to be saved.<br />- they salvation was for free!<br />- they will never be able to pay pack the whole salvation operation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14265914654994970068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-58587679709561361432010-10-28T08:53:56.177-04:002010-10-28T08:53:56.177-04:00Well ... maybe we're NOT making progress. :)Well ... maybe we're NOT making progress. :)Hacksaw Duckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08779494116778446650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-67310516003129791562010-10-28T01:22:11.992-04:002010-10-28T01:22:11.992-04:00I don't know why you are even bringing Catholi...I don't know why you are even bringing Catholics up? I never mentioned them. I did misconstrue the beliefs of Classic Arminians, and I admitted such. I am quite familiar with the beliefs of Pelagius, than you very much. I am stepping off this treadmill, since it is a total waste of time arguing this nonsense with a person who believes that all of humanity deserves eternal torture because we inherited the guilt of a mythical ancestor who ate a magic apple. <br /><br />I am out of here.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-34965854582642559672010-10-28T01:00:52.894-04:002010-10-28T01:00:52.894-04:00@Walter - I never said anything about serious scho...@Walter - I never said anything about serious scholars disclaiming disagreement between Peter and Paul. Peter and Paul had disagreements which are recorded in scripture.<br /><br />On the other hand, it looks like you're moving the goalposts yet again. The Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI is clearly not "Campus Crusade" or "Protestant", so you're now talking about "Conservative Christians". Apparently Pope Benedict XVI is a "Conservative Christian"? Is Pope Benedict also a "fundie"?<br /><br />We could've saved a lot of effort if you just admitted that you were planning to argue by repeated redefinition. You've invented some imaginary subset of Christians, no matter how vanishingly small, who reportedly claim that Paul contradicts the synoptics. And then you've defined them as "real" Christians, and everyone else as "fundies". Nevermind the fact that I've never met any of these "real" Christians you're talking about -- they seem to be only attested by ex-fundy atheist activists. All of the Christians who feel that synoptics and Paul are in perfect agreement (which totals 100% of the Christians I have ever met) are slandered as being some Paul-worshipping extremist sect of Christianity. And I'm supposed to take your word on this, because you're such an expert on Christianity. You, who didn't know what Arminians believe and who didn't know what Pelagianism was.<br /><br />Yeah, whatever.JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-34854856406784076872010-10-28T00:44:44.541-04:002010-10-28T00:44:44.541-04:00@JS
I like the part where you claim that no &qu...@JS<br /> <br /> I like the part where you claim that no "serious" scholar believes that there was disagreement between Paul and Peter. I could name quite a few scholars, but I am sure that you would not consider them to be "serious" enough. I would say without a doubt that Paul's Christianity is a far different animal from the religious views of Jesus, at least as his views are portrayed in the synoptics.<br /><br /> Conservative Christians really ought to call themselves "Paulinians," since they basically worship every word that Paul ever committed to papyrus. Paul is the real god of the fundies.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-19536452072837917772010-10-27T21:40:57.538-04:002010-10-27T21:40:57.538-04:00Cool; we're making progress! We've establ...Cool; we're making progress! We've established that Arminians and Calvinists are virtually identical on the doctrines you guys loathe, and that the synoptic gospels aren't Pelagian.<br /><br />So now we're debating the claim that Paul represents a distinct theology that breaks significantly from the synoptic gospels, and that "Campus Crusades" tosses out the synoptics in favor of Paul.<br /><br />You've accused me of reading the synoptics through a Pauline lens. This would only make sense if I accept your presupposition that Paul says anything <b>different</b> from the synoptics. I don't accept that presupposition, and I think that both Paul and Peter would disagree strongly with you. As I mentioned, your accusation was a "fresh" new theory in the 1950s, and doesn't hold much sway with any serious scholars. You've also accused me of being overly influenced by Reformation thinking.<br /><br />Thankfully, I can easily refute this last set of objections, and show that <b>you</b> are the ones being overly influenced by Reformation thinking. The pernicious lie that Paul differs from the synoptics is, through and through, a lie perpetuated by ex-Protestants; and absolutely <b>not</b> by Catholics.<br /><br />You may not know that I was an adult convert to Catholicism, and was baptized Catholic. I never was involved with Campus Crusade, and never knew anyone who was. I currently identify as Calvinist, but I still read and appreciate almost everything Pope Benedict XVI writes. In 2008, the year of the feast of St. Paul, Benedict addressed the <b>exact</b> question you both are raising. In a series of lectures given over several weeks, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=JzztOU9GEmYC&lpg=PP1&dq=benedict%20st.%20paul&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">Benedict discussed Paul</a>, the doctrines of grace, and the relation to the synoptic gospels. I have heartily recommended these homilies to Protestant friends, and strongly recommend that you read them before deciding that my interpretation is uniquely Protestant. The Holy Father is indistinguishable from a Protestant in his assessment of Paul. I've found that Protestants tend to be far more ignorant about what Catholics believe than Catholics are, so I take your ignorance about this to be further evidence of my theory that you're ex-fundy.JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-12634534483581938932010-10-27T12:47:35.806-04:002010-10-27T12:47:35.806-04:00JS, I never meant to say that Jesus ONLY zeroed in...JS, I never meant to say that Jesus ONLY zeroed in on the rich. But they were on his radar screen as prime targets -- often. In fact, he enjoined this upon his followers: "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out ..."<br /><br />The story of the Rich Young Man is all about the dangers of riches and wealth, NOT about the dangers of "trusting something other than Christ." Walter is so right about your reading Pauline theology into the synoptics. The synoptic Jesus NEVER says things like, "You must trust in me alone for salvation and cease trusting your own efforts." <br /><br />Your references to "works-based salvation" are an attempt to poison the well. I don't think Jesus <i>based</i> salvation in works, but in the forgiveness of God. However, charitable works and inner goodness were certainly conditions for entrance into the kingdom at his coming, no question about it. At least in the synoptics, that is. Anyone who doesn't see this is reading the synoptics through the filter of the Protestant Reformation or evangelicalism or Campus Crusade ... or something. <br /><br />As far as Pelagianism, OK, maybe I don't understand that system of thought accurately enough. Not that I care what title gets affixed to a given interpretation of a text. I just call them as I see them. Not being bound to a doctrine "come hell or high water," I can admit things about a text that others will deny with howls to the bitter end. <br /><br />But here's another question for you: Why did Jesus say that we must forgive others in order to be forgiven? And why does he add that God will NOT forgive us if we fail to forgive others? Isn't that a performance-based condition for forgiveness?Hacksaw Duckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08779494116778446650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-26249129212219772302010-10-27T12:02:22.313-04:002010-10-27T12:02:22.313-04:00First, I said Christ didn't zero in just on ri...<i>First, I said Christ didn't zero in just on rich people. He zeroed in on anyone who placed faith in something besides Christ.</i><br /><br />I agree with Hacksaw Duck that you are reading Pauline theology back into these passages. It is pretty clear to me that Matthew, for instance, did not think much of Paul's antinomian form of Christianity when he spoke of how not one jot or tittle of the law would pass until all is fulfilled.<br /><br />This is the problem with attempting to derive a systematic theology from the bible, as if the bible was a unified work produced by one single, divine author--it isn't. Skeptics and liberal believers can see the diversity of theological opinions espoused by the various all-too-human authors of our "inspired" canon. And often these "inspired" authors are saying something that does not quite jibe with the writings of another "inspired" author.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-18673345718579478372010-10-27T10:59:42.798-04:002010-10-27T10:59:42.798-04:00Nothing wrong with calling yourself "Hacksaw ...Nothing wrong with calling yourself "Hacksaw Duck", but don't expect me to take you too seriously when you stick to the lonely position that the story of the rich young man is about works-based salvation. <br /><br />I'm guessing that you came from a fundamentalist background, since you seem to have an instinctive talent for selectively ignoring scriptures and sticking to a lonely position despite all evidence to the contrary.<br /><br /><i>Also, I think you're profoundly, wildly wrong about Jesus not zeroing in on rich people. He said things like, "Woe unto you who are rich," and, "Blessed are you poor," </i><br /><br />Wow, you're so far off in your own little world that it's not even funny.<br /><br />First, I said Christ didn't zero in <b>just</b> on rich people. He zeroed in on anyone who placed faith in something besides Christ.<br /><br />Second, you're ignoring all of the other targets Christ zeroed in on in the passages you selectively reference. For example, he also said "blessed are the poor <b>in spirit</b>". He zeroed in on people who trust in reputation ("woe to you when all men speak well of you"), people who trust in their own physical strength, etc. <br /><br />Christ systematically found every place where people were depending on themselves, and told them to abandon it, to be radically dependent on Christ. It's the exact opposite of Pelagianism.<br /><br />BTW, Pelagius never used any of the scriptures you're citing to promote a works-based salvation -- at least not from any of the existing accounts we have of his teaching.JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-5286716290914683952010-10-27T09:04:57.883-04:002010-10-27T09:04:57.883-04:00Yes, Walter, and it's funny how none of the ca...Yes, Walter, and it's funny how none of the cafeteria Christians seem to opt for the "you must abandon wealth" selection as they're going through the smorgasbord. Present Jesus' prohibition of wealth to them and they'll instantly fly to Paul: "Look, Paul allowed Christians to be rich, Paul allowed Christians to be rich." I hear Dave Ramsey on the radio talking about his faith in Jesus and then immediately encouraging his listeners to amass wealth -- two mutually exclusive messages. But nobody seems to notice. <br /><br />One other thing for J.S. Allen: So you've never heard anyone interpret the Rich Young Man story so that Jesus actually means what he says? I submit this explanation: Protestant commentators will move heaven and earth to preserve the doctrine of justification by faith alone. They'll do so even if it means making a sock puppet out of the New Testament, forcing it to say what they think it ought to mean. They'll twist texts into pretzels, take jackhammers to the most common-sense understanding. But ... it's for a good cause: preserving their theological presuppositions and clothing them with "biblical" status, no matter what the Bible actually says.Hacksaw Duckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08779494116778446650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-71878277853899051112010-10-27T08:10:44.047-04:002010-10-27T08:10:44.047-04:00Christians tend to resist the ban on wealth (for r...<i>Christians tend to resist the ban on wealth (for really, really obvious reasons), but it's there in the teaching of Jesus -- glaringly plain, up front, obvious.</i><br /><br />Even the most hardcore of fundagelicals are still cafeteria Christians, and the bible is the buffet from which they pick and choose.<br /><br />If a particular church teaches something that steps on the toes of the believer, all they have to do is go down the street to the next church which interprets the bible differently.<br /><br />And NO Christian follows the bible entirely, as it is impossible because it is a diverse and self-contradicting collection of human texts.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-88246993799742780252010-10-27T07:23:40.936-04:002010-10-27T07:23:40.936-04:00Hey! "Hacksaw Duck" is a nice name.
An...Hey! "Hacksaw Duck" is a nice name.<br /> <br />Anyway, forget the whole "Pelagian" moniker for a moment. A man asked Jesus, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus began reciting some of the Ten Commandments. So why is a "novel" interpretation to say that Jesus believed that one obtained eternal life by keeping the commandments? Isn't it simply the freaking obvious meaning?<br /><br />Also, I think you're profoundly, wildly wrong about Jesus not zeroing in on rich people. He said things like, "Woe unto you who are rich," and, "Blessed are you poor," "Do not store up treasures on earth," "How hard it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." He told a story of a rich man who died and woke up in torment -- the only reason given for this state is that he had good things in life. James picked up this theme and invited the rich to "weep and howl" and announced that terrible destruction was coming upon them. <br /><br />Christians tend to resist the ban on wealth (for really, really obvious reasons), but it's there in the teaching of Jesus -- glaringly plain, up front, obvious.Hacksaw Duckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08779494116778446650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-45648326899859507042010-10-27T00:11:56.160-04:002010-10-27T00:11:56.160-04:00If you insist on reading Luke 18:26-27 as Pelagian...If you insist on reading <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2018:26-27&version=NIV" rel="nofollow">Luke 18:26-27</a> as Pelagian, it's going to be hard to find common ground. I don't think I've ever seen anyone do that, ever. It's as if you're coming from another planet where you live by yourself.<br /><br />You might be right, and I might be the one who is proof-texting. But considering that you're named "Hacksaw Duck" and you're promoting a completely novel interpretation of that passage, you'll forgive me for withholding assent.<br /><br />BTW, Christ didn't zero in just on rich people; he zeroed in on people who placed faith in their families and all sorts of other things, too. Christ demands that you have faith in him, alone. That's the opposite of Pelagianism.<br /><br />To your question about how I would answer "what must I do to inherit eternal life", I have told people exactly the words Christ said regarding the rich man, in Luke 18:26-27. I have also used <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:27&version=NIV" rel="nofollow">the answer He gave</a> before telling the parable of the good Samaritan. (BTW, if you don't understand the point of the "who is my neighbor" answer, you ought to read Leo Tolstoy's '<a href="http://www.yuni.com/library/docs/200.html" rel="nofollow">Three Questions</a>', which I've also recommended to people several times).<br /><br />I could address all of your other scattershot comments, as well. But, like I said, if you can't even read Luke 18:27 without seeing "Pelagian", what's the point?JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-69615793729926128402010-10-26T23:13:30.257-04:002010-10-26T23:13:30.257-04:00JS, the story definitely teaches that works of goo...JS, the story definitely teaches that works of goodness are a necessary condition for salvation. Your contention that Jesus was merely setting forth impossible conditions on purpose ... well, that's something you have to superimpose on the text. It's not there.<br /> <br />Note what Jesus actually said: If the Rich Young Man would only forsake his wealth, he would have "treasure in heaven." That's something the man <i>could</i> have done. <br /> <br />This is consistent with Jesus' teaching elsewhere that riches are a curse and his followers must embrace poverty. And that's what he was pressing upon this potential convert. <br /> <br />Let's be honest here, JS. He <i>doesn't </i>say, "How impossible it is for any person to fulfill my righteous demands and enter the kingdom." No, that's you with your theological glasses firmly in place. In the text, he's zeroing in on <i>rich people.</i> How hard it is for THEM to be saved, not the average Joe.<br /> <br />The disciples' reaction was understandable. Everyone has a certain amount of material accumulation. If God makes it <i>that</i> hard (camel/eye of a needle) on people of great material substance, he is a severe God indeed. How can anyone be saved? Still, the conversation is about <i>wealth,</i> not human inability in some general, metaphysical sense. <br /> <br />Let me ask you this: Would you ever answer the question, "what must I do to inherit eternal life," by reciting the Decalogue?? You know you wouldn't!Hacksaw Duckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08779494116778446650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-26380727330789174712010-10-26T21:50:42.184-04:002010-10-26T21:50:42.184-04:00I'm baffled by your comments on the story of t...I'm baffled by your comments on the story of the rich young man. Did you <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018:18-27&version=NIV" rel="nofollow">read the whole story</a>? The story is obviously making the case that it is <b>impossible</b> for a person to achieve the standards required for salvation. The parable is clearly meant to apply to all people; not just the rich man:<br /><br /><b><i>26 "Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?"<br /> 27Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God."</i></b><br /><br />That's as clear a rebuttal of Pelagianism as I can imagine. Are you seriously going to tell me that this story endorses the idea of earning salvation through good works?JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-16409704654693227112010-10-26T19:51:56.582-04:002010-10-26T19:51:56.582-04:00OK, JS, now to address all these ad hoc explanatio...OK, JS, now to address all these ad hoc explanations:<br /><br /><i><b>The parable of the good Samaritan is a great example. You claim that Christ told the story to illustrate how to be saved, but you are wrong.</b></i><br /> <br />JS, if someone asked you how to obtain eternal life, I doubt you'd say, "Love God and love your neighbor." I further doubt you'd expound on the meaning of helping one's neighbor. Am I right? In your belief system, is salvation dependent on my capacity to love my neighbor? I doubt you'd say so, even though this is precisely what Jesus says here.<br /> <br /><i><b>Matthew 25:40. He doesn't say, "if you help poor people, you'll be saved".</b></i><br /> <br />He absolutely does. When Jesus pronounces his judgment, he qualifies his action with each group (sheep and goats) with the word "for." He says, "...for I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat ..." etc. To paraphrase: "The reason I'm doing this (giving you life eternal) is because when I was hungry, you fed me ..." It's so obvious that only someone with a vested interest in denying it would in fact do so. <br /> <br /><i><b>... as James said, faith without works is dead.</b></i> <br /> <br />Bringing up James doesn't help your case one iota. As you're aware, he said, "We know that a man is justified by what he does and not be faith only." That's devastating to the Reformation view of salvation ... a repudiation of it. I've heard all the bullcrap harmonizations of James and Paul and that's exactly what they are. I thought so even when I was a devout Bible-centered person, sitting in church, listening to the preacher tell me there was "no collision between Paul and James." I wanted it to be so, but I knew deep down it was all major spin -- spin of necessity. Got to keep our theology biblical, even if it means interpreting the Bible so it means the opposite of what it actually says. <br /> <br /><i><b>BTW, I'm really surprised that you mentioned "hate your father and mother" as support of Pelagianism. Doesn't that verse demonstrate exactly the opposite?</b></i><br /> <br />How so? You've lost me here. These are huge demands of discipleship -- failure to do them renders one a non-disciple. Certainly doesn't mesh with the popular "free gift" or "cease trusing your works and believe" notions. Again, to paraphrase Jesus: "Here is what I demand of you: total allegiance to the point of renouncing your own loved ones, carrying a cross of self-denial. You must do these or you can't be my follower." That requires effort. Lots of it. <br /> <br /><i><b>Christ tells the young man to give away all of his possessions -- not because it will "earn" rewards in heaven, but because he knows it is the hardest thing for the rich man to do.</b></i><br /> <br />JS, his answer to, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" was, "Keep the commandments." How much plainer could this be?? You're bending and twisting this story to make it fit your theology -- it's all contrived, strained rhetoric.Hacksaw Duckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08779494116778446650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-79973561380046924942010-10-26T19:17:20.259-04:002010-10-26T19:17:20.259-04:00I don't think Pelagianism is well represented ...I don't think Pelagianism is well represented by the caricature of a ledger or a vending machine. Pelagius appears to have believed in divine grace, but also deemed it a necessary condition of final salvation that a person actually obey the precepts of the gospel (maybe I'm wrong, but I think that was his stance). This seemed to be Jesus' obvious teaching as well. <br /> <br />Speaking of Paul, listen to how "Pelagian" even he sounds at times: "[God] will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger." <br /> <br />And this from the putative architect of sola fide.<br /><br />BTW, I read Sanders years ago and did find him satisfying. The portrait of OT Judaism as a graceless faith is inconsistent with good scholarship. We agree.Hacksaw Duckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08779494116778446650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-18367492724076299582010-10-26T13:39:34.365-04:002010-10-26T13:39:34.365-04:00BTW, I'm really surprised that you mentioned &...BTW, I'm really surprised that you mentioned "hate your father and mother" as support of Pelagianism. Doesn't that verse demonstrate exactly the opposite?<br /><br />In Matthew 8:22, Christ tells the young man to skip his dead father's funeral, saying "let the dead bury the dead". Now, how is skipping a funeral a way to "earn" salvation? It's not! Christ wanted the young man to demonstrate his faith in Christ by showing where his priorities were.<br /><br />Same thing with the parable of the rich young man, which you seem to have butchered above. Christ tells the young man to give away all of his possessions -- not because it will "earn" rewards in heaven, but because he knows it is the hardest thing for the rich man to do. The rich man has to choose his loyalty -- either have faith in Christ, or faith in his money. The point is rammed home at the conclusion of the parable, where Christ says, <i>"With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."</i> Do you still want to argue that this parable is Pelagian?JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-61581707314834557092010-10-26T13:14:19.316-04:002010-10-26T13:14:19.316-04:00I'll be the first to criticize those who turn ...I'll be the first to criticize those who turn faith into a sterile intellectual assent, while smugly accusing those who practice charity of pursuing "works-based" salvation. But I think you're falling for exactly the same flawed either-or thinking when you say the synoptic gospels are Pelagian. You sound like an ex-fundy who has brainwashed himself with his own anti-Catholic propaganda.<br /><br />We are unambiguously commanded to love our neighbors. That does not mean that <br />we take responsibility for our own salvation, or that we keep a self-improvement balance sheet like the Pelagians do.<br /><br />And this idea that Paul invented some new religion? That was a fashionable new theory in the 1950s, but was laid to rest by Sanders in "Paul and Palestinian Judaism" in 1970. Judaism was not even Pelagian prior to Christ or Paul. In any case, Paul was not one to be stingy with charity, so accusing him of preaching a sterile intellectual faith is perplexing.<br /><br />Several times in the synoptic gospels, Christ says something like "your faith has made you whole". The bleeding woman, the centurion, the blind man, Jarius, and others I am sure.<br /><br />The parable of the good Samaritan is a great example. You claim that Christ told the story to illustrate how to be saved, but you are wrong. Christ told the parable in response to a man who asked "who is my neighbor?" In fact, when the same man asked how to be saved, Christ did *not* tell him "do good deeds to improve your character". Christ said: A) Love God with all your your heart. B) Love your neighbor as yourself. Christ is on record saying that commandment A is the greater commandment, and this is consistent across the Old Testament and also in Paul.<br /><br />Christ drives home the same point in Matthew 25:40. He doesn't say, "if you help poor people, you'll be saved". You are commanded to love the poor <b>because</b> whatever you do to them, you are doing to Christ. This is how commandments A and B come together. He is making an equivalence between himself and the most vulnerable in society. Love for the poor is an outworking of faith in Christ -- as James said, faith without works is dead. True faith always expresses itself in love for the lost.<br /><br />Love for the poor is the fruit of faith, it is not a cosmic vending machine by which you earn salvation.JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-70543716122857814012010-10-26T13:05:07.962-04:002010-10-26T13:05:07.962-04:00That's right, Walter. Look at a studious evang...That's right, Walter. Look at a studious evangelical's Bible and you'll see underlining throughout John and Romans ... much less so in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Jesus would be excoriated in today's conservative Protestant churches for his "works righteousness" preaching.Hacksaw Duckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08779494116778446650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-67169026172226403472010-10-26T10:45:40.630-04:002010-10-26T10:45:40.630-04:00Most conservative Christians prefer to get their t...Most conservative Christians prefer to get their theology from Paul's letters, followed by the quasi-gnostic gospel of "John." The Jesus portrayed in the synoptics gets marginalized.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-34038444470643321792010-10-26T09:06:02.562-04:002010-10-26T09:06:02.562-04:00One more example: Jesus told the parable of the Go...One more example: Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan in response to the question, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" The answer to that question had nothing to do with "faith alone" or "cease trusting in your works" and had everything to do with helping those in need. (Can you imagine a Protestant gospel preacher giving that kind of an answer?) After the story, Jesus said, "Go and do likewise." In other words, this is what you must do to inherit eternal life. <br /> <br />Such a wasted opportunity if sola fide is true. And so misleading to the reader.Hacksaw Duckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08779494116778446650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-1158579257063911552010-10-26T07:26:45.795-04:002010-10-26T07:26:45.795-04:00@JS. "Yes, Christ's teachings sure are Pe...@JS. "Yes, Christ's teachings sure are Pelagian." /sarcasm<br /><br />By the way, I said synoptic gospels. Your quote about the whitewashed tombs is the only reference to one of those three books. Even that reference doesn't make your point: Jesus wasn't saying the Pharisees were full of genuine good works that can't save. The point -- obvious point -- is that they were only good on the outside, i.e., phony religionists. <br /><br />Jesus does not go around in the synoptics saying, "Just believe in me and be saved, nothing else." Instead, we read:<br /><br />1. Jesus told the Rich Young Man, "If you want to enter life, keep the commandments."<br /><br />2. In Matthew 25, the criteria by which the Sheep are saved and the Goats are damned have to do with performing works of charity -- not "resting on the finished work of the cross," or any such foreign idea. <br /><br />3. In the Sermon on the Mount, only those whose do the will of the Father will enter the kingdom (not just those who say, "Lord, Lord").<br /><br />4. Also in that sermon, (a) loving enemies makes someone a child of God; (b) only the pure of heart will see God; (c) only those who forgive others will be forgiven. <br /><br />5. Only those who "hate father and mother ...," etc., deny self, take up their cross daily, will enter the kingdom.<br /><br />Just a few samples. There are plenty more. Nowhere do we find the pop gospel of "just believe" in the first three gospels ... and it's contradicted everywhere.Hacksaw Duckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08779494116778446650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-78070813092019517682010-10-26T07:23:57.072-04:002010-10-26T07:23:57.072-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Hacksaw Duckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08779494116778446650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-85154101802979041662010-10-25T23:22:22.017-04:002010-10-25T23:22:22.017-04:00@Daniel - You're the one who keeps talking abo...@Daniel - You're the one who keeps talking about Hitler deserving the same punishments as others in hell; I never said any such thing.<br /><br />If you look at what I actually said, I said "deserve hell just as much as". You seem to have read "deserve just as much punishment in hell as".<br /><br />Agreed that Dante's levels are pure speculation; but fun to think about in a perverse way.JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.com