Political Crossfire Forums

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 23750

toddytodd wrote: I am getting into this discussion late, but can (or has) anyone explained why works are just as essential as faith?

Does this mean that to get into heaven, one has to 'do good works' as well as have faith?

Is this how the idea of 'to get to heaven you must be a good person' came from?

Matthew 13

24 Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field.

25 "But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed [a]tares among the wheat, and went away.

26 "But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also.

27 "The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?'

28 "And he said to them, 'An enemy has done this!' The slaves said to him, 'Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?'

29 "But he said, 'No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them.

30'Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."'"

greeneye · Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:13 pm Post subject:

Angelicus wrote: I seriously don't hold any particular denominational affiliation.

In part because, well I don't see them in the scriptures. I see the church.

Do you see the church 'before' it was institutionalized or 'after' ?

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

John wrote: toddytodd wrote: I am getting into this discussion late, but can (or has) anyone explained why works are just as essential as faith?

Does this mean that to get into heaven, one has to 'do good works' as well as have faith?

Is this how the idea of 'to get to heaven you must be a good person' came from?

Matthew 13

24 Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field.

25 "But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed [a]tares among the wheat, and went away.

26 "But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also.

27 "The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?'

28 "And he said to them, 'An enemy has done this!' The slaves said to him, 'Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?'

29 "But he said, 'No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them.

30'Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."'"

I appreciate the attempted explanation. However, as noted in the actual passage, this seem to point to a comparison of two 'worlds', not so much as to a reason why works are required.
Or do you see it differently?
NOTE* I am not challenging your point of view, only seeking clarification.

Nathyn · Joined: 25 Sep 2005 Posts: 7717 Location: The Great Satan

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: I've never understood how people can believe that Faith and Works can work independently.

That's not the argument.
No, that is the argument and it has been since the first post of this thread.

You're the one who has diverted to argument to this straw man:

cap'n queasy wrote: The argument is where we should focus our attention.
"omg, you believe in salvation through works!"

No, we both agree the focus should be on faith, but we define faith differently. You define faith as being independent of works. I do not. If a person is immoral, then they do not have faith.

eynon · Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 6:39 pm Post subject:

Nathyn wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: I've never understood how people can believe that Faith and Works can work independently.

That's not the argument.
No, that is the argument and it has been since the first post of this thread.

You're the one who has diverted to argument to this straw man:

cap'n queasy wrote: The argument is where we should focus our attention.
"omg, you believe in salvation through works!"

No, we both agree the focus should be on faith, but we define faith differently. You define faith as being independent of works. I do not. If a person is immoral, then they do not have faith.

define immoral.........I mean none of us are perfect and we're all immoral to a certain degree.

Nathyn · Joined: 25 Sep 2005 Posts: 7717 Location: The Great Satan

eynon wrote: Nathyn wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: I've never understood how people can believe that Faith and Works can work independently.

That's not the argument.
No, that is the argument and it has been since the first post of this thread.

You're the one who has diverted to argument to this straw man:

cap'n queasy wrote: The argument is where we should focus our attention.
"omg, you believe in salvation through works!"

No, we both agree the focus should be on faith, but we define faith differently. You define faith as being independent of works. I do not. If a person is immoral, then they do not have faith.

define immoral.........I mean none of us are perfect and we're all immoral to a certain degree.
I'm speaking strictly in terms of the Bible's definition of sin.

If you're looking for some kind of "threshold," it's simply what Jesus said: we have to be more moral than the Pharisees, which is a pretty low standard, not a requirement for moral perfection.

Just be an overall decent person. Even being a decent person, internally, probably makes one more righteous than the Pharisees because they were horrible people, but not only that, they weren't even aware that they were hypocrites.

But again, to emphasize: it isn't one's actions which enable salvation, but one's actions through faith. So, the Pharisees' concept that they can save themselves through works was wrong. But the Nicolatians' idea that they could sin all that they wanted (see "antinomianism") was equally wrong.

A lot of Protestants seem to teach this. They don't support it directly in their rhetoric, as they don't come out and say, "You can sin all you want!" but rather, they'll say it euphemistically. Instead of saying you can sin all you want, they'll say the opposite: that God doesn't judge Christians at all and that Christ's forgiveness is totally unconditional.

Well, if God doesn't judge Christians and\or Christ's forgiveness is unconditional, WHY shouldn't I just go out, get high and have hot sex with multiple farm animals? I mean, what's the point?

eynon · Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:54 pm Post subject:

Nathyn wrote: eynon wrote: Nathyn wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: I've never understood how people can believe that Faith and Works can work independently.

That's not the argument.
No, that is the argument and it has been since the first post of this thread.

You're the one who has diverted to argument to this straw man:

cap'n queasy wrote: The argument is where we should focus our attention.
"omg, you believe in salvation through works!"

No, we both agree the focus should be on faith, but we define faith differently. You define faith as being independent of works. I do not. If a person is immoral, then they do not have faith.

define immoral.........I mean none of us are perfect and we're all immoral to a certain degree.
I'm speaking strictly in terms of the Bible's definition of sin.

If you're looking for some kind of "threshold," it's simply what Jesus said: we have to be more moral than the Pharisees, which is a pretty low standard, not a requirement for moral perfection.

Just be an overall decent person. Even being a decent person, internally, probably makes one more righteous than the Pharisees because they were horrible people, but not only that, they weren't even aware that they were hypocrites.

But again, to emphasize: it isn't one's actions which enable salvation, but one's actions through faith. So, the Pharisees' concept that they can save themselves through works was wrong. But the Nicolatians' idea that they could sin all that they wanted (see "antinomianism") was equally wrong.

A lot of Protestants seem to teach this. They don't support it directly in their rhetoric, as they don't come out and say, "You can sin all you want!" but rather, they'll say it euphemistically. Instead of saying you can sin all you want, they'll say the opposite: that God doesn't judge Christians at all and that Christ's forgiveness is totally unconditional.

Well, if God doesn't judge Christians and\or Christ's forgiveness is unconditional, WHY shouldn't I just go out, get high and have hot sex with multiple farm animals? I mean, what's the point?

I have yet to meet/see/readabout Protestants who don't hold to the concept of accountability and obedience.........our works don't save us, but they do improve our relationship with God.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 23750

eynon wrote: Nathyn wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: I've never understood how people can believe that Faith and Works can work independently.

That's not the argument.
No, that is the argument and it has been since the first post of this thread.

You're the one who has diverted to argument to this straw man:

cap'n queasy wrote: The argument is where we should focus our attention.
"omg, you believe in salvation through works!"

No, we both agree the focus should be on faith, but we define faith differently. You define faith as being independent of works. I do not. If a person is immoral, then they do not have faith.

define immoral.........I mean none of us are perfect and we're all immoral to a certain degree.

That's exactly the point. Well said!

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

Quote: Just be an overall decent person. Even being a decent person, internally, probably makes one more righteous than the Pharisees because they were horrible people

That is where you are wrong. By modern standards they were good people. Probably the most decent of the governments of the time. They took care of the poor and destitute, they enforced the law They thought Y'shua was a destabilizing force, just as you do, because He taught people to have Faith in Him, so they could be healed of something that earthly works could never be able to fix, a spiritual malady, disconnection from God.

None of us are any better than they were and most of us are far worse because we don't even follow a code of behavior. Y'shua's teachings were not about thinking you were better than everyone else because of your works, which is what you are trying to make this into. That is exactly the mistake of the Pharisees that Y'shua condemned.

Quote: Matthew 7:1-6 - [Verse 3 in Original Greek]
1 "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3 "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

This is basic stuff, Nathyn.

eynon · Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:07 am Post subject:

John wrote: eynon wrote: Nathyn wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: I've never understood how people can believe that Faith and Works can work independently.

That's not the argument.
No, that is the argument and it has been since the first post of this thread.

You're the one who has diverted to argument to this straw man:

cap'n queasy wrote: The argument is where we should focus our attention.
"omg, you believe in salvation through works!"

No, we both agree the focus should be on faith, but we define faith differently. You define faith as being independent of works. I do not. If a person is immoral, then they do not have faith.

define immoral.........I mean none of us are perfect and we're all immoral to a certain degree.

That's exactly the point. Well said!

thanks :)

Angelicus · Joined: 04 Apr 2006 Posts: 4896

greeneye wrote: Angelicus wrote: I seriously don't hold any particular denominational affiliation.

In part because, well I don't see them in the scriptures. I see the church.

Do you see the church 'before' it was institutionalized or 'after' ?

I see Christ's or the Biblical meaning of the Church.

Angelicus · Joined: 04 Apr 2006 Posts: 4896

Nathyn wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: I've never understood how people can believe that Faith and Works can work independently.

That's not the argument.
No, that is the argument and it has been since the first post of this thread.

You're the one who has diverted to argument to this straw man:

cap'n queasy wrote: The argument is where we should focus our attention.
"omg, you believe in salvation through works!"

No, we both agree the focus should be on faith, but we define faith differently. You define faith as being independent of works. I do not. If a person is immoral, then they do not have faith.

Baloney.

Abraham did what most folks would consider immoral things, did he not have faith?

What about king David? He did some pretty immoral things too, did he not have faith.

What about the apostle Paul himself?
Paul did some very immoral and even horrific things in his life too. Did he not have faith?

If someone does something "immoral" that means they stumbled and succumbed to their flesh nature.

It does not mean that they don't have faith God.

Angelicus · Joined: 04 Apr 2006 Posts: 4896

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Just be an overall decent person. Even being a decent person, internally, probably makes one more righteous than the Pharisees because they were horrible people

That is where you are wrong. By modern standards they were good people. Probably the most decent of the governments of the time. They took care of the poor and destitute, they enforced the law They thought Y'shua was a destabilizing force, just as you do, because He taught people to have Faith in Him, so they could be healed of something that earthly works could never be able to fix, a spiritual malady, disconnection from God.

None of us are any better than they were and most of us are far worse because we don't even follow a code of behavior. Y'shua's teachings were not about thinking you were better than everyone else because of your works, which is what you are trying to make this into. That is exactly the mistake of the Pharisees that Y'shua condemned.

Quote: Matthew 7:1-6 - [Verse 3 in Original Greek]
1 "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3 "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

This is basic stuff, Nathyn.

Capn you are right. Christ did not speak out against the pharisees or the sadducees because they were somehow "immoral". He spoke out against them because they thought their works made them better than everyone else.

At least thats what I gather from the following.

Matthew 6:1-8

"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him."

greeneye · Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 3:32 am Post subject:

Angelicus wrote: greeneye wrote: Angelicus wrote: I seriously don't hold any particular denominational affiliation.

In part because, well I don't see them in the scriptures. I see the church.

Do you see the church 'before' it was institutionalized or 'after' ?

I see Christ's or the Biblical meaning of the Church.

What is the Biblican meaning of the Church?

eynon · Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 3:45 am Post subject:

greeneye wrote: Angelicus wrote: greeneye wrote: Angelicus wrote: I seriously don't hold any particular denominational affiliation.

In part because, well I don't see them in the scriptures. I see the church.

Do you see the church 'before' it was institutionalized or 'after' ?

I see Christ's or the Biblical meaning of the Church.

What is the Biblican meaning of the Church?

I always thought it was the collective body of believers...... :-|

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 23750

eynon wrote: greeneye wrote: Angelicus wrote: greeneye wrote: Angelicus wrote: I seriously don't hold any particular denominational affiliation.

In part because, well I don't see them in the scriptures. I see the church.

Do you see the church 'before' it was institutionalized or 'after' ?

I see Christ's or the Biblical meaning of the Church.

What is the Biblican meaning of the Church?

I always thought it was the collective body of believers...... :-|

That's right. It's the redeemed through the blood of Messiah....AKA the called out ones.

greeneye · Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:51 pm Post subject:

eynon wrote: greeneye wrote: Angelicus wrote: greeneye wrote: Angelicus wrote: I seriously don't hold any particular denominational affiliation.

In part because, well I don't see them in the scriptures. I see the church.

Do you see the church 'before' it was institutionalized or 'after' ?

I see Christ's or the Biblical meaning of the Church.

What is the Biblican meaning of the Church?

I always thought it was the collective body of believers...... :-|

Has not the church, which you see, been in the role of dictating what is avaiable for believers to believe?

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

Quote: Has not the church, which you see, been in the role of dictating what is avaiable for believers to believe?

That's what the scriptures are for.

greeneye · Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 3:37 pm Post subject:

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Has not the church, which you see, been in the role of dictating what is avaiable for believers to believe?

That's what the scriptures are for.

It's unfortunate that the church was institutionalized and became the gatekeeper to scripture which in turn has affected and formed the beliefs for billions of people throughout the centuries.

This power play has resulted in what I consider to be the greatest tragedies of all time and more Christian sects and confusion than one can imagine.

Somehow, I don't think it was suppose to be this way.

Angelicus · Joined: 04 Apr 2006 Posts: 4896

eynon wrote: greeneye wrote: Angelicus wrote: greeneye wrote: Angelicus wrote: I seriously don't hold any particular denominational affiliation.

In part because, well I don't see them in the scriptures. I see the church.

Do you see the church 'before' it was institutionalized or 'after' ?

I see Christ's or the Biblical meaning of the Church.

What is the Biblican meaning of the Church?

I always thought it was the collective body of believers...... :-|

Yep, no matter what their "denomination" may be.