Christianity and works

[seriously honestly]

Will someone spare me the effort of reading all the posts here regarding the section in Matthew and tell me what the issue is here? Please?

[Echo]

Gee, that helps a lot. Is just repeating the question here a problem for you?

Yes, it is a problem. Go to the thread: "Parable of Sheep Goats and Salvation requirments. Go to page 33, my post # 647

When Jesus tells them:

[Zakuska]

Why did the goats make an excuse?

Precisely.... every time they saw some one on the street who was hungry "why did they make an excuse" instead of feading them? Now they find themselves standing before Jesus with nothing to show for their inaction.

[Vance]

Will someone spare me the effort of reading all the posts here regarding the section in Matthew and tell me what the issue is here? Please?

Basically,

The parable of the sheep and the goats in Matt 25 clearly distinguishes the difference between going away to "everlasting punishment" or "life eternal" as being the feeding of the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned.

In spite of this clarity, Echo continues to not see it, because it would devastate his deeply held conviction that "good works" mean absolutely nothing to receiving eternal life.

I hope that helps.

[Zakuska]

Basically,

The parable of the sheep and the goats in Matt 25 clearly distinguishes the difference between going away to "everlasting punishment" or "life eternal" as being the feeding of the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned.

In spite of this clarity, Echo continues to not see it, because it would devastate his deeply held conviction that "good works" mean absolutely nothing to receiving eternal life.

I hope that helps.

James agrees...

1. James 1: 27 27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

[Vance]

Yes, it is a problem. Go to the thread: "Parable of Sheep Goats and Salvation requirments. Go to page 33, my post # 647

In spite of the fact that I think you are misusing the CFR rule here I will answer your question.

I posted under the moniker "GB".

I would have thought that you would have figured it out by now.

Echo,

Feel free to twist and wrest these scriptures as much as you like. The facts remain plain and clear! The difference between the "sheep" and the "goats" is good works, which are defined as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned.

No amount of twisting, contorting, or wresting will change these clear and plain facts.

[Vance]

James agrees...

1. James 1: 27 27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Hi fives to Zak!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Will someone spare me the effort of reading all the posts here regarding the section in Matthew and tell me what the issue is here? Please?

It seems that your thread has been hijacked and turned into the "parable of the sheep and the goats" Which we already hve one of those threads.

The issue here is that sheep were sheep for the very reason that they visited the sick and afflicted and visited the widows, ect. The goats were goats becasue they failed to do the things that the sheep and done. The Savior declared to the sheep, "Inasmuch as ye did it to one of the least of these, ye did it to me". And to the goats he claimed "Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me".

This falls inline that we are to server our fellow man, and when we server are fellow man then we are only in the service of God. The savior gave the sheep eternal life and the goats were damned. The only difference mentioned in the parable is the works that they did. There is no mention of faith or belief. Faith is required and per the parable fo the sheep and the goats works are required to gain savlation. Which as I recall you already agree with that. I think this came up becasue many claim that works are a product of salvation. Which that is impossible per this very parable. I hope this answers your questions.

[Vance]

Why make an excuse?

That is what wicked people do. They make excuses or blame someone else.

They knew they didn't feed the hungry (according to your interpretation).

To my "interpretation"? Oh please!

It is clear and plain in ALL of the versions I sited above. No "interpretation" needed.

They knew because Jesus said to the sheep that he was refering to others and not himself.

What they "knew" doesn't change the fact that they didn't DO!

Were they happy being goats do you think?

I doubt it. Selfish people are rarely if ever truly happy.

If they were satisfied with being goats, why didn't they just say: "your right Jesus, we didn't feed the hungry."

Because they wanted their cake and eat it too, so to speak.

Why did the goats make an excuse?

That is what wicked people do. They make excuses or blame someone else.

[Vance]

It seems that your thread has been hijacked and turned into the "parable of the sheep and the goats" Which we already hve one of those threads.

Yes, unfortunately this thread has been hijacked.

Edited to add: AND I helped!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, unfortunately this thread has been hijacked.

Edited to add: AND I helped!

No worries, I doubt SH has a major issue with it. And if she does then I suggest we do what she asks, as she did start this thread.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Echo, on 05 January 2010 - 05:02 PM, said:

Why make an excuse?

That is what wicked people do. They make excuses or blame someone else.

I will one up you. Lol. The text doesn't say, it is pointless to ask this question.

Echo, on 05 January 2010 - 05:02 PM, said:

They knew they didn't feed the hungry (according to your interpretation).

To my "interpretation"? Oh please!

It is clear and plain in ALL of the versions I sited above. No "interpretation" needed.

It is clear, I wonder why Echo thinks it is your interpretaion. The only things you stated was what is quoted in the various tranlsation of the bible.

Echo, on 05 January 2010 - 05:02 PM, said:

They knew because Jesus said to the sheep that he was refering to others and not himself.

What they "knew" doesn't change the fact that they didn't DO!

The text never says on thing about what they knew or didn't know regarding this. This is another waste of a question.

Echo, on 05 January 2010 - 05:02 PM, said:

Were they happy being goats do you think?

I doubt it. Selfish people are rarely if ever truly happy.

The text never alludes to weather they were happy or not. Again it is pointless to ask this question. It has nothing what so ever to do with the text in Matthew 25.

Echo, on 05 January 2010 - 05:02 PM, said:

If they were satisfied with being goats, why didn't they just say: "your right Jesus, we didn't feed the hungry."

Because they wanted their cake and eat it too, so to speak.

This is an assumption that the text never alludes too. Can you show were the goats were "happy"? I cannot. Again this is another non issue.

Echo, on 05 January 2010 - 05:02 PM, said:

Why did the goats make an excuse?

That is what wicked people do. They make excuses or blame someone else.

Probably because they thought like you, that all you needed to do was "just believe" and you would be saved.

edited: to add way more respect.

[seriously honestly]

No worries, I doubt SH has a major issue with it. And if she does then I suggest we do what she asks, as she did start this thread.

it's all good; the parable is somewhat related to the OP, although I would like to bring some other examples from the Bible into the discussion instead of focusing completely on this one section.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

it's all good; the parable is somewhat related to the OP, although I would like to bring some other examples from the Bible into the discussion instead of focusing completely on this one section.

OK, what did you have in mind?. I realise that this parable is one piece of the puzzle, it is one piece that I have been really thinking about alot for about the past 2 months. I was glad to see another thread started on it's own. I think it important to realize that faith and works are connected. It is true that LDS place more emphasis on works than other Christians do. It is nice to get more perspective too.

[Zakuska]

OK, what did you have in mind?. I realise that this parable is one piece of the puzzle, it is one piece that I have been really thinking about alot for about the past 2 months. I was glad to see another thread started on it's own. I think it important to realize that faith and works are connected. It is true that LDS place more emphasis on works than other Christians do. It is nice to get more perspective too.

I think the reason for this perception, at least from my experience, is the only thing other Christians tend to talk about is Grace and nothing else. They tend to focus so much on God. They forget about the here and now and what we as Christians should be doing to make this word better.

[Traela]

it's all good; the parable is somewhat related to the OP, although I would like to bring some other examples from the Bible into the discussion instead of focusing completely on this one section.

A parable perhaps more related to the OP would be that of the marriage of the king's son, found in Matthew 22:2-14.

To summerize: the king's son is getting married, so the king sends word to all the invited guests. They all refuse to come. So the king sends out his servants to gather up anyone they can find. But when the king sees all the guests, he notices one of them doesn't have on a wedding garment and tosses him out.

To the LDS mind, this supports the view that at some point some type of works is necessary. The guests represent those who accept God's invitation (show faith), while the man without the wedding garment represents those who think that nothing else (such as baptism) is needed.

[Echo]

James agrees...

1. James 1: 27 27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

FYI, we do follow James 1:27, we do keep the commandments etc. however we do them freely because we are saved through faith alone. Our works aren't required, they are the fruit of salvation. That is to say that when a person is saved through faith alone, they can't help but desire to do these things. Since you can't understand how anyone would naturally and wholey desire to do good works when they were saved through faith alone, I can understand why it makes no sense to you. You do works for promise of forgiveness and eternal life. We do works because of the forgiveness and eternal life we already have. The difference between you and us is the powerful love of God in our message that is lacking in your message. You can't see nor access this powerful love that God has for us because you have a road block in the way that blinds your eyes to it. You have stumbled over the stumbling stone as scripture speaks about.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You can't see nor access this powerful love that God has for us because you have a road block in the way that blinds your eyes to it. You have stumbled over the stumbling stone.

I have? What is that road block? Is it that we can only be saved in and through Jesus Christ? That Christ requires certain things of us? Is that the road block?

[Zakuska]

The difference between you and us is the powerful love of God in our message that is lacking in your message. You can't see nor access this powerful love that God has for us because you have a road block in the way that blinds your eyes to it. You have stumbled over the stumbling stone as scripture speaks about.

Yes there is a difference... but you have the love backwards.

Your God says bow the knee to my Jesus and beleive about him in this specific way or burn eternally in hell with never ending torment.

Our God says heres an imortal body and a place to live in realtive comfort. Even though you won't bend the knee and obey him.

Who's message is more "loving"?

[Vance]

<SNIP>

edited: to add way more respect.

I answered Echo's questions not because they were relevant, which as you pointed out is NOT the case, but because I wanted to add respect

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I answered Echo's questions not because they were relevant, which as you pointed out is NOT the case, but because I wanted to add respect

Hahahahaha. I guess that much is true.

Edited: to add even more respect.

[Vance]

A parable perhaps more related to the OP would be that of the marriage of the king's son, found in Matthew 22:2-14.

To summerize: the king's son is getting married, so the king sends word to all the invited guests. They all refuse to come. So the king sends out his servants to gather up anyone they can find. But when the king sees all the guests, he notices one of them doesn't have on a wedding garment and tosses him out.

To the LDS mind, this supports the view that at some point some type of works is necessary. The guests represent those who accept God's invitation (show faith), while the man without the wedding garment represents those who think that nothing else (such as baptism) is needed.

This is a very good point.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes there is a difference... but you have the love backwards.

Your God says bow the knee to my Jesus and beleive about him in this specific way or burn eternally in hell with never ending torment.

Our God says heres an imortal body and a place to live in realtive comfort. Even though you won't bend the knee and obey him.

Who's message is more "loving"?

I would suggest not using the "my/your God" langauge. That is one thing that really bothers me when other say "The mormon god". Or something like it. Just my 2 cents.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is a very good point.

I will say that he made great point too with that parable.

[Vance]

I would suggest not using the "my/your God" langauge. That is one thing that really bothers me when other say "The mormon god". Or something like it. Just my 2 cents.

Well, at least he didn't say "My God/your god", like we see too often.