Parable of Sheep and Goats and salvation requirements

[Vance]

I am afraid that Peter was correct when he said of Pauls writings,

2 Pet 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

[WalkerW]

With all due respect -- WalkerW -- I disagree with every one of your comments. All of my rebuttals are found in the post you are quoting from. I believe you are familiar with all the creeds that were written in the 2nd and 3rd century -- those were the basis of the Christian faith until the middle ages.

And the last time I checked, things like baptism were being professed as necessary for salvation. Doesn't exactly fit into the Protestant sola fides.

You mentioned the James verse as a proof that faith and works is necessary. And when you read that verse, you can certainly come to that conclusion. However, when you read that verse in comparison to all the other verses -- that one verse -- that state something completely different -- than that isn't good interpretation.

When compared to other verses? You mean like these two? They go great together:

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3) The Greek for "know" here is ginosko. It was often used as an idiom for sexual intercourse and therefore represents an intimate relationship. The same word is used by John in his first epistle: "And hereby we do know that we know (ginosko) [Christ], if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (1 John 2:3-4; emphasis mine).

I suggest that you read the dozen verses I referenced in the previous post that specifically talks about justification by faith alone. All your comments are opinion without frame of reference.

Forgive me. I had to cut out for a final. I did want to address those and I will now. You have corrupted Romans and Galatians.

The central message of Romans is found in ch. 1: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." (vs. 16-17) Here, Paul quotes Habbakuk: "The just shall live by his faith." (Hab. 2:4) The Hebrew is emunah, meaning "loyalty, faithfulness, integrity." This is at the very heart of Romans and the faith Paul professes. This is how his Jewish audience understood. He goes on to say, "[God] will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing (Greek is literally "perseverance in good works") seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath." (Rom. 2:6- This rings similar to Christ's own words: "the Son of man...shall reward every man according to his works" (Matt. 16:27). I provided a number of references a while back relating to "works of the law" as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Works are not rejected altogether, but the amplifications, traditions, and boundary markers of the Mosaic law. Faith in Christ was now the distinguishing feature. Romans 4:2 is directly connected to the "works of the law" just mentioned. If salvation was earned like a paycheck, we would be obligating God to grant us it. We would be putting Him in debt. This is impossible. God is not our employer. However, as many New Testament scholars have recognized, Paul describes the relationship very much like a client and patron: "Thus patrons tend to act out of some form of balanced reciprocity, expecting a return of praise and respect from their clients. Moreover, ingratitude ranked as one of the worst interpersonal evils

[merganzerman]

Sorry, Walker W. not very good scholarship. It would not stand up very well in most if not every Christian theological seminaries. Plus, the references you used would not stand well either. Besides, you really can't support position of faith and works based on a cultural interpretation -- though it is an interesting subject. They only enhance understanding. Interpreting Scripture without the required thread that man is justified by faith alone -- and you can go any direction you want -- as proved by your post.

I believe in all of my posts regarding faith and works -- centered around the original post of the sheep and the goats -- are sound interpretations of God's Word -- His inerrant Word inspired by the hand of God -- even the hand of the apostle Paul -- that has withstood the test of time. Now, I ask to believe in Christ and his completed work on the cross. With Christ as our substitute, we can be 100% assured of our forgiveness, not left to wonder if I'm worthy enough to receive his justification. My faith is on God's promises, not my works.

My name is Dave and I'm with Truth in Love Ministry, the same ministry that just put up five billboards in Eastern Idaho with the message "Feeling Worthy?" and pointing to a website hishealingnow.com. Check it out for those who want to find what it means to be truly worthy.

[WalkerW]

Sorry, Walker W. not very good scholarship.

Easy to say when you provide no sources.

It would not stand up very well in most if not every Christian theological seminaries.

I'm sure those who wrote the articles would disagree.

Plus, the references you used would not stand well either.

DeSilva (Professor of New Testament & Greek, Ashland University), Neyrey (formerly of University of Notre Dame), and O'Day (Senior Associate Dean of Faculty and Academic Affairs and Almar H. Shatford Professor of Preaching and New Testament, Emory University) don't count? Really?

Or do you just dismiss them because you have never heard of them?

Besides, you really can't support position of faith and works based on a cultural interpretation -- though it is an interesting subject.

This is completely absurd. You have to understand the cultural context it is written. Otherwise, you are guilty of presentism.

Interpreting Scripture without the required thread that man is justified by faith alone -- and you can go any direction you want -- as proved by your post.

So, basically, interpret scripture based on the presupposition of sola fides. That sure is objective.

I believe in all of my posts regarding faith and works -- centered around the original post of the sheep and the goats -- are sound interpretations of God's Word -- His inerrant Word inspired by the hand of God -- even the hand of the apostle Paul -- that has withstood the test of time. Now, I ask to believe in Christ and his completed work on the cross. With Christ as our substitute, we can be 100% assured of our forgiveness, not left to wonder if I'm worthy enough to receive his justification. My faith is on God's promises, not my works.

This is nothing, but theological rhetoric.

My name is Dave and I'm with Truth in Love Ministry, the same ministry that just put up five billboards in Eastern Idaho with the message "Feeling Worthy?" and pointing to a website hishealingnow.com. Check it out for those who want to find what it means to be truly worthy.

Well, we know that ministry is the epitome of scholarship...

[WalkerW]

"All of the characteristics attributed to the king

[WalkerW]

Sorry, Walker W. not very good scholarship. It would not stand up very well in most if not every Christian theological seminaries.

The next time you want to attempt to talk down to me, provide something of substance instead of just a dismissal at the wave of your hand.

[volgadon]

Sorry, Walker W. not very good scholarship. It would not stand up very well in most if not every Christian theological seminaries. Plus, the references you used would not stand well either. Besides, you really can't support position of faith and works based on a cultural interpretation -- though it is an interesting subject. They only enhance understanding. Interpreting Scripture without the required thread that man is justified by faith alone -- and you can go any direction you want -- as proved by your post.

Christ and the authors of the New Testament did not exist in a vacuum.

Your position would have it that the words they delivered to people were incomprehensible, because those people did not matter, what mattered was that many years hence those words would be bound in a work called the Bible, intended for a small, break-away sect of Western European Christians, with terms the true import of only they would recognise.

I believe in all of my posts regarding faith and works -- centered around the original post of the sheep and the goats -- are sound interpretations of God's Word -- His inerrant Word inspired by the hand of God -- even the hand of the apostle Paul -- that has withstood the test of time. Now, I ask to believe in Christ and his completed work on the cross. With Christ as our substitute, we can be 100% assured of our forgiveness, not left to wonder if I'm worthy enough to receive his justification. My faith is on God's promises, not my works.

I should hope that you do believe in what you've written, I would hate to think of you as a massive hypocrite.

Your sincerity, however, does not change the fact that your interpretations are anything but sound.

I know that I will never be worthy of his justification, so I never worry about that, what I do worry about though is doing what he has asked of me, what I worry about is not causing him any more grief over my account than can be avoided. That is an atitude of love. It is patently ridiculous to suppose that when John was speaking anthropomorphically about God being love, that he meant anything but the kind of love that humans can grasp, the kind of love that plays a function in our lives, in our families. We may never grasp the breadth of it, but we can appreciate that he does love us.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the following by Elizabeth Barrett Browning.

Oh what can I give him, lowly as I am? If I were a shepherd, I would give a lamb. Were I a wiseman I would duly play my part. Oh what can I give him, I will give my heart.

My name is Dave and I'm with Truth in Love Ministry, the same ministry that just put up five billboards in Eastern Idaho with the message "Feeling Worthy?" and pointing to a website hishealingnow.com. Check it out for those who want to find what it means to be truly worthy.

Carfeul, we don't want to accidentaly mix in works with grace.....

Edited to add respect.

[WalkerW]

Christ and the authors of the New Testament did not exist in a vacuum.

O'Day said the same thing in the article I provided: "The New Testament was not written in a social vacuum."

[volgadon]

Here, Paul quotes Habbakuk: "The just shall live by his faith." (Hab. 2:4) The Hebrew is emunah, meaning "loyalty, faithfulness, integrity." This is at the very heart of Romans and the faith Paul professes. This is how his Jewish audience understood.

Emunah could also be translated as a stewardship. A man shall live (in the spiritual sense) as a result of how he carries out his stewardship. This fits well with the ancient kinship theology of Israel. Frank Moore Cross, Jr. has written a fantastic article on God as the divine kinsman and on the role covenants play in that understanding. It is the first chapter of from Epic to Canon. It can be read online here.

I would love to see Merganzerman dismiss him with a wave of the hand.

[Zakuska]

Sorry, Walker W. not very good scholarship. It would not stand up very well in most if not every Christian theological seminaries. Plus, the references you used would not stand well either. Besides, you really can't support position of faith and works based on a cultural interpretation -- though it is an interesting subject. They only enhance understanding. Interpreting Scripture without the required thread that man is justified by faith alone -- and you can go any direction you want -- as proved by your post.

I believe in all of my posts regarding faith and works -- centered around the original post of the sheep and the goats -- are sound interpretations of God's Word -- His inerrant Word inspired by the hand of God -- even the hand of the apostle Paul -- that has withstood the test of time. Now, I ask to believe in Christ and his completed work on the cross. With Christ as our substitute, we can be 100% assured of our forgiveness, not left to wonder if I'm worthy enough to receive his justification. My faith is on God's promises, not my works.

And yet this idea is NO where found in the Bible.

In fact the ony verse where the words "faith" and "alone" appear in the Bible together is to show works are part of the equation, and that Faith can't be alone.

My name is Dave and I'm with Truth in Love Ministry, the same ministry that just put up five billboards in Eastern Idaho with the message "Feeling Worthy?" and pointing to a website hishealingnow.com. Check it out for those who want to find what it means to be truly worthy.

How do you justify your billboards with what Paul said here?

Eph. 4: 1

1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,

Col. 1: 10

10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;

1 Thes. 2: 12

12 That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.

Wouldn't happen to be preaching a heresy woud we? Fighting against God?

Paul more or less asks your Question here...

2 cor 13

5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

Sounds to me like you are preaching directly against what Paul did.

[WalkerW]

Emunah could also be translated as a stewardship. A man shall live (in the spiritual sense) as a result of how he carries out his stewardship. This fits well with the ancient kinship theology of Israel. Frank Moore Cross, Jr. has written a fantastic article on God as the divine kinsman and on the role covenants play in that understanding. It is the first chapter of from Epic to Canon. It can be read online here.

I would love to see Merganzerman dismiss him with a wave of the hand.

Oooh, good one. I'm always down for Cross.

[WalkerW]

"To the Jew, Wisdom was the Torah. Wisdom was the Law. They believed that the Law was eternal. That it was there when God was there. That Law given to people in scripture and put down in writing was the mind of God...They made the Law the focus of all that they were about...It was as though the Law had an existence and a personality all of its own. It was an extension of Yahweh...Now Paul and some of the other New Testament writer-what are they constantly talking about? That righteousness doesn't come by the Law. It comes by this person, Jesus. And Paul and the other writers are going to say that that person...is God. He is Wisdom. He is the Word. He is the Angel. He is all these things that we associate with embodied deity in the Old Testament. So, you can see that the conflict is just transparent. It's Christ and the Law. Which Wisdom is it? Which Word is it? Is it this person, Jesus of Nazareth, or is it the Torah? ...It really casts some of the New Testament confrontations that you read about in a little bit different way." (Michael Heiser, "Where Did the NT Writers Get the Idea of Jesus as Co-Creator?" Presentation given at Grace Church Bellingham, Dec. 6, 2009)

This too demonstrates that many modern Christians misunderstand Paul's sermons about the law and Christ. The dichotomy of faith and works is nowhere to be found in the writings. It is placing the proper focus, authority, and divinity on Christ rather than the Law. I find it rather interesting that the deification of the Law is very similar to the deification of the Bible we see today.

[volgadon]

Faith is the substance of things hoped for...

Substance should be assurance. That fits in well with the Aramaic for faith- heymanuta, which is used in contexts of giving one's word. Coupled with all the other examples that verse in hebrew states that what we hope to get is baised on how trustworthy we are. So, faith WITHOUT works is dead.

[WalkerW]

Faith is the substance of things hoped for...

Substance should be assurance. That fits in well with the Aramaic for faith- heymanuta, which is used in contexts of giving one's word. Coupled with all the other examples that verse in hebrew states that what we hope to get is baised on how trustworthy we are. So, faith WITHOUT works is dead.

Fits very well indeed:

"In philosophical language [the Greek hupostasis] can signify the "substance" or "underlying essence" of something...the same term, however, carries the everyday legal or business connotation of "title deed" or "guarantee," attested by numerous papyri as well as classical texts...Given this immediate context, ['substance'] should be heard in the sense of title deed in 11:1, linking the discussion of faith more closely with 10:32-36 and the Christians' loss of property...In this reading, ['faith'] in Hebrews is being understood very much within the context of patronage or friendship. After a client receives the patron's promise that a certain benefaction will be given to him or her..."trust" is all the client has. If the patron is honorable and reliable, however, having "trust" is a good as having the promised item itself. Conversely, showing "distrust" toward the patron means letting go of the grasp on the promised item not only psychologically (because distrust produces anxiety) but in reality (as "distrust" manifested itself in "disobedience," which caused the wilderness generation to lose their possession of the promised land)." (DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle 'to the Hebrews', 2000)

[volgadon]

And which lays at the root of the expression of little faith.

[Tanyan]

A couple interesting articles I found in my archives about what is Grace -

http://www.servantsnews.com/sn0211/grace.htm

http://www.bible.ca/g-grace.htm

In His Debt/Grace Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Tanyan]

More on pistis from my LDS Jedi archive - http://theogeek.blogspot.com/2005/02/meaning-of-faith.html

http://www.noeo.net/ws/notes_on_pistis.htm

http://www.biblepages.web.surftown.se/eb10b.htm

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The next time you want to attempt to talk down to me, provide something of substance instead of just a dismissal at the wave of your hand.

Hey, at least he responds to you. He has ignored everyone of my posts . I am sad. I went to a lot of time to think of well thought out arguments. I take it when some one ignores post that means that it is either a really bad post, or a really good post.

[clairc829]

Hey, at least he responds to you. He has ignored everyone of my posts . I am sad. I went to a lot of time to think of well thought out arguments. I take it when some one ignores post that means that it is either a really bad post, or a really good post.

I think yours was a really good post and thats why he continues to ignore it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think yours was a really good post and thats why he continues to ignore it.

Hey thanks, at least some read it. Lol.

[volgadon]

Hey thanks, at least some read it. Lol.

Up to your usual high standard.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Up to your usual high standard.

But of course.

[WalkerW]

Another goody on client-patron relationships in the NT:

[Doctor Steuss]

Besides, you really can't support position of faith and works based on a cultural interpretation -- though it is an interesting subject.

This is why America is awesome. Not only are you able to make claims like this, but you can then use your belief that a claim like this is correct to help justify your targeting a specific religious group.

So, when the authors of the New Testament chose their words, they didn't want their words to mean exactly what they meant to the people they were directly speaking to?

Maybe they did only mean for their holy writ to make sense to a certain western subset of English speaking Christians several millennia after they were penned, but danged if that doesn

[Zakuska]

This is why America is awesome. Not only are you able to make claims like this, but you can then use your belief that a claim like this is correct to help justify your targeting a specific religious group.

So, when the authors of the New Testament chose their words, they didn't want their words to mean exactly what they meant to the people they were directly speaking to?

Maybe they did only mean for their holy writ to make sense to a certain western subset of English speaking Christians several millennia after they were penned, but danged if that doesn