Then again, all who can perform works, or miracles will not be saved.
Casting out demons is a miracle, is it not? Evidently, there is such a thing as a “bad miracle.”
Why must you, if it is not required? 
I still equate “believing in Jesus” with obeying his teachings. Obeying his teachings is a requirement of loving Jesus, and though some (Opus 
) might argue you can believe in Jesus without loving him, I just find such a position lacks the basics of sane reasoning.
Do you have a cite on this? I’m not exactly a Bible scholar. I know Paul lumps circumcision in there with the other works he lists – but Paul and Jesus both seem to use the term to basically mean miracles.
I beg to differ with your reasoning here. You could stop living a sinful life and be hit by a bus crossing the next street corner (God forbid!). You would have lived the rest of your life without sin in such a circumstance. That’s what I mean by “going forward.” Do you understand?
OK, well – Paul is confusing in Romans, but it is much clearer in Acts 15:
So you are right – but to be saved, even here requires faith and the Holy Spirit, and as Jesus said no one can have the Holy Spirit unless you keep his teachings.
Agreed. But it is this narrow gate that allows you to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Again, I don’t see why anyone is doomed to fail. If everyone is doomed to fail, then the kingdom will never be fully realized. If you believe you are doomed to fail, why try?
There is none good but God.
Well, I see a definite lack of people who claim to believe in God actually trying. I don’t mean you – I don’t know you from Adam. But I think many people would be much better off “doing” rather than “trying and failing” all the time. They seem unwilling to do what is required of them to enter into life. Which makes little sense for people who claim to be trying. But God seeing all.
There is none good but God. What of someone who had already given all their money to the poor? There would be nothing for them to do here except to die.
Are you saying it is wrong to fear God and respect God’s will? I don’t find such a motivation lacking as long as right is done.
But to believe is to follow Jesus’s teachings. You can’t be saved if you do not have the Holy Spirit.
Opus – If some guy I’ve never met named Larry has a teaching that requires me to walk down a path in Pease Park, and I walk down that path, haven’t I kept Larry’s teachings?
But now that I think of it – how are you supposed to visit everyone who is in prison anyway? I mean there are over a million in the U.S. alone. Some of you people better get cracking.
I don’t know any Christians who disagree with me. If, as the scriptures say, a Christian can perform miracles because they have the Holy Spirit because they keep Jesus’s commandments, and there are some number of people who wish to claim this mantle for themselves without gaining this Spirit or entering the kingdom (although, yes Lissa – I agree some people may be able to do some form of miracles through another spirit) of course they are going to redefine everything Jesus taught. I can say I am a Republican and then say, of course, Republicans are pro-choice, pro-welfare, and in favor of socialized medicine like me. That doesn’t make that true, nor does it mean Republicans “can’t agree on one of the important issues in their” party, right? Not a perfect analogy, but surely you see the truth of the matter.
Your attempt to find holes was equally weak.
True enough: if you truly pledge in your heart to repent, you can be saved, but if you do not go on to the baptism by the Holy Spirit, you will perish in the midst of your works. As Peter says:
It has nothing to do with water per se. Nor is it a flood of dissipation which saves you without your repenting. As Peter continues:
It is dangerous for people to fool themselves into thinking because they had some water poured upon their head, they can be saved without the Holy Spirit, but I am willing to allow that God’s mercy extends to those who are truly in the process of repenting. Sadly, many people do seem to get sidetracked in this process and never escape the ways of the world. This is the devil’s fault.
Don’t knock it until you have tried it.
Oh, I’m aware of that. I just find their explanations tortured, no pun intended.
I know of only one family of Jesus. Those who hear his teachings and keep them.
If you believe you will follow Jesus’s teachings, you don’t believe because you follow his teachings.
Mostly where we disagree is cause and effect.
This is what Jesus says in John 14: “If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-- the Spirit of truth. … Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me.”
Sure:
I think that is most of it. But Paul isn’t entirely clear in Romans (chapter 2 for example) the more I look at it:
Clearly he means one kind of “works” here but then he goes on briefly in chapter 3 to say “works” aren’t important, at least as far as circumcision is concerned. It is confusing!!
It should be fairly difficult to trip up those who walk in the light. But I’ll admit – there are arguments on both sides. Do the apostles ever sin after they recieved the spirit? (I don’t know – I’m asking).
Just saying is all. Jesus’s yoke is an easy yoke. It is not a struggle to do good unless you try to do it on your own – but you should instead let the Spirit work though you. If you give yourself over to God therein lies success.
But there is none good but God. I fail to understand your position. You do not have to do anything because someone puts a gun to your head – you are still free to do whatever you want. This should be especially true for those who are alive in Christ and no longer fear the power of Death.
I should hope so. Jesus gave the world the new law of love and the commandments to explain this law. By that covenant you can enter into life if you so choose. God be with you.
jmullaney wrote:
If Larry also requires you to believe that he is the son of God, no.
I really can’t even think of a rebuttal to this.
Huh? There’s a key difference here. The Republican party has a clear statement on certain issues like abortion, welfare, gun control, etc. One can be a Republican but still disagree with the official party plank on certain issues. Furthermore, no one claims that the Republican party platform is inspired by God.
A better analogy would be if the Republican party published an official declaration of their beliefs. Upon reading it, half of Republicans thought that it said that the party was pro choice, and half thought that it said that the party was pro-life. This would be pretty strong evidence that the Republicans did a piss-poor job of crafting their statement, and would make any claim that it was divinely inspired laughable.
Oh goodie. Haven’t seen this brilliancy before. I assume you’ve tried Islam, Buddhism, cocaine, eating human feces, S&M, etc.? One needs experience with something in order to comment on it, but one needn’t have tried it oneself.
I’m sure they feel the same about your explanations.
Nice non-sequitur there. Please answer the question: If the Bible is divinely inspired, why can’t honest, rational, well-intentioned people decide what it teaches about critical issues such as salvation, the death penalty, abortion, homosexuality, slavery, etc.?
On “works” equating to “miracles”: Through that whole list, whenever the passage is referring to anything that we would name a miracle, the word works is modified by the adjective mighty. Where the word works is not modified by mighty, it is simply not clear that every “work” was a miracle. (You may argue so if you wish, but that is not what is in the text.)
In fact, the words for the first few passages are:
Mt 5:16
kala 'erga – good works
Mt 7:22 through Mark and Luke (and Acts)
dynameis – works of power
John (throughout) and Paul to the Romans
'erga – works, efforts, labor
The word 'erga (whence our ergonomics, etc.) was simply the common word in Greek for effort that produced any result–i.e., it corresponds to “work” in English. There is no sense of the miraculous attached to it (unless someone wants to claim that it had a special meaning in John that it had no where else in literature). Where there were specific miraculous events, the Gospel authors clearly noted them, using the word dynamis (whence our dynamic, etc.) Note that Matthew uses both words, indicating that he certainly knew that they had different meanings. Note, also that most of the synoptic passages have been shared, so that there are fewer references than there appear at first glance.
Grabbing a word out of an English translation (especially when one carefully ignores the adjectives applied to that word in the translation) is not a good way to study Scripture or to try to discern what was really meant.
Thanks Tom.
[Moderator Hat ON]
bdgr, please don’t quote a post in full (including nested quotes by other posters) just to post a brief comment; quote only the amount of text that is necessary to make it clear what you are responding to. If you don’t know how to edit down the text you are quoting, read about Vb coding here. Thanks.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Well, shit. I’m actually in agreement with jmullaney.
I’m very, very frightened.
Sheep go to Heaven,
goats go to Hell.
Goats are hell, posters. Anyone who says differently is selling one.
Aw, now you are just giving me heck. “Son of God” for all extents and purposes means “his teachings are true from the Father” as is clearly explained in the text.
As, I must insist, does the Bible. It is a little dusty after 2000 years of language drift and translation. There is nothing in Jesus’s main teachings unclear. You can poke holes by feigning ignorance of the totality of the text, which must be examined due in no part to language drift. If you wish to believe, in error, that requirements for salvation translated in to English as “believe in” and “faith” are purely mental exercises, even though you admit you do not know, just so you can claim that this fails to make sense of the activity based requirements elsewhere, thus “make any claim that it was divinely inspired laughable,” who am I to complain? But it is clear what you are doing.
You are the one who claimed Christianity is weakly supported. You might know the scriptures, but you do not know the power of God.
“[H]onest, rational, well-intentioned people”?? I beseech you: I have surely never met such people – can you rephrase the question without using an oxymoron?
Thanks Tom.
But John and Paul are using the same word, right? When Jesus says “Any one who has faith in me shall do works” that is the same word Paul uses, right?
there is no heaven. suicides probably get reincarnated into a life worse than the one they had. God has a really obnoxious sense of humor. if you read near the beginning of psalms, it talks about God laughing about the cruelty of the kings of the earth. guess she must know something they don’t.
Dal Timgar
John and Paul both use the same word, 'erga, throughout. (I am not looking up a Greek concordance to be sure that neither ever uses dynamis.)
However, to put the meaning “miracle” on that word is imposing a desired result on the word without justification. There is/was a perfectly good word in use (dynamis) that we could translate as “miracle.” When John quotes Jesus speaking of his own “works,” most of the contexts are more easily understood as “doing good,” not as “performing miracles.” On the one or two passages that one could (not should) interpret as Jesus referring to miracles, the passage can still be read that Jesus is referring to simply being very ethical or compassionate or doing a good job of spreading God’s message. If you choose to read those passages as referring to “miracles,” you really have to be prepared to explain why John did not use dynamis or find other passages in ancient texts where 'erga is understood to mean miracles.
This is even more true in Paul (written 40 - 60 years earlier). Paul is generally referring to efforts of Christians, not efforts of Jesus. Why would we interpret Paul to be using the word 'erga in a context that no one else uses it, a half century before John allegedly uses it in the same non-standard way–when no one else picked up that usage, despite the primacy (in both time and authority) of Paul’s writings?
If it gives you a warm feeling to equate “works” in Paul and John to miracles, that is fine. Trying to wrest the word out of context and using it as a debating point will not, I’m afraid, go very far. Even the English translators have avoided trying to put the “miracle” meaning on 'erga. Whenever dynamis is used, the translations always add the modifiers “mighty” or “of power” to the word “works.” They never do the same for 'erga.
OK, Tom – who am I to question Jesus’s choice of words?
Places in John where the context implies “works” meaning something other than miracles seem to be the exception rather than the rule, although I suppose a broad interpretation is possible.
What about John 14:11 (and 10:32, and others)? NIV translates as “miracles” what the RSV translates as “works”? (I guess I should ask instead if you know a link to once of these concordances on-line). Annoyingly, if the word “works” appears at all in John 14:12, the NIV leaves it out completely versus the RSV.
Ahem. Supposedly written 40-60 years earlier. Do you think Jesus said the things he said in John as presented or not (admittedly not in Greek)? And Paul may have been familiar with Jesus’s teachings (though his native language wasn’t Greek either I presume)? Otherwise you are right – these are two completely seperate documents and there is no reason to assume they might be using certain words in a common fashion other than possible Arameic/Greek slang.
So?
Well, it is the same word in John and Paul. I think Jesus’s portrayed usage is fairly clear. Without any real context to know what Paul means when he uses the word, in apparenlty opposite meanings in subsequent chapters of Romans (you will “judged by your works” in chapter 2, and then in chapter 3 he says “works” count for nothing and faith is important). So either Paul is changing his meaning, or he fell off a horse a little too hard, or, possibly, some third party edited his letter after he wrote it (gee, perhaps even the same time John was supposedly being written as you say)…
and in any case, I’ll admit I don’t know exactly what Paul means in Romans 3.
Just let me know if those NIV guys are commie infiltrators, OK? I don’t know if any churched actually use the NIV, but it is first on the Bible Gateways list!
Yup.
Great – I like it – and I don’t think this hurts my explanation to Opus. Still, there are about a half billion Protestants who take Romans three and throw out Romans 2 and all of what Jesus said re works in John and also what James wrote, regardless. And they still bug me.
As long as you are simply batting ideas back and forth, with each person explaining why s/he favors any given interpretation, that’s fine.
My point was that you can not claim authority for your position to “win” the debate, because your interpretation is not supported by many (if any) sources. The NIV may translate some of the passages as “miracles” (although I would be really curious if they provide an explanation why they did so), but that is a single translation that is not supported by many (if any) other versions.
(BTW, if they did not translate Paul’s use as “miracles,” you don’t even have their support for your interpretation.)