The sword is that of the Holy Spirit, this gets into spiritual warfare issues and is to be used against the spiritual enemies of God (Satan, powers and principalities, demons). In the end times this will be used against those who have not accepted Jesus, but that sword will be wielded by Jesus Himself.
Understood; my statement was taking as given that the Christian idea of a fundamental change of heart occuring the inception of faith (the ‘new birth’) is real - in which case there wouldn’t necessarily have to be anything written down to specify the benevolence - it would be an intrinsic property of the enfaithed person.
In any case, it can be argued that if it is written down as an explicit instruction, it isn’t really benevolence at all, just slavish obedience of rules.
Um, what? So Jesus is going to pick up the Holy Spirit, which is basically himself since the 3 are 1 or something, and use it as sword against unbelievers?
What about a rod?
Basically yes, and a iron rod is also included:
From Eph 6, our use of the sword of the Spirit is reserved against the spiritual powers and not worldly powers.
Continuing from above:
From Eph 6, our use of the sword of the Spirit is reserved against the spiritual powers and not worldly powers:
Quiddity, to your Bible quotes, I might add, from I Corinthians 13:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
As far as the whole “faith vs. works” issue goes, the faith side was most famously taken by Martin Luther, who, as a young monk, was tormented by thoughts that, no matter what he did, he was still sinful and unworthy of salvation, until, from reading Paul’s epistles, he came to the point of view that it was faith, not works, that was the key to salvation. You can’t do enough to earn salvation; it has to be freely given. The Biblical case for salvation by faith, rather than works, is found mainly in the letters of Paul, who often links faith with grace.
The point is, not that it is by having faith that we earn salvation, but that salvation is not earned at all. The good works, then, are a result of or a response to, the faith and the salvation.
(For Paul in particular, the issue was not so much expressed in terms of faith vs. works, but of faith vs. Law—i.e. earning salvation by keeping all the major and minor points of the Jewish Law.)
Elsewhere in the New Testament (especially in the book of James, which was not one of Martin Luther’s favorites), the point is made that faith without works is dead: that if faith is really real, it’s going to result in right behavior and right living:
Not really; benevolence isn’t just an action, it’s a mental state. You can “just follow orders” when it comes to actions, but humans aren’t built to just will themselves into being benevolent. And to a God, unlike us non-mindreading mortals, the distinction between acting benevolent and actually being benevolent would be crystal clear. So will the difference between someone who’s truly benevolent, or even just trying to be benevolent, and someone who’s trying to game the system.
In the context of this argument, ie. an assumption of the Christian heaven, I’ve had many a discussion with heavily indoctrinated religious Christians on this matter. Point in fact, I’ve asked them this question in a very direct fashion, to several different people. "If I were to live my life helping others, trying to avoid bringing pain to other people, giving of myself, and loving (works), but never accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior (faith), will I go to hell?
Almost invariably the answer has been an uncomfortable or weaseling YES. According to most of the evangelical Christians I’ve talked to, it is essentially a given that if you don’t have faith than you go to hell, game over. However it seems much less clear in these conversations that if I have faith whether or not I need to do works. So apparently, dogma states that faith is what saves you in the end.
In my way of thinking, an omnipotent, just God will accept those with good intention who try to help others when possible, and don’t intentionally harm others either: works and intent (DT’s benevolence) behind those works are what lands us in the good graces of God, since I assume he realizes that he hasn’t done a very good job of giving us a clear description of what he expects, so the next best thing will suffice.
I’m sorry to say this, but I am beginning to think that Der Trihs has a certain antipathy towards religion.
Sorry if that’s not the case and I’m misreading it, but it sure comes across that way.
Christians haven’t come to much consensus about whether it’s faith or works, as the posts above suggest.
Having developed the notion that God’s grace extends beyond a specific population–the Jews-- they find themselves with a bit of a dilemma: Who else?
At the core of all Christian theology is the redemptive power of Jesus Christ in a broken world. But who gets redeemed? It’s no use quoting scripture; every line of thought can find a supporting reference and claim that all others have taken their references out of context…I will save the bother of the Biblical cites, but they are all there, and all “obvious” to the believers who argue them.
A minority say everyone is saved and the redemption of Christ extended to all mankind. This is seldom argued very publicly; I have the sense that many more Christians hope it’s true because it would make everything easier. I suspect the next few generations of Christians will come to embrace this. I’m OK; you’re OK. Whatever your religious tradition.
Some say you must have a specific conversion experience, similar to Saul of Tarsus. This specific profession of faith from those who have come of age gives them a new “spiritual” birth and they become redeemed. In some traditions, this redemption is completely independent of anything else you do and you cannot lose this salvation.
Some say that only certain human beings are pre-destined by God to become saved. These elect of God were known to him before their human existence came into being.
Very few Christians argue that deeds of any kind are either necessary or sufficient for salvation. Indeed, this central theme separates Christianity from the teachings of Gautama Siddhartha, for example. Frequently cited is the last-moment “conversion” of the thief on the cross next to Jesus, to whom Jesus made a promise of Paradise. However most Christians are equally uncomfortable with the idea that faith alone is sufficient (“even the devils believe…” James 2:19 ((Martin Luther did not like the book of James)). Most commonly, the theme is advanced that if you truly believe, it will be reflected in some way in how you live. Although you will not be perfect, neither will a true believer rape little girls cavalierly.
The real secret to a “gimme” for redemption (and little advertised), is the free ride almost all Christians give to babies and the mentally retarded. It just goes too much against a sense of fairness for them not to be redeemed by default. I’ve often argued that in a standard Christian tradition, abortionists do much better than preachers in preventing eternal damnation–their “save” rate for souls is 100%.
Of much more debate is what to do with those who are of age and mental capacity, but who have not heard the gospel. Not really a problem for Calvinists (those who believe in predestination) but sort of a cloudy issue for the rest. The typical response is to simply decide to proclaim the gospel and let God sort out who ends up redeemed. Equally problematic are the Jews, who are clearly labeled in the Bible by God as Chosen People, but who reject the divinty of the core figure of Christianity–Jesus Christ.
To your point about why God “needs” us to have faith: I think the typical argument would be that he doesn’t need it. However an outright rejection of God is a reasonable basis upon which to fail a redemption test.
Perhaps in the end the question is not whether we believe in God but whether he believes in us.
You do know that evangelical Christians refers to those Christians who actively try to get other people to convert to Christianity.
Anyway the way I see it is the only way for salvation is faith, it is a absolute, no faith equals no salvation. But that is not the only qualifier.
I would really like this to be true, but don’t expect it to fly, scripture is just so hard against this. Yes in the way back in my mind is the possibility that God may pull this one off and get His children back from Satan, but there is no scriptural evidence. Remember that God has already condemned Satan, the fallen angels, demons, and at least apparently Judas.
I would say a good number would respond that faith (and acceptance of Jesus as lord) would lead to deeds.
Point of clarity, it is better translated as ‘even the demons believe’. The KJV translated the Greek word for demon as devil - they are not the same thing. This has to do more with acceptance. The demons are basically saying here that yes I know you are God, but I won’t accept you as my king.
God needs nothing we can give. God wants righteousness by that it is ‘right’ for us to worship Him. If we don’t we get what we deserve which is also ‘right’.
If God doesn’t need our worship, what is “right” about him requiring it?
The point is not good deeds, but the further glorification of God - that is the other piece. The thief did glorify God by his last moment conversion.
Alternatively, Evangelical Christians is the nomenclature preferred by Christians who would have identified themselves as Fundamentalists 20 years ago, but who have come to be leary of the term fundamentalism as it has been applied to radical Islamists or the more hateful expressions of Wildmon, Falwell, Robertson, and company.
This is not to say that your definition has no weight; it is simply to point out that many people use the word as a polite designation for conservative Protestant Christians that does not carry the baggage of “Fundamentalism.” Trying to nail down any of the descriptive terms for religious people to a single meaning is a legitimate task when preparing a discussion so that participants all address the same topics with the same understandings, but it is a fruitless exercise to attempt to impose a single meaning part way into a discussion, since such an effort will simply result in a hijack as posters wrangle over which meaning should be permitted.
God does not require it - it is optional, but you will get what you deserve in regards to this.
I haven’t heard it outside the usage that I stated. The word angel also comes from the same root which means messenger.
If there’s going to be a punishment for not worshiping your god, it is not optional. That would be like someone pointing a gun at my head and saying, “You have the option of handing me your wallet or getting shot. Your choice.”
err, yes I do know that… My reference was vague, I was referring to the people who proselytize in public areas and are more than willing to debate Christian theology (both bible-thumping fire-and-brimstone types and as a corollary the much more reasoned Christians that hang around them and are actually willing to have decent debate, the latter whom I primarily concerned with)
Just to be clear: I am not presenting any of my own beliefs; simply summarizing what the common Christian themes are.
From what I have read of your posts, Kanicbird, you have a relatively specific view of correct Christian theology. You are certainly entitled to that. But I don’t understand why you feel the need to parse out what I have laid out as general themes that others believe and make sure that what is really True is counterpointed against them as if I were arguing for those positions.
In my opinion the fixation upon points of trivial significance such as the importance of using the word “demons” versus “devils” is an example of the small-mindedness that has gotten Christianity in so much trouble, and a root cause of why the Christian message falls on increasingly deaf ears.