[quote]
“He will answer them, ‘I assure you, as often as you neglected to do it to one of these least ones, you neglected to do it to me.’ These will go off to eternal punishment and the just to external life.”
[quote]
Matthew, 26:45-46
Guin … um … huh?
Matthew 26:45-46 is the part right before Judas comes to betray Jesus.
In other words, Jesus in Matthew 26:45-46 is commanding works–those who do not feed the hungry and help the stranger will be lost, not saved.
And in general, you need to be careful to distinguish between what makes someone a Christian and what makes them a Protestant. You may consider other varieties of Christian to be mistaken in their interpretation of Christianity–as they may consider you to be in yours–but there are more groups of people out there than just Protestants who are, historically speaking and in terms of their own profession, Christians.
Nobody said that works were not commanded. The question is: do they save us?
Those who love God and want to please him are gonna do good works … but it’s done out of love and respect for him, not out of “God needs help saving us.”
That is indeed the question. What is it we need to be saved from, and why don’t “works”–being a good person and living a good life and doing good things–save us from it?
SIN of course. And hell, and the devil, and liberals, and misery, and rhetorical questions?
I think she answered that with a quote already.
So, we need to be saved from sin. And what is sin? I was kind of under the impression that it was more or less the opposite of doing good. The way to be saved from doing evil is not to do good instead, but it’s something else?
The quote just repeats the idea “The way to be saved from being evil is not to do good instead”. I’d just like a bit more explanation, that’s all.
So “good works”–what people who are not evangelical Christians might refer to as “leading a good life” or “being a decent person”–while nice, are optional. Presumably, one could be saved from hell without doing any (by way of a deathbed conversion, say). And one could lead a basically good and decent life, and still be damned to hell. Is that it?
Well I appologize to you and her for answering for her. I honestly thaught it was a sarcastic question. A bit presumptuose on my part. And while I agree with alot of what she said, I will try not to answer for her but give you my thaughts on it. And I know you are not uneducated, so I will not try to simplify it too much, but I don’t have the time to go through the whole bible and will try to stick to , what I think, are key points. simplifed
The Sin was the metaphorical, or literal (however you wish to interpret it) eating of the forbidden fruit. Sin is not doing bad. Sin is the dissobeyence of God. Before that disobedience man was without sin. I think Cecil has a column about the seven deadly sins. On how we perverted or morphed the word sin into what your definition is of doing not good. If I remember correctly they were actually the seven deadly vices.
With the eating of the apple man was with sin. Man was capable of sin and therefore imperfect before God. And He is perfect, therefore could not have imperfection in His presense. The only way for man to atone was through sacrifice/offerings. There are many forms of biblical sacrifice, but the most common was offering of animals. Especially “washing away sin” with lambs blood. Many Jews still hold that as fundamental to their redemption.
“For He so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son”. To Christians, Christ was The Sacrafice. A gift from God. And while we still can sin (don’t forget the 10 C’s), Christ’s blood washed away The Sin. The caveat to that is you must acknowledge the gift and accept Him as your personal savior. And though we are forgiven of The Sin, we are still sinners. His Judgement on man after The Sin, was that we would know the difference between good and evil. IMO, to be Christ-like is pleasing to Him, I just don’t make the connection of being Christ-like and going to heaven. Like WVW said, no acts you can do will earn your way into heaven. Because we have been Judged. So without Christ, and the acceptance, the judgement stands. But with Him, we are forgiven.
This is the fundametals of what Christian is to me. I am no theologian. And I learn more about my religion every day. Don’t think I will ever “know” all about it. But when I have questions I find an answer somehow. I was also raised with the idea that not doing something good was worse than doing something bad. I do think good works are pleasing to Him. And I do not think evil or bad people would accept Christ the way I have and still be evil or bad. Because that it is personal to me I don’t judge. Well I try not to. I would like to think that all dogs go to heaven.
But I do know tjis is the way for me. And IMO, this is what it means to be Christian. In other words being Christ-like is nice, but it don’t replace The Gift.
I meant to say that being able to do good and not, is worse than doing bad.
So what you’re really doing is lambasting an entire faith group (your protestation to the contrary notwithstanding) due to your interpretation of what you think that faithgroup believes and not what they really do believe.
You say we say “Goed needs help saving us.” On the other hand, we actually say, and I already showed you some of the passages which support our assertion, “God needs our cooperation for us to become exalted.”
That pretty much sums it up.
Drat. Please ignore (or correct, if you have that option) the two typos in my posting above.
I think this entire issue of “good works” is confused, to say it plainly. You cna’t be a “bad christian”, you can only be a bad person. Christians, in following Christ, are good to begin with. They don’t have to seek out works to do, they are good in what they do, and repent when they are bad (either personally, through confession, et cetera). If following Christ is the essence of being Christian, then no modifier can apply.
What am I missing here??? 
Monty, I didn’t “lambast” the Mormon church. I simply said that, according to what they teach (works saving us is just the tip of the iceberg as far as unbiblical teachings go), they could not be considered Christians.
Don’t be so touchy.
And that’s not “lambasting” the Mormon faith?
If that’s the case, then Catholics are also not Christians, nor are Orthodox, etc.
Who made YOU, the arbitrator of what constitutes a Christian?
:rolleyes:
I could give you an example of lambasting, but I won’t.
And nobody made me the arbitrator. I’m going by what the Bible says … ya know, the book that Christians are supposed to follow.
And so am I.
What’s your point?
Well, if Christians are automatically “good”, does that mean that non-christians cannot be “good”?
erislover, your whole argument reminds me of Richard Nixon. In the middle of Watergate, when the question “are you a crook?” was being asked of him, he once replied. “I did nothing illegal. When the president does something, that means it cannot be illegal”.