Paul says in a couple of places that salvation is "not of works" and specifies the objection he is overcoming: "Lest any man should boast." If we can find room for boasting, then salvation is not of grace. It is owed us. If there is a small part that is ours, then it can be said, "I accomplished something here; God gave me what I earned." So the Bible argues against salvation by works and salvation by Law and any other human means because it is not acceptable that any man should boast -- should have something within himself of which to be proud when it comes to salvation.
This idea, of course, will cause a problem if you think it through. The standard view is that "God has done 99.9% of what is required for my salvation and all I have to do is that last 0.1% and then I'm saved! What's there to boast about?" They tell me, "Just because you come in faith is no reason to boast." And I'm not sure at all I can agree. Here are a couple of illustrations that show my problem here.
In an imaginary town there is a giant boulder on a hill overlooking the town. Thus the town is named Boulder. The boulder is ominous, but it is very secure in its place, held there by a small, key stone at its base. It never moves. It never even shudders. It's very secure. And it has been for as long as anyone knows. A local teen is playing on the hill one day and comes up to the boulder. He sees that tiny little stone and wonders why it's there. He pulls it out to look at it. Nothing special. So he tosses it and goes on about his fun. Later that evening, however, the wind and gravity work their magic, and the boulder comes rolling down into the streets, crushing houses and cars and precious pets. In the aftermath, the police investigate and finally determine that it was that teen that pulled that stone out. Who gets the blame? Is it nature for putting the boulder on the hill, or the wind for moving it, or gravity for giving it velocity? No, it's that teen who will be charged because he pulled that "inconsequential" little rock out of the way.
Of course, in that example, the teen has nothing to boast about. He's facing charges. So let's see if I can offer an example where credit is due. I live in a nice little house on the edge of town. I didn't build the house. I didn't build the power plant several miles away that powers everything around. I didn't string the miles and miles of power lines that transport that power. I didn't create the infrastructure to distribute that power in my neighborhood. I didn't put up the poles (or, in my neighborhood, dig the trenches) that carry the electricity from house to house. I didn't design or install the transformers that make that power usable at my house. I didn't wire the house, put up the light fixture, or connect the switches. But when my wife says, "I can't see; it's too dark", I flip the switch (that's all) and I get the credit for lighting up the room.
It is argued that simply choosing Christ -- simply coming in faith -- is nothing to boast about. What's the big deal? But if that "simple" act of choosing Christ in faith is the "switch" that lights my life, it's not trivial. If that is the sole thing that is keeping the boulder of salvation from rolling through, it's not small. If God cannot save me unless I do that one "simple" thing, it's not a little thing. And, if I'm able to choose Christ in faith despite my being spiritually dead, hostile to God, doing nothing good, unable to understand, and all the rest of the things attributed to Natural Man, it is not just not a little thing; it's huge. It would be like Lazarus raising himself from the dead. Nice trick if you can do it. Jesus did, and we don't consider that a small thing.
If I can get to heaven and tell the angels, "The difference between me and the next door neighbor who rejected Christ was that I chose Christ in faith", I don't see that as trivial. That, after all, is the final, deciding factor, isn't it? That would indeed be something about which to boast. And, oh, yeah, that was the problem Paul was trying to prevent, wasn't it?
21 comments:
Couldn't have said it better, Stan. Too many people focus on the word "works" when dealing with ths question, wondering what is considered a 'work' and what isn't. That's not the one to focus on, as you have pointed out. It's the word, "boast."
If one, as you brought up, considers a believer and a non-believer and asks what it was that caused one to choose God and the other to reject him, it's either something that the believer can boast about, or it's all God.
I like the crowd that says, "Faith? What is that to boast about?" Well, it overcame every obstacle that Natural Man has. That's pretty impressive.
I just started Luther's Bondage of the Will, and am only in the introduction, but Luther said that Semi-Pelagianism (99.9%-.1%) was worse than full Pelagianism because it cheapened the worth of the work required for salvation. Both are heretical, but the .1% of effort we have to put it in makes salvation cheaper than the 100% effort required by Pelagius. So sad that this debate is still going so long after the days of Pelagius and Augustine, or Erasmus and Luther.
And, oh, yeah, that was the problem Paul was trying to prevent, wasn't it?
No, actually that's the problem that he causes. Note that everything you just said applies against faith not works.
"If I can get to heaven and tell the angels, 'The difference between me and the next door neighbor who rejected Christ was that I chose Christ in faith'"
People don't boast about restraining themselves from sin. "I almost cheated on my wife...but I stopped myself." That you don't hear. What you hear is "I believe in the Trinity and you don't, so you're a hellbound idiot but I'm going to heaven."
It is faith that prompts all the boasting. Paul got it exactly backwards.
To readers, I should make it clear that beowulf2k8 is not a disinterested observer, someone simply interested in examining the ideas and questions regarding Christianity. He/she is a skeptic, interested primarily in proving false those ideas. That's not intended as an insult or attack. As I am not a disinterested observer, but interested in proving true the ideas of Christianity, I'm perfectly fine with folks who have the opposite view. It's simply clarification of the intent. The approach to one with genuine questions for information is different than to those who ask questions to disprove your beliefs.
beowulf2k8: "No, actually that's the problem that he causes. Note that everything you just said applies against faith not works."
In a world in which I manufacture my own faith, that would be true, wouldn't it? In the real world, however, there are two problems with it. First, while many in the faith try to encourage non-believers to "choose to believe", it doesn't, in fact, work that way. I cannot "choose to believe" that I have a pet unicorn or that the neighbors are aliens from Mars. Why would I think that anyone can "choose to believe" anything at all? Belief (faith) is something that happens, not something that is chosen. It is assisted, perhaps, by what you choose to examine, aided, probably, by the evidence you choose to evaluate, directed, most likely, by attitudes, feelings, and thoughts on the information you have, but never chosen. Which leads to the second factor. The Bible doesn't describe faith as something I muster. It's not something I drum up, build on my own, create on my own. The Bible describes faith as a gift, something ascribed, "granted", given. I don't make it myself; it is given by God.
Since no human chooses what he or she believes, faith comes from somewhere else. Saving faith is, according to the Bible, granted by God and, therefore, not given to everyone and not something that those who receive it have anything to boast about. It is a gift, and it is not given on the basis of any personal superiority or merit.
But, tell me, since Christianity is fundamentally false and Calvinists are certainly the worst of the bunch, why bother arguing the point? I mean, it's not like you'll say, "Oh, yeah! I see where I was mistaken! Thanks for clearing that up!" What is your aim? Commenting on a post back in July (some comment on posts from years ago), it's not likely anyone else will read them but me. I'm pretty sure you don't think that this kind of argument will make me think, "Hmm, he's got a point there. Maybe Christianity is a pack of lies." I'm quite confident you aren't asking for clarification. What is your goal? (I'm asking for information without making an argument.)
To answer your question, I arrived at your blog via a bing search on the phrase "Lest any man should boast" and having never read any of your blog before, had no idea you were a Calvinists, nor did I pay attention to when this post was made. I had no expectation of convincing anyone of anything. I just had a comment to make after reading your post, so I made it. I assumed that was the point of comment boxes, i.e. to make comments.
Now, although I was not aware you were a Calvinist, I was aware already that Calvinists do not believe they chose their faith but rather that it was assigned to them on the basis of their having won a cosmic lottery. Yet, I do not see how this solves the issue which I have raised. Whether you believe that you chose your faith or that God gave it to you makes no difference since you brag about it either way. When you speak in such a way as to denigrate the mental capacity of non-believers, or even of Arminians, then you essentially are bragging about your faith. That becomes strange when you supposedly believe that you had nothing to do with coming to that faith. Yet, is it? The reality is that the Calvinist system is too absurd even for the most ardent Calvinist to believe. This is why we find Calvinists all the time bragging about how they are intellectually superior to the atheists, Arminians, and whoever else. It is not infrequent for them to also vaunt philosophy and their supposed great understanding of it and how this understanding of philosophy makes their faith superior.
As a case in point to this, let me say this also. Your disclaimer about me is unnecessary for two reasons:
(1) anyone who knows how to use a browser can click my name and go to my blog to see for themselves. Its not like I'm hiding my disgust with Calvinism.
(2) if you really believe in predestination, why are you afraid that if you don't put up this disclaimer the very elect might hear my logical statement and be able to make a choice that would result in them not believing your doctrines any longer?
Calvin displayed the same lack of belief in his own system when he murdered Servetus as if Servetus left to himself could sway a predestined elect away from the proper faith. And oh what condescending things did Calvin say about this man's intelligence. My how he bragged on his faith (which he yet supposedly believed was a gift of God). How also do the triabloggers and Turretinfan brag on their faith.
You see, my friend (and I call you this sincerely), that the difficulty is not solved by asserting that your faith is not your own. Rather, it is made worse. If your faith is not really yours, if it is just on loan, then why are you bragging about it? Indeed it is shown that the more men try to stop people from bragging by declaring justification to be by faith alone, they more men end up bragging. And then when they take the next step to say their faith is not derived from their own choice, they brag even more as a result. Now the very fact that they view their faith as a gift makes them brag all the more of their intellectual superiority, as if they have retroactively earned their predestination.
Paul, therefore, was certainly barking up the wrong tree. But what do we expect when a braggard takes it upon himself to create a doctrine that will stop bragging? Of course he will end up actually increasing it.
I'm not entirely sure what you classify as "boasting" when it comes to faith. It would appear from your perspective that someone who says "I believe and you don't" or "I have faith and you don't" is boasting. I would see it as a statement of fact (assuming it to be true). So that to me isn't boasting. I do believe that some (all sides, to be fair) do indeed see themselves as superior because "I have the truth and you (you peon) don't!", but I don't see it as necessary nor good. So I'm not at all clear on why you consider being given faith (on loan? never heard of such a thing) would be, by definition, boasting.
You suggest that "When you speak in such a way as to denigrate the mental capacity of non-believers" it is bragging. And, as I was forming this very argument, I realized the futility. Look, the Bible (not me) says that Natural Man (your "non-believers") is dead spiritually. The Bible says that the Natural Man, due to sin, "does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them." Two terms: "Does not" and "is not able". You would likely classify that as "denigrating the mental capacity of non-believers". But when my son tells me, "I'm good at basketball and you're not", I don't feel denigrated; I see it as a statement of fact and a valid reflection of my nature and his. But the discussion becomes futile because we have no common basis for truth. I can see from experience that unbelievers reject out of hand the condition that the Bible says they are in and I can see from Scripture, from experience, and from evident reason that the description of their condition is accurate. But all we can do here is duel like two little school kids -- "Is not", "Is so", "Is not" ...
The point of the disclaimer was not to protect anyone from going awry of predestination (which seems to be some sort of hard determinism to you, some sort of absolute fatalism ... not my view). It was to explain the difference in my approach. Someone who comes with genuine questions and genuine confusion is handled with kid gloves. Someone who comes in to brazenly and arrogantly explain why we're all fools for believing a single word of what that idiot Paul wrote will not be treated so carefully. It wasn't to protect them from you, but to explain my approach (which is what I said: "The approach to one with genuine questions for information is different than to those who ask questions to disprove your beliefs").
"But the discussion becomes futile because we have no common basis for truth."
This is precisely the sort of thing I am talking about. That is boasting as if you believe because of some superior moral inclination to truth, as if such a thing comes from yourself. But according to your doctrine the only reason why I don't share your supposed basis of truth is that God saw fit to damn me to hell on a dice roll while he saw fit to make you believe the 'truth' on a dice roll. Yet you still boast as if you have earned this higher status on your own. So, as I said, your very assertion that you did not earn becomes a boast as if you did.
And here is where I become less inclined to "kid gloves". What rubbish!
You believe that my basis for truth -- my belief in God and in the Bible -- is false, inferior to your own. Yet I am "boasting" and "denigrating your intelligence" and you are not doing the same to me, right? Come on. That's not reasonable.
Here, let's take a flight of imagination for a moment. Imagine you're a blind man in a world of people who are almost entirely blind. A doctor comes to you and says, "I'm going to offer you an opportunity. I have the skills and knowledge and materials required to give you a new set of eyes that will allow you to see. I'm not offering it to you because I think you're superior to anyone else. I'm giving it to you for reasons of my own." You, being the morally superior being, would refuse the offer, right? Because, after all, to be given a gift is arrogant, right? Or, at least, if you received the gift of sight, you'd refuse to use it because that would be arrogant, boastful, denigrating to those who can't see, right?
See? Rubbish! I haven't earned some status on my own. Nor has anyone ever been damned to hell on a dice roll. And you are manufacturing arrogance and denigration where there is none.
Years ago I worked with a guy who had some interesting perspectives on things. We talked once, for instance, about what it meant to look at a pretty girl. I said, "I can just look without lust. I can admire beauty without wishing to have sex with it." He said, "That's not possible." You see, he projected his own inclinations on everyone. "It's not possible to look at a woman without wanting to have sex with her." Perhaps that was true ... for him. Perhaps it's true that it's not possible to be given a precious gift without being arrogant about being given it ... for you. Not true for everyone.
"I haven't earned some status on my own. Nor has anyone ever been damned to hell on a dice roll."
So why does God want to save you and not the guy down the street? If you in no way earned anything not even a little, then it is purely random. Perhaps not literally a dice roll: perhaps flipping a coin or drawing straws. You can't get around the fact that your doctrine makes god into an entirely capricious and arbitrary monster who damns people to hell for nothing at all except being unlucky enough to have lost some cosmic game of chance. You have the arrogance to even boast that you won this game when you by your own doctrine claim you had nothing to do with your winning. Yet you feel superior for it.
"If you in no way earned anything not even a little, then it is purely random."
It is your position, then, that their are only two possibilities. Either God chooses whom He chooses because they're better than the rest, or it is entirely random. Check your logic tables. That one is listed as the "False Dilemma". It is a logical fallacy. (Limiting the options to two when there could be more -- such as reasons that God has of which you are not aware -- is a logical fallacy.)
"Yet you feel superior for it."
You have decided how I feel? Well, I bow, then, to the superior intellect, the one that has been able not only to determine that I'm an idiot, but what I feel about it. Very impressive.
I have one rule: "Let's keep it friendly." You've accused me repeatedly of arrogance I don't have. I've attempted multiple times to correct you on that. Being totally amazed that I of all people would be chosen for salvation is not arrogance; it's amazement. I cannot offer a single suggestion of what could possibly be a reason for God choosing me, chief among sinners. And I often check myself. "Are you sure about this?" And yet you're quite sure it's arrogance.
If this is the best you can do in both logic (read "fallacy") and friendly (read "false accusations"), you can quit any time because you're stretching the limits of "friendly". (I mean, seriously, do you have friends who remain your friends when you repeatedly, falsely accuse them of things despite all their protests and defenses?)
"Limiting the options to two when there could be more -- such as reasons that God has of which you are not aware -- is a logical fallacy."
Regardless of reasons I am not aware of, there are only two possibilities:
(1) That it is based on something to do with the individual.
(2) That it is random.
If it is based on nothing to do with the individual, not merits, not foreseen faith, etc.) then it must of necessity be random. No matter how secret a reason might be or how much "good pleasure" might be involved in it, it cannot get around this logical difficulty.
But what you mean when you say that God has his secret reasons for electing your is that secretly in your hear of hearts you believe that he did elect you based on something in yourself that makes him love you more than anyone else. To say his reasons are secret is just a way of hiding your boasting, as if such a thing were possible.
Okay, look, here's how this works. I say, "I am not responding out of arrogance" and you say, "Yes you are" and I say, "No I'm not" and you say, "Yes you are." I am telling you that you are mistaken. You are telling me that I'm a liar.
"there are only two possibilities"
So now it's my turn to suggest that you aren't being truthful. What you mean is "there are only two possibilities that I will accept." I read once about an artist (whose name escapes me now) who made it his work to create artwork from trash. His idea was "I want to take things that are completely useless and make them beautiful." Now, it is your argument that the only possibilities for this artist's selection of material was that 1) it was random or 2) he loved useless stuff more than useful stuff. You cannot accept a third possibility that he intended to show his own skills at using useless stuff to make beautiful art, and that there was nothing inherently useful or beautiful in the stuff he chose.
But, hey, I've offered logic, I've explained reasons, I've given Scripture, and I've even put up with your repeated insistence that I'm a liar and an arrogant buffoon. You haven't budged an inch, even to admit the possibility that you may be wrong about my being arrogant. So we're done here. The best you can offer is "Yes you are" and it's nothing but childish. If you have nothing more than disagreement, ask Monty Python -- that's not an argument. More importantly, your insistence in this demand that I'm boasting without evidence, argument, logic, or consideration has violated by its repetition my "Keep it friendly" rule.
Your analogy about using worthless art supplies to show your skill at making a painting with inferior stuff is totally out in left field. God is not making a painting and trying to prove how skillful he is by using crap. The analogy might have a chance at being useful if the art supplies that weren't chosen were to be tormented for all eternity, or if we were even talking about making something to could be shown off to equals. When a man makes a painting he shows it to other men not to other paintings or worse (as your analogy would require) to mere art supplies. Who would God in your analogy be seeking to show his skills to? There are no other gods and it would be silly to show off the painting to the supplies.
As you say, it is an analogy. No analogy is perfect. The premise, however, is sound. The Bible repeatedly states that God's purpose is to display His glory. The analogy fails because the art supplies are not sentient. There are, however, sentient beings in God's universe. So if you simply allow that the trash that the artist is using is alive, sentient, aware, then it works better. There are, by the way, other sentient beings in God's creation. And the Bible says that even the damned will declare His glory. So it's no "audience of peers", but it also no small audience.
You seem to think that "tormented for all eternity" is something that happens to humans. They don't want it. They don't earn it. They don't deserve it. It's just something ... I don't know ... somehow mean that this vicious, arbitrary god does to some while being nice to others. It's not the case. While I argue in the post that "no man should boast" -- that no one earns God's favor -- what I do not say but is certainly true is that every person has earned God's wrath, fully and completely. If you don't get that, the whole "Gospel" thing is worthless ... at least to you. I don't say that to demean you at all. I am quite sure that most people don't get that. "I'm not so bad." That's the common belief. "Why would I deserve eternal damnation?" That's the problem.
"The Bible repeatedly states that God's purpose is to display His glory." Repeatedly? I think this is more in Paul than anywhere else. But anyway, acknowledging that it does say he wants to display his glory--to whom?
To the very clay jars, the vessels of honor and dishonor? the potter wants to display his glory to his pots? Sounds silly. This notion of God as a glorymonger (whether biblical or not) breaks down when any actual thinking or logic (with is God-given) is applied to it.
It is asinine to assert that the potter wants to display his glory to mere pots. Unless, therefore, there is another god to whom he wants to display his glory, then God's goal cannot be the display of glory.
Indeed there is another verse that says his purpose is to provide himself with Sons. In Hebrews. In bringing many sons unto glory...and so on. That may not be the only passage. It is rather more logical that this other biblical explanation for existence is correct and that God created the world to determine who was the best that he would want to be his sons in eternity.
This indeed is what Jesus says in the parable of the dragnet, that the net pulls in fish of all types and in the end on the shore the fishermen gather the good into vessels to be saved and toss the bad. The purpose of life is a test: who will choose to be good and who will choose to be bad. Many are called but few are chosen, Jesus says.
Note that God calls first then God chooses. "Many are called but few are chosen." This fits the parable of the net. The net is the calling. It calls and many fish respond to the call, of all types. They all get in the net. But then on the shore a division is made between the good and bad. Many are called, many even respond to the call, but only few are chosen in the end when the choice is made by God.
This is the distinction between the gospel of Jesus as taught by Jesus in the synoptics and the gospel of Paul (who was constantly being rejected as a false apostle by his own disciples and converts after they met Peter, James, or John).
Have you read Galatians? Paul made these converts in Galatia. Lystra and Derbe, two cities he visists in Acts are in Galatia. He made these people Christians. But, when Peter, James, John came through town they began to reject him as a false apostle. He has now to write to them "Paul, an apostle NOT BY MEN NOR OF MEN, but by Jesus Christ". Their having met real apostles made them reject him. So also in Corinth, in First Corinthians chapter 1 where some say "I follow Paul, but others I follow Apollos, and then also I follow Peter." Having met Peter led to a rejection of Paul for many, but not all. Apollos apparently tries to form a middle ground between Paul and Peter, and thus a third division arises.
That Jesus says "seek and ye shall find" but Paul "there is none that seeks God";
That Jesus says "God sends the rain on the righteous and unrighteous" but Paul "there is none righteous, no, not one";
That Jesus says "a good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good thing" but Paul "there is none that does good, not one";
these contradiction of Paul against Jesus show him to not truly represent the Lord Jesus Christ at all. It is insane, therefore, to set Paul's strange theories of predestination and original sin up on a par with Jesus' teachings.
Now these are not the only contradictions. Jesus as we already mentions speaks of God calling before choosing; "many are called but few are chosen" and this in context of the parable of the net is found to indeed be the case; many are caught in the net, but on the shore only some are chosen and the rest are tossed. But to Paul it works the other way, the choice or election is first and then the calling. Paul is either determined to undermine Jesus' teaching, or he is dislexic.
You seem to think that "tormented for all eternity" is something that happens to humans. They don't want it. They don't earn it. They don't deserve it.
Jesus himself teaches a judgement based on works in the synoptics. Paul also does in Romans 1-2. However, beginning in Romans 3, Paul launches into a doctrine that contradicts his own self from 1-2. And from that time forth, Paul has been known form Romans 3 on, and Romans 1-2 has been forgotten.
But what does Romans 1-2 say? It says that some Gentiles who do not have the written law nonetheless do the things of the law naturally and that everyone who seeks glory and honor and immortality from God by constant continuance in welldoing (or doing good) will have exactly what they seek in the end: glory and honor and immortality, to the Jew first but also to the Greek, to as many as do good. Yet those who do not make this determination towards good will have torment and anguish on every soul of man, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
This then is true Christianity. The synoptics and Romans 1-2. What comes afterwards is all highly questionable.
"You see, my friend (and I call you this sincerely), that the difficulty is not solved by asserting that your faith is not your own."
You have an interesting notion of "sincere friendship". "People who believe the Bible are stupid. People who believe that God wants to display his glory are asinine. The only way to interpret this stuff is that you are arrogant and ignorant. And I mean this sincerely, as a friend."
Okay, let's do it your way. Your idea is the age-old, every-religion-on-the-planet view: "You have to be good to go to heaven." You, of course, toss Paul under the bus. I suppose the rest of the New Testament needs to go as well, since it's in line with Paul. Maybe we can leave the Gospels. Well, some. Not Luke or Acts, of course, because Luke was a confederate of Paul. Hebrews needs to go because that was believed to be written by Paul and echoes his views. Peter calls Paul's writings "Scripture", so he's got to go, too. But that's okay, because we've already eliminated Christianity as a unique religion, so it's no big deal.
So, beowulf2k8, if you please, from your superior viewpoint with a better understanding of "Christianity" than Paul or the rest ever had, since "boasting" is not an issue and "being good" is the answer, I need to know. What is "good enough"? You're referencing Jesus's words as if they're valid. He said, "You must be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." If that's Jesus's standard, could you offer a single, solitary example of someone who meets the standard? Or is it your higher understanding that God simply grades on the curve? "I'll take the best I can find." (Although the Bible says "Your righteousness is as filthy rags." Problematic.)
By the way, I wasn't using mere hyperbole when I suggested "repeatedly". It isn't Paul (more than anywhere else). It is indeed from Old through New Testaments from beginning to end.
"It is insane, therefore, to set Paul's strange theories of predestination and original sin up on a par with Jesus' teachings."
I use this quote simply as a reference so you know to what I'm responding. It has been your claim from the beginning that I'm arrogant and boastful, demeaning the intelligence of others. I've denied it. But here you are, smarter than 2000 years of Christianity. I'm simply going along with historical Christendom, with orthodoxy, with the standard understanding of the Bible that is systematic and coherent. But you've figured it all out. We're all idiots and you've found how Paul is contradictory to Christ. No one else has seen it. All of Christianity before you agrees with Paul and Christ. No one else sees contradictions, but sees it as a coherent whole. Not you. You're smarter than all of them. You've figured out that Paul was insane and anyone who agrees with his drivel is equally nuts. Now ... who's the arrogant one here? Me, who simply agrees with the Bible as a whole and with orthodox Christianity? Or you, who stands out as the sole smart person in the history of the Church?
You do have some problems to work out here. As I said, you're quite sure that judgment is a product of our actions -- good people go to heaven and bad people ... don't. (You don't like "eternal damnation", so I don't know where you think those bad people end up.) You have to lower ... nay, eliminate the standard that Christ offered of perfection when you say "good". You have to eliminate Paul, Peter, most of the New Testament, and a good chunk of the Old Testament. And your best argument is "I disagree with Paul."
Look, an effective method of arguing a point is not "You're all idiots and you need to throw out your source of doctrine in favor of what I think. I don't understand it, so you must be wrong." It's just not a good method of winning an argument. Building an argument that "good enough gets you to heaven" without any sense of "good enough" and a direct contradiction to Christ's standard of perfection doesn't work well, either. And there is another problem here. Paul wrote, "The Natural Man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14). Your incoherent, illogical, outlandish arguments, then, seem to confirm Paul's position. You have not rightly represented Paul's arguments or Jesus's arguments. You have not accepted them and it appears that you are not able to. That is, this all suggests that you need faith in Christ, forgiveness from sin, a new heart, and the Holy Spirit. You don't have any of this now. I will pray for you.
"All of Christianity before you agrees with Paul and Christ. No one else sees contradictions, but sees it as a coherent whole."
Do you really think this is the case? If you've ever read any church history or writings of the so-called "fathers" then you know this is fallacious.
What perhaps you mean is that nobody that you would deem true Christians ever saw the contradiction between Jesus and Paul. But we know that many did see it and that this was the very basis of certain sects in the earliest period.
The Ebionites, for example. You will say "they were Judaizers who kept Sabbath and circumcision." Yet if you read Acts you would understand this also, that when Paul came the last time to Jerusalem, James confronted him on the basis that he had heard that Paul was transgressing the apostolic council of Jerusalem. For the council in Acts 15 had determined that Gentiles need not be circumcised but had not said that Jews should stop circumcizing their sons. But James had heard that Paul was telling Jews to stop circumcizing their sons. So he urges Paul to clear up what he deems must be a misunderstanding. Surely Paul is not doing this!
Yet clearly from Paul's epistles we find Paul is doing exactly this. To say then that the Ebionites (who continued to hold an extreme reverence for James) were continuing circumcision, is not to say that they taught Gentiles they had to get circumcized, but that they interpreted the rite of circumcision as it was given to Abraham to be an everlasting covenent between God and Abraham's descendants that could not be removed by the cross, and therefore it should be continued by Jews.
This is close to Paul's own logic that the Law could not undo the promise to Abraham that all nations would be blessed through his seed. But here, to James and the Ebionites, the cross even could not remove God's covenenant with Abraham's physical descendants which included circumcision.
On this point then there was a dispute between the 12 and Paul which spilled over everywhere Paul went. And Paul's own churches, as I though I mentioned already, Galatian and Corinth, were divided with some loyal to the 12 and some to him.
If this is not a recognition that there is conflict between Paul and the 12 in their doctrine, by a historical sect, and even by a Biblical figure who is also one of its authors, then what is it?
That it went beyond this idea that Jews ought to still practice circumcision and that they disagreed with Paul's predestinarian scheme and many other things is also well known. But to all this you blind yourself. Or you just say "they weren't real Christians so they don't count."
Let me ask you this, since you say you do not boast: why did they see a conflict between Paul and Jesus, Paul and the 12? Were they stupid?
If you did not boast, you would be an Ebionite. But you boast that your Pauline form of Christianity persecuted them out of existence and that therefore by murder it is proven correct.
"If you've ever read any church history or writings of the so-called 'fathers' then you know this is fallacious."
I have read a lot from the "Church Fathers". They agreed (with Peter) that Paul's writings were Scripture (God-breathed). It wasn't a tiny minority that canonized it. It was a tiny minority of heretics that disagreed with it. According to the writings of the early Church fathers (the only source of info on Ebionites), they denied the Gospel and preferred legalism -- salvation by being good -- over the genuine Gospel. Their big thing was enforced poverty (thus the name). The Church universally named them as heretics. So, the "so-called 'fathers'" were indeed all in agreement regarding both Paul as genuine Scripture and the heresy of salvation by works. Nor can you find any evidence that the original 12 disputed with Paul. (I mean, seriously, why would Peter call Paul's writings "Scripture" if he thought he was a heretic?)
"why did they see a conflict between Paul and Jesus, Paul and the 12?"
I'm going to have to answer that with a question. What makes you think such a conflict exists? I see agreement between Paul and Christ. Paul himself says that his gospel was approved by the 12. (It turns out that he was concerned that he was straying off the truth and went to them to find out. And it turns out that they agreed with him. Read Acts 15 and Galatians 2.) I cannot tell you why you see conflict there since the Bible doesn't, I don't, and the Church historically hasn't.
"But you boast that your Pauline form of Christianity persecuted them out of existence and that therefore by murder it is proven correct."
I guess you're not up on history much. According to wikipedia (not exactly a "Christian-slanted" source), Ebionites were persecuted by Jewish followers of Bar Kochba, receded from "mainstream Christianity", remained in "Rabbinical Judaism", and disappeared basically from marginalization. Some place them as surviving into the 12th century where they embraced Jesus as a prophet (which is contrary to the New Testament and Jesus's own teachings). Modern "Ebionites" (their connection is not quite clear) specifically deny Christianity and claim Judaism, denying Jesus's divinity and any connection at all to Christianity.
So, you've managed to string out your last comment. You've failed to make any sort of case. You've failed to offer a single answer to the all important question of what "good enough" is in your book. (That can only be because you have no answer for the question. It is my firm conviction your goal is simply to try to confuse people, not to offer a better answer.) You've failed to be even remotely rational. (I mean, seriously, those who argue that we earn our salvation are the ones who do not boast? Regardless of what one thinks of Paul, how does that make any sense at all?) And you've continued to beat that one drum that I've continued to deny, continued to give reasons against, and continued to ask you to stop beating -- "You're boasting!" What this means is that I don't plan to publish another of your comments since you don't seem to have either the will or the ability to continue in a friendly manner. No hard feelings. We just don't need the pointless, uninformed, irrational conflict here. But thank you for playing.
Post a Comment