• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is It Faith or Good Works (That Gets U Into Hvn)?

Re: Faith without works is dead.

Rev. said:
There is a point when skepticism must yield to faith, and Thomas's came quickly. I understood the question as "Does Jesus understand when people don't believe right away?" I think this story shows Jesus willingness to meet more than halfway the heart that searches for him. But in the end we must believe or walk away.

According to the Bible, Thomas had this direct audience with the risen Jesus where he could use his 5 senses to validate the wounds in the flesh. The rest of us have to do without this direct validation. Actually, I don't dispute his wounds and all that. If Jesus had appeared to me, I wouldn't worry too much about the wounds. I'd simply ask him to answer all the questions I've asked so far in this thread. Unfortunately, he hasn't seen fit to vouchsafe these answers to me in any form both recognizable and real.

If I try to believe but find no rational basis for faith because my education, training, and life experience demand a degree of rigorous proof not present in the general culture of religion, then I am damned if I walk away, right?

So, then, the real challenge is to overcome our God-given skepticism and violate every natural principal which God has imbued in us and believe in the writings of men that what the Bible says about Jesus is accurate and true, and that what the Bible says that Jesus says is also accurate and true -- in other words, I have to accept the Bible as absolute truth in order to accept Jesus, because that is the only way to know him, since none of his contemporaries survives to validate the accuracy of the Bible.

Therefore, the linchpin is the Bible, and whether you believe that (1) what it says can be true and (2) what it says is true.
 
Re: Faith without works is dead.

Montalban said:
The reference to Thomas was diretly posted in response to the following challenge.

"Show me where Jesus says that it's okay not to believe in him because of natural human skepticism."

Thomas is not an 'instance' of Jesus saying it's okay for people not to believe in Him. It's an instance of Jesus rebuking Thomse for believing only upon seeing.

Then Jesus is rebuking Thomas for acting according to the God-given human nature that enables him to survive in the real world. Yes, it may be praiseworthy to Jesus for Thomas to have "faith" on Jesus' say-so, but to mandate it is for Jesus to ask a creature to act against the nature with which he was created.
 
Quertol said:
You are wronfd upon your interpretation... When Jesus is saying that his followers must "Eat His flesh" he is telling them that they must partake in what is was going to happen to Him. In essence that they would have to endure the same persecution... That is what this scripture is talking about. It goes on to say that a lot of His followers no longer followed Him because of this. They liked the whole blessings of Christ, but were unwilling to go through the trials and persecution...

I can't say I necessarily understand or follow completely the theologically complex disputation between Rev and Montalban, but either/both of them make more sense than the assertion that "eat my flesh" means "endure the same persecution as me". You mean that he wants everyone to be nailed physically to a cross like him? It seems to me that when Jesus spoke about dealing with trials and tribulations, he had explicit thoughts on suffering which were separate and distinct from his proclamation of transubstantiation.

Undoubtedly Jesus lost a lot of followers because (a) they had family and work responsibilities which precluded donning hairshirts and abandoning their innocent dependents to follow a basically masochistic philosophy; and (b) as you said (and here I agree with you), they were unwilling to "go through the trials and persecutions" on the simple basis that pain is bad and unhealthy, while avoidance of pain is natural, God-given for our self-preservation, and healthy.

It's just a matter of logic.
 
Re: Summary

Montalban said:
[...]

27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

He is saying that partaking of this bread and cup in sin is to sin against the flesh and blood of the Lord BECAUSE it is the flesh and blood of the Lord as proclaimed by Jesus (John 6:55)

Rev said:
54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Suppose a baptized convert in a state of grace (i.e., having just gone to confession and done the prescribed penance) takes communion at Mass. But he doesn't go to church again afterward, never receives communion again, but dies, not necessarily in a state of grace.

Is he automatically privy to "eternal life" promised in Rev's quoted line 54 above because he took communion once while in a state of grace?
 
Ok, I havent been here long enough to have followed along this debate from the start, and it's 2 AM my time and i want to get to sleep, so I didnt read everything. But geekgrrl, the answer is very simple.

In the Christian faith, you are not saved because of something you do. All people sin, and because of this sin they are condemned to hell. However, according to relgious belief, we are saved because of the death and ressurection of Jesus, because he was perfect, being God. Therefore, his death was able to pay for our sins, meaning-->we dont have to die(spiritually). However, we are saved only through faith in him, and faith in the fact that he died to save us. Now that you have a bit of background, the real answer. We are saved through faith, but because of our faith, Christians will want to go and do good works. Therefore, works come as a result of faith, but faith and salvation do not come as a result of works. I hope this clarifies everything up a bit...although if 8 pages of debate didn't my short paragraph probably didnt.
 
cavehunter said:
So why have a Book of Mormon? Interesting question considering how the Old Testament was written before the New Testament. So why don't you ask,"Why have the New Testament we already have the Old."
Although you've not answered my question, we have the New because it fulfills the Old. Is this is what you're trying to suggest with the book of Mormon?
cavehunter said:
You ask, "This American idea is based on what?"
What you fail to realize is that the highest concentrations of Jews are first in Israel then the U.S. The fact that this is not made up. This is revelation. So you should ask if it is revelation not why was it made up.
I'm not sure if you understand the question... it was rather vague. I don't know what the issue is about the US amount of Jews has to do with your belief that a Jewish tribe went to American several thousands of years ago.
 
Quertol said:
You are wronfd upon your interpretation... When Jesus is saying that his followers must "Eat His flesh" he is telling them that they must partake in what is was going to happen to Him. In essence that they would have to endure the same persecution... That is what this scripture is talking about. It goes on to say that a lot of His followers no longer followed Him because of this. They liked the whole blessings of Christ, but were unwilling to go through the trials and persecution...
Unfortunately, I've already pointed out that the Jews actually ask Him what they mean. (See the quote)
I will paraphrase:
Jesus: "To enter heaven you will have to eat my flesh; just as you ate manna in the desert"
Jews (thinking He is speaking figuratively): "Are you serious, we really have to eat your flesh?"
Jesus: "Yes my flesh is real food, my blood is real drink"

In case you missed it; here's the text...
John 6: 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If
anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

Note again the Jews took Him to mean a literal eating of His flesh, verse 52. Jesus confirms this interpretation. He says in truth. He says (55) “My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink” It is said exactly after the Jews are questioning Him; they're in effect saying "Are you serious?"
 
Catholics and (most) Protestants are like two sides of the same coin; both believing in Original Sin; and that somehow a debt had to be worked-off; for both it was Jesus sacrifcing Himself, and this is then tapped into by Protestants (making a one-off statement of faith), and for Catholics (who have 'faith' and do a number of chores to pay off the debt; the sacraments).

topgun146 said:
Ok, I havent been here long enough to have followed along this debate from the start, and it's 2 AM my time and i want to get to sleep, so I didnt read everything. But geekgrrl, the answer is very simple.
Welcome to the thread
topgun146 said:
In the Christian faith, you are not saved because of something you do. All people sin, and because of this sin they are condemned to hell. However, according to relgious belief, we are saved because of the death and ressurection of Jesus, because he was perfect, being God. Therefore, his death was able to pay for our sins, meaning-->we dont have to die(spiritually). However, we are saved only through faith in him, and faith in the fact that he died to save us. Now that you have a bit of background, the real answer. We are saved through faith, but because of our faith, Christians will want to go and do good works. Therefore, works come as a result of faith, but faith and salvation do not come as a result of works. I hope this clarifies everything up a bit...although if 8 pages of debate didn't my short paragraph probably didnt.
Why did God need to sacrifice Himself for us?

Salvation comes as a result of Grace from God. It is a mysterious interaction between God's eternal desire for us to be with Him, and our flawed nature's with our own free-will to freely go to Him, or not.

God is not eternally condeming us to Hell, and we don't eternally condemn ourselves to Hell. We are 'sick' in that we fail from the perfection that was first created for us; and lived by Adam and Eve until the Fall. This sickness is not 'natural' in that it was not what God wished for us, but was brought about by Adam and Eve. God wishes to restore us to the position He made for us. And like any sickness, we need a cure, and we need to stay healthy (such as with exercise; in this case prayer etc).

The difference between the Orthodox and Roman doctrines of original sin arises from the Latin translation of Romans 5;12, The Augustinian teaching is based on the Latin “in quo omnia peccaverunt” or “in whom all have sinned” as opposed to the Greek original, “in that” or “because all have sinned.” The former implies a personal guilt of the entire human race. While Roman Catholics and Protestants may differ on how the guilt is transmitted, the end result is the same. All people are personally guilty unto damnation. This single presupposition has set a particular context for all of Western theology.
http://pontifications.classicalanglican.net/?p=800
 
geekgrrl said:
I'm not a Christian, but I've studied (somewhat) both the Roman Catholic and Protestant versions, and the one thing that is the fuzziest to me is the notion of "Good Works". As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), Catholicism says you must do good works to get into heaven. Some of the Protestant religions I've looked at say, "No, you don't need good works. All you need to do is accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior." This is a big disconnect between two religions which basically follow the same leader (Jesus).

So how is "accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior" the moral equivalent of doing good works? Or is it? I mean, suppose I say that I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior but everyone knows that I am a heinous criminal. I have no intention of stopping my criminal behavior. But I just have to publicly confess Jesus as my savior and zap, I'm saved, right? Maybe I'd be less scornful if I understood this whole thing better. I can see the Catholic viewpoint of requiring good works, because isn't that what Jesus taught? So where do the Protestant religions get from scripture that all you need is to say Jesus is my savior and you're free from all your sins?

Or do I seriously misunderstand all parts of this issue? I'm asking because I really want to know.



Catholicism is just flat wrong. The bible is the solid foundation for the christian beliefs. It is clear that salvation is by faith alone( Eph. 2:8,9) ,otherwise Christ is dead in vain. Jesus left heavan because man could not achieve the holiness required to be in God's presence on his own merits. The catholic church, whose dogmas have changed frequently since their conception under Constantine in the 3rd century is unreliable at best. Much of catholicism's dogmas are man made and nowhere to be found in scripture. That would include the deification of Mary, purgatory, confessional booths, the pope being the vicar of Christ, infant baptism, baptism by affusion or aspersion, catholic masses, popes, nuns or monks. Satan's best "sheeps clothing " has been false religion and catholicism is heresy mingled with the truth and very dangerous.
 
JustBob said:
Catholicism is just flat wrong. The bible is the solid foundation for the christian beliefs. It is clear that salvation is by faith alone( Eph. 2:8,9) ,otherwise Christ is dead in vain. Jesus left heavan because man could not achieve the holiness required to be in God's presence on his own merits. The catholic church, whose dogmas have changed frequently since their conception under Constantine in the 3rd century is unreliable at best. Much of catholicism's dogmas are man made and nowhere to be found in scripture. That would include the deification of Mary, purgatory, confessional booths, the pope being the vicar of Christ, infant baptism, baptism by affusion or aspersion, catholic masses, popes, nuns or monks. Satan's best "sheeps clothing " has been false religion and catholicism is heresy mingled with the truth and very dangerous.


Once you are "saved" (accepting Christ's vicarious death on the cross and Him as personal Saviour, "works" become a basis of rewards (or loss of) not salvation. Read Corinthians chapter 3. All a believer's works shall be tested. Genuine good works will recieve a reward. Non believer's works will simply dtermine their degree of eternal punishment.
 
Re: On a literal interpretation of John 6:52-59

Montalban said:
It is not ignoring it Rev. It is why Jesus DID state it is really His flesh. He re-emphasises it to make it know that this really is the case.
He says it explicitly
"For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink." He is thus giving you a signal that we can’t look at this as allegory. What other way do you think He means it when he is saying in effect “This really truly is this…” ?

The Greek word that is translated "flesh" here allows for both literal and figurative understandings.

The KJV translates this a bit differently in saying, "My flesh is meat indeed..." In otherwords, Jesus was saying he was a real live person, not an apperition.

Where does your word ‘his’ come from? It is the English translation of the Greek, for scholars understand that it refers to Jesus’ flesh because Jesus said “Truly you must do this”.

Translators stuck it in to make the sentence make sense to them. But Greek has a word for "his" and it certainly seems someone would use it if they meant it. Otherwise, the text reads literally, 'How can he give us the flesh to eat."

You are mostly correct. A literal interpretation of eat and chew does cause us to take it literally! :) Jesus is saying you must eat/chew/take Him into us. He is saying it really is food. You use a slight trick (sorry!) to evoke a different image; bubble gum, which we spit out; however it too is chewed. You have made no point other to re-emphasise that Jesus is asking us to take Him into us.

Then you missed my point which was more about the tensing. "Chew" as used is a continuous action. "Eat" has a beginning and end. "Chew" is meaning "to chew loudly without stopping." Jesus intentionally used that word "chew" to describe the continuousness of the relationship between himself and his followers. And I used the image of bubblegum to show how vulger it would be to literally chew the wafer like that (which here Christ would be commanding if you are arguing for the presence of Christ in the Eucherist). Thus, I'm saying since Jesus would NOT ask people to chew continually his flesh without ceasing, THEREFORE, it should be understood in an an allegorical sense.

My understanding is that the word is trogein
“If we look at the Greek, the word phagein is used in verses 51,and 53, which means, "to eat". In verses 54, 56, and 58, the word trogein is use, which means, "to chew". These two word would only be used in reference to actual food. When Jesus said these things, he was addressing the same crowd that he had fed with five barley loaves and two fish the day before, about five thousand (John 6:10).”
http://grigaitis.net/?media=screen&submenus=off&doc=articles/cocansw/rites.html
And this is the point you’ve missed, regardless of wether we masticate, chew, gnaw, eat, bite etc, we are still taking Him into us, which is what He is asking us to do.

But not literally.

This is false. The death that is physical death is just an end to the body, but not the spirit, which has also it’s own spiritual birth; baptism, and does not die at the time the body dies. We do live forever in Christ.

But you were requiring a literal reading. The literal flesh of Jesus must be consumed. Therefore, in keeping with your requirements, we must also understand that literal flesh eating must result in literal eternal life. Where does that verse say "Spiritual life?"

Another theologically nasty alternative for a literal reading is that eating the flesh of Christ results in spiritial eternal life. Throws grace and faith right out the window. That verges on heresy, friend!

This is a verse from a different ‘lesson’. He is now talking about His spirit ascending into heaven which is the truth of what will happen.

It was the same chapter and Jesus was debriefing the disciples after the three discourses. My point remains.

Jesus emphasises this act AFTER some ask Him are they to truly do this. He says yes, He is really to be consumed. Aside from you interpreting Jesus’ own words telling you it really is food and drink, you’ve also ignored the other evidence I cited from the early church that continues on with that understanding… you did ‘write-off’ them with a unproven and sweeping statement.

Your arguement stands on five points--John, The Last Supper, Paul to Corinth, and the Early Church Fathers, and Luther. I am planning to rebut them individually and systematically. So please don't think I've ignored you other stuff...I will address it.
 
Last edited:
JustBob said:
Genuine good works will recieve a reward. Non believer's works will simply dtermine their degree of eternal punishment.

Well, that's something for me to look forward to. :roll: :rofl
 
Some have wondered as to what the concentration of Jews has to do with the thing with America. Well think of it this way. They gather to where the Old Jerusalem is and where the New is to be.
 
Montalban said:
Catholics and (most) Protestants are like two sides of the same coin; both believing in Original Sin; and that somehow a debt had to be worked-off; for both it was Jesus sacrifcing Himself, and this is then tapped into by Protestants (making a one-off statement of faith), and for Catholics (who have 'faith' and do a number of chores to pay off the debt; the sacraments).


Welcome to the thread

Why did God need to sacrifice Himself for us?

1. Thanks for the welcome.
2. He needed to pay for our sins. The concept follows the line of SIN=DEATH. However, if we add Jesus into the equation, it transforms into SIN=NEED FOR SALVATION=JESUS DEATH +FAITH= NEW LIFE THROUGH CHRIST.

So he had to die because we brought death upon ourselves through sin. You could in a sense relate it to paying bills and banks. Through life, we accumulate bills(sin) that we owe. These bills prevent us from enjoying the eternal life originally envisioned for us. However, in this simulation God is the financial center of the world. He is able to pay off our debts, having none of his own, and only asks for faith in return. This relates directly to real life, except that instead of paying with money, he bought our life with his blood.
 
Montalban said:
It is not ignoring it Rev. It is why Jesus DID state it is really His flesh. He re-emphasises it to make it know that this really is the case.He says it explicitly"For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink." He is thus giving you a signal that we can’t look at this as allegory. What other way do you think He means it when he is saying in effect “This really truly is this…” ?
Rev said:
The Greek word that is translated "flesh" here allows for both literal and figurative understandings.
The KJV translates this a bit differently in saying, "My flesh is meat indeed..." In otherwords, Jesus was saying he was a real live person, not an apperition.
Indeed He’s not an apparition, however He’s not just saying “My flesh is real flesh”, He’s saying “My flesh is real food”
Montalban said:
Where does your word ‘his’ come from? It is the English translation of the Greek, for scholars understand that it refers to Jesus’ flesh because Jesus said “Truly you must do this”.
Rev said:
Translators stuck it in to make the sentence make sense to them. But Greek has a word for "his" and it certainly seems someone would use it if they meant it. Otherwise, the text reads literally, 'How can he give us the flesh to eat."
But that is how it reads. The Jews ask Him, and instead of calling them up for misunderstanding Him, he re-emphasises the literal nature
Montalban said:
You are mostly correct. A literal interpretation of eat and chew does cause us to take it literally! Jesus is saying you must eat/chew/take Him into us. He is saying it really is food. You use a slight trick (sorry!) to evoke a different image; bubble gum, which we spit out; however it too is chewed. You have made no point other to re-emphasise that Jesus is asking us to take Him into us.
Rev said:
Then you missed my point which was more about the tensing. "Chew" as used is a continuous action. "Eat" has a beginning and end. "Chew" is meaning "to chew loudly without stopping." Jesus intentionally used that word "chew" to describe the continuousness of the relationship between himself and his followers. And I used the image of bubblegum to show how vulger it would be to literally chew the wafer like that (which here Christ would be commanding if you are arguing for the presence of Christ in the Eucherist). Thus, I'm saying since Jesus would NOT ask people to chew continually his flesh without ceasing, THEREFORE, it should be understood in an an allegorical sense.
He doesn’t just ask people to chew, He also asks them to ‘eat’. I think you are concentrating on this too much. He’s asking us to do both, so in the context of both He is asking us to feed on Him, which makes sense because He categorically says He is real food and drink
Montalban said:
My understanding is that the word is trogein“If we look at the Greek, the word phagein is used in verses 51,and 53, which means, "to eat". In verses 54, 56, and 58, the word trogein is use, which means, "to chew". These two word would only be used in reference to actual food. When Jesus said these things, he was addressing the same crowd that he had fed with five barley loaves and two fish the day before, about five thousand (John 6:10).”http://grigaitis.net/?media=screen&...answ/rites.htmlAnd this is the point you’ve missed, regardless of wether we masticate, chew, gnaw, eat, bite etc, we are still taking Him into us, which is what He is asking us to do.

Rev said:
But not literally.
Yes, literally. You have concentrated for the most part on two instances of the use of the word ‘chew’, which seems also to ignore ‘eat’; which not only occurs there, but at the Last Supper and in St. Paul’s 1 Corinthians where he says it’s not just a ‘meal’. He says if you want to take part in a meal, go to your homes. When He says “Eat
Montalban said:
This is false. The death that is physical death is just an end to the body, but not the spirit, which has also it’s own spiritual birth; baptism, and does not die at the time the body dies. We do live forever in Christ.

Rev said:
But you were requiring a literal reading. The literal flesh of Jesus must be consumed. Therefore, in keeping with your requirements, we must also understand that literal flesh eating must result in literal eternal life. Where does that verse say "Spiritual life?"
We do not die, our souls continue on, we continue to exist. Jesus says that we still physically die when He says John 6:54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. We will have eternal life with Him… in heaven. We will be raised up (from the dead). He is not talking about ‘immorality’ here on earth, but immoratliy in heaven (where, by the way, we will be with our real corporeal bodies). Our bodies will be raised up, just as Jesus had a physical body after the resurrection, and was no spectre/fantom.
Rev said:
Another theologically nasty alternative for a literal reading is that eating the flesh of Christ results in spiritial eternal life. Throws grace and faith right out the window. That verges on heresy, friend!
How so? To partake in God’s grace you must be an active participant. This does involve doing something. For you, this is a declaration of faith. For us Orthodox, it is living as Christ, to take Him onto us and be like Him.

Montalban said:
This is a verse from a different ‘lesson’. He is now talking about His spirit ascending into heaven which is the truth of what will happen.
Rev said:
It was the same chapter and Jesus was debriefing the disciples after the three discourses. My point remains.
I was mistaken on this point. He doesn’t here say “My flesh means nothing” He says “The flesh means nothing”, here He is not referring to His own self, (because earlier when He talks about Himself He says “My flesh”, here He is talking about us. Our flesh means nothing. We must take Him onto us.
Montalban said:
Jesus emphasises this act AFTER some ask Him are they to truly do this. He says yes, He is really to be consumed. Aside from you interpreting Jesus’ own words telling you it really is food and drink, you’ve also ignored the other evidence I cited from the early church that continues on with that understanding… you did ‘write-off’ them with a unproven and sweeping statement.
Rev said:
Your arguement stands on five points--John, The Last Supper, Paul to Corinth, and the Early Church Fathers, and Luther. I am planning to rebut them individually and systematically. So please don't think I've ignored you other stuff...I will address it.
They are not ‘separate issues’. But if you wish to deal with them that way, for the sake of convenience, then so be it.
I take them ‘altogether’. There are a great many parts of the Bible that can be interpreted many ways; it is why we look to how the church itself operated… how the early Christians took these things… this is because we know that not everything Jesus said or did was contained in the Bible (the last verse of the Gospel of John says this).
Further, in Acts we see an Ethiopian puzzling over the texts and says that he needs to be taught in order to understand them.
 
topgun146 said:
1. Thanks for the welcome.
2. He needed to pay for our sins. The concept follows the line of SIN=DEATH. However, if we add Jesus into the equation, it transforms into SIN=NEED FOR SALVATION=JESUS DEATH +FAITH= NEW LIFE THROUGH CHRIST.

So he had to die because we brought death upon ourselves through sin. You could in a sense relate it to paying bills and banks. Through life, we accumulate bills(sin) that we owe. These bills prevent us from enjoying the eternal life originally envisioned for us. However, in this simulation God is the financial center of the world. He is able to pay off our debts, having none of his own, and only asks for faith in return. This relates directly to real life, except that instead of paying with money, he bought our life with his blood.
What sort of bank pays for my debt itself?
 
topgun146 said:
A loving and inselfish bank, like, God.


That is an awesome concept... I just wish my mortgage could be paid the same way...
 
geekgrrl said:
I'm not a Christian, but I've studied (somewhat) both the Roman Catholic and Protestant versions, and the one thing that is the fuzziest to me is the notion of "Good Works". As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), Catholicism says you must do good works to get into heaven. Some of the Protestant religions I've looked at say, "No, you don't need good works. All you need to do is accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior." This is a big disconnect between two religions which basically follow the same leader (Jesus).

I am Baptist, which is Protestant, and I don't believe it is good works, it is faith, but it works in a cycle. If you truly have faith, you will want to do good works, if you don't feel that desire, then maybe you don't truly have faith, but the faith must come first, then the good works.


geekgrrl said:
So how is "accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior" the moral equivalent of doing good works? Or is it?

Basically, you have to understand why Jesus died. As we are human, we are going to mess up continuosly, so Jesus kind of gave us a voucher into heaven, because sinners can't get into heaven. Even sins we consider small will stop us from getting into heaven, God views all sins equally great because the bottom line is you disobeyed the Bible.

geekgrrl said:
I mean, suppose I say that I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior but everyone knows that I am a heinous criminal. I have no intention of stopping my criminal behavior. But I just have to publicly confess Jesus as my savior and zap, I'm saved, right? Maybe I'd be less scornful if I understood this whole thing better. I can see the Catholic viewpoint of requiring good works, because isn't that what Jesus taught? So where do the Protestant religions get from scripture that all you need is to say Jesus is my savior and you're free from all your sins?

Or do I seriously misunderstand all parts of this issue? I'm asking because I really want to know.

Okay, if you have no intention of stopping your criminal behavior, then you have not truly accepted Jesus Christ. When you truly do accept, there will be a change in your life, you recieve the "Holy Spirit", kind of an enhanced conscious. FYI, when Jesus was dying on the cross, there was a thief and a murderer on the crosses next to him. One of them saw him and repented, and accepted Jesus, and Jesus said that he would see him in heaven. He never did any good works, but he truly believed, and if he had lived longer, he would have done good works.
 
Back
Top Bottom