Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Of righteous Jews there can be no doubt. The question I still struggle with on how to answer is what about the Jews of today? (I am talking about practicing Jews of the Jewish faith.) My inclination is to say "No", He cannot be the same God because of the denial of Christ. However, I've heard leaders whom I otherwise think are OK say that He is the same God. I'd welcome any opinions on how to answer this.
Well, we can hope they're people...
If they were the "elect" from all eternity, why were they (con)damned and sent to hell to begin with?
The Bible is part of the Holy Tradition. Within that Holy Tradition is the Divine Liturgy, the Gospels, the New Testament, the Old Testament, the Ecumenical Councils, the icons. It is one "body" and none of its components, mentioned above, contradict each other.
Agrarian not so long ago mentioned that one can learn the entire Bible (both Testaments) better through Divine Liturgy than just by reading the Holy Book. That much is obvious to anyone who follows liturgical life of the Church.
These were not human inventions. Everything in the Church can be traced to revealed truth. There are no "decorations" in the Church. That being said, Thomas Aquinas's brilliant work Summa theologica, or the collection of books known as Philokalia are not part of the canon because they were never inspired knowledge, nor did anyone claim them to be. They simply reflect the revealed truth known to the Church.
The faith was revealed once and forever. We cannot add to it, and we cannot take away from it. We do not "discover" more about God other than what God has revealed and know as much as He wanted us to know. Everything else is a way of explaining what was revealed in terms that can be understood by various people.
That which was revealed to the Apostles and is now contained in the Church is immutable, for what was true 2,000 years ago is true today.
The Church was built around that Holy Tradition. The New Testament is not a separate product of that truth, but a written testament of what was given to the Apostles by word of mouth. The Divine Liturgy is not something someone designed because he was "talented" but it contains the same truth given to the Apostles by word of mouth.
The Ecumenical Councils did not add or invent new meanings and new revelations, but simply stated what the Church believed from the beginning. If there were no heresies, the Church would have never had a need to define our terms of faith.
If there were no Gnostic forgeries of various "gospels" the Church would have never found it necessary to compile the New Testament.
Concensus patrium is a necessity because no individual father is without fault, no human being can claim inerrancy unless he or she is expressing the revealed truth of the Holy Tradition, not as a private opinion (theologounema), but as an established truth within the Holy Tradition. The issue of papal infallibility is one of the few topics that divide the (Roman) Catholics from the Orthodox (Catholics). I am sure we can reconcile that, but it will take an Ecumenical Council to do so.
Love, just like faith, comes from God as a gift. It is false to say that faith generates love. Love, just as faith, is a theological virtue, a gift of the Life of God Himself within us.
Paul and James tells us that faith without love is dead or useless. Thus, faith alone CANNOT be salvific.
Regards
I have included the link of the source quoted at the very bottom of post #5210. (hint: you need to read the whole post before making comments)
BTW, I think the Spanish government should be applauded.
"If there were no Gnostic forgeries of various "gospels" the Church would have never found it necessary to compile the New Testament."
and
"The Church was built around that Holy Tradition. The New Testament is not a separate product of that truth, but a written testament of what was given to the Apostles by word of mouth. The Divine Liturgy is not something someone designed because he was "talented" but it contains the same truth given to the Apostles by word of mouth."
You should save this post for later use, when the subject is addressed at post #6000 or so.
Brother in Christ
How true! Mercy and compassion and humility are "works" of faith. Christanity void humility, mercy, love and faith is a bad imitation.
Those who are "saved" in the Protestant sense, should be Christ-like in every way. Somehow I fail to see that. At least we in the Catholic and Orthodox community feel that we must struggle to become Christ-like as much as possible and that salvation is not something handed to us on a silver platter.
Sorry, Blue, I should qualify that my definition of "salvation" is probably different then yours. I am talking about salvation to heaven, while you are likely speaking about the moment of an individual's regeneration in Christ. If I am correct in this assumption, then if you said "faith alone justifies", then I'd think we'd be much closer - since that initial justification is a moment brought about by faith freely given and freely accepted by man and is not merited.
Regards
LOL!!!
I do agree.
"Many will say, 'Lord, Lord'", and Jesus will say 'I never knew you'". Chilling words to the self-elected...
Yes, they certainly would be, and I am glad I don't know anyone like that. The reason you call us "self-elected" is that your leaders have interpreted scripture to deny certain of God's promises. That is understandable, given that the Church supersedes the Bible.
If God allows us to sin "a little", why would He prevent us from sinning a lot, if that is what WE wanted?
Because in this world we don't always get what we want. :) Concerning the elect, I believe God thinks it is more important that they are saved than that they get everything they want during this extremely brief presence on earth.
Again, I see God as One who KNOWS who rejects Him before He creates man. But God is a just God and has given even this man an opportunity.
Why bother if God's foreknowledge is not rewritable? What chance does such a man have if God already knows it's over? You say God gives this man an opportunity, but what is it? This is contradictory.
You are missing the point. If God's clouds blocked the light, ALL men would be affected...
Actually, I'm still quite enamored with myself for that little quip. :) How do clouds work? If there is a thunderstorm, then there is no light. But, most of the time there are some clouds and some light, right? This is the analogy I was suggesting. God directs sunlight over those whom He will, and He puts clouds over others whom He will.
WHY would God have to "fight" against this force, this [free] will, to execute His plan?
Because of original sin. I know that we disagree about the "nature" of our born nature, but in either view, it still doesn't point toward God, does it? From God's POV, man's free will is His enemy. My point is that man's free will is in opposition to God's will. Our sin nature always opposes God.
Rom. 7:14-20 : 14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
This describes to me a struggle between man's nature (his free will to rebel), and God's will.
You are not giving God enough credit for being able to maintain control over His creation "despite" man's free will. Even in the face of poorly executed free will of men, God's plan will be accomplished, correct?
Well, under my view God is in full control, He gets all the credit, and His plan will be accomplished in full. I am trying to show you that you do not believe any of these things. :) For example, God is not in full control if He REACTS to the decisions of others rather than makes the decisions Himself. God does not get all the credit if man makes the final salvation decision. And, God's plan is not accomplished if He desires all men to be saved.
You still haven't explained - again - how God does NOT see who will reject Him AND have foreknowledge at the same time...Either He does or He doesn't.
I think I was the one who split this discussion into two parts so there may be some crossover of issues (meaning I didn't split it very well, sorry). :) But in any event, I have always thought that God sees clearly who will reject Him, and that He has full foreknowledge. I honestly do not know what I said to make you think otherwise. (You don't have to do a big search, paraphrasing should do it.)
And regardless of what you might believe, an individual does not know his final destiny until He is standing face to face with God.
Well, that view requires a very specific paradigm of interpretation that nullifies the so-called "assurance verses". Tradition says that there is no assurance, therefore, these verse are interpreted out of meaningful existence. Since I believe that the Bible is the first level of visible truth, I must take those verses as being true.
God desires ALL men to be saved - unless they refuse to be saved. That is the simplest way to put the Scriptures' view on this issue.
Now wait a minute. :) This isn't so simple. :) You say that God's decisions and men's decisions for Him all happen simultaneously, as far as God is concerned, right? So, with no time elapsing, God wants all men to be saved, UNLESS they refuse, WHICH He already knows in the simultaneous act. Logically, then, God actually spends NO TIME wanting all men to be saved, because He already knows of some who will reject. Therefore, as God ACTS, inside of time, He really doesn't want all men to be saved.
Do you or do you not believe that man can perform a morally good deed? You said you did before, but now you say he can't. Which is it? Man CAN obey the law, but not consistently enough to earn the reward of heaven.
Yes to the last sentence. I think we cleared this up on the other line by agreeing that man can do nothing good in God's eyes without faith. And, that a man without faith can do acts which are moral on their face, but still are not pleasing to God.
And the OT Law was NOT given to man just to show him how worthless he was! That is sadistic thinking on whoever told you that.
LOL! Well, I never thought of Paul as a sadist, but then again, we're all sinners: :)
Rom. 3:19-20 : 19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
---------------
Heaven would be worse than hell for those who didn't want to be there in God's presence.
Yes, that might be true if there were any people like that in heaven. There are not. I think there is a big misunderstanding when your side uses words like "force" or "coerce" to describe how we think God saves His elect. The elect never, ever, experience being forced. From their POV, it is always a willing coming to Christ. They are unaware that it was "actually" God who made it ALL happen. Therefore, no one is dragged kicking and screaming into heaven. :) The concept of "force" is simply to describe who alone accomplished the salvation. It is never "forced" against someone's will, it is that God changes the will to want to come to Christ.
EVERYONE would be in heaven, if they didn't reject God's plea to ALL men.
If God wants everyone in heaven, then how strong is God's plea? God tells us openly that the road is narrow, and that most will be lost. God's plea could be of any strength He wished, correct? Why is it so apparently weak?
God chooses ALL men to be elect - unless they reject Him. Thus, you have free will to reject God, which would be your fault, or you can NOT reject Him, which would be God's free will to let you in heaven. You are not saved by your positive response, but you are condemned by your negative response.
Wow. This is new. If I am not saved by a positive response, then what is the difference between NOT rejecting Him (neutral response) and accepting Him (positive response)?
We do not earn heaven, it is an inheritance - potentially for all men. But individual men can lose salvation by "earning it" through continued sin.
So from birth salvation is ours to lose??? Joe, this is completely brand new. For an inheritance to work out, all a legatee need do is sit there and wait. In certain cases, he could sin and forfeit his legacy by going to jail or something, I suppose, but there is normally no act that is required of him. This goes against everything I know of Catholicism. Where is this coming from?
[FK on the necessity of the crucifixion for the salvation of man:] If the Father had options short of death, but chose death anyway, then it was unnecessary. It was a preference.
Sadly, that's because you do not appreciate the Passion and Death of our Lord and Savior - realizing that it was an act of Love that led Him to give up His life for the rest of the world. God was not forced into sending His Son to death. He choose this manner to show man His love for ALL of us.
What??? I don't appreciate the Passion and the crucifixion because of what? In your view, the Father could have snapped His fingers to effect the atonement of all of men's sins, but instead, He decided that Christ would go through all that because He loved us so much??? Where is the love in an unnecessary death?
[continuing:] Love overcomes obstacles. The greater the love, the greater the obstacle that can be overcome. I would say that death by crucifixion would be a tremendous obstacle of obedience for the Son - who overcame it to show His love for you and me and the world.
The reason for the crucifixion was so that Christ could overcome the large obstacle of not wanting to die on the cross? You've lost me completely. Who are you, and what have you done with Jo Kus?!
God is not "forced", it is His nature to exist, to be.
That is why I used quotation marks, to relay an idea not necessarily associated with the normal use of the word. The real Jo Kus would have known that.
I don't see God's Passion as necessary or forced, since that takes away His free will.
And on the other line you were so quick to tell me that God has obligations to us since He decided that He desires all men to be saved. When is it that God's free will applies?
Certainly, God could have shown His great love for us through other means, correct?
You have already heard me give an explanation as to why I don't think so, in posts 5085 and 5126.
Now you are starting to sound like God owed us His death!
The real Jo Kus would know better than anyone that this is something I would never think.
I don't know, Joe. You sure aren't sounding like yourself in this post.
Good point Jo. Under those terms we do agree with them.
You have still not answered my question why were the righteous OT Jews, the "elect" ones predestined from eternity to be saved, condemned and sent to hell (and Elijah wasn't!)
My "leaders" don't, FK. I am a "black sheep." I am not a spokesman for the Church, for sure. I simply confess publicly my doubts. I do not claim that I am right. At least I don't say that the Holy Spirit "guides" me. I would never use His Holy Name to dignify my babble.
There is absolutely nothing in that story that suggests it is an allegory. Nothing
No there isn't. But that story tells me that God "grieved" and "repented" and was "sorry" because the people He created to be good became spoiled and rotten as if He had no control or foreknowledge of it, or, worse, as if He didn't plan it that way.
If I believe the story to be true, then I must believe that God was surprised and disappointed, and felt stabbed in the back. Then I must believe that He didn't know. That He didn't see it coming. And that I don't believe!
It is much easier for me to see that the story was meant for the Jews to realize that their disobedience will bring natural disasters as a punishment from God than to believe that God was grieved, repentant, surprised, and blind-sided -- or, worse, that He intentionally created man so He could drown the whole wicked lot along with innocent animals.
Well of course not. That's because all plain meanings of scripture are first filtered through the Church for interpretation as to what the plain meaning is. After that, it is natural that all these plain meanings will agree completely with Tradition.
For example, the plain meaning of "your brothers are outside" as perceived by the modern usage is biological brothers. But the plain meaning of the same phrase 2,000 years ago was kinsfolk.
That's a good example. You DECLARE that the plain meaning was kinsfolk, but there is no way you can prove that definitively. The Church says that is what it means, so you declare it as fact. I remember when we were talking about this a long time ago. I asked someone (or several) that if your interpretation was correct, then how did people refer to their actual blood siblings. I really can't remember a clear answer. I still find it not credible that a named "mother" means blood mother, but in the same sentence a named "brother" means friend.
But you never pointed out a case where a Church father would say something like "OK, Matthew says they were Jesus's biological brothers, but I declare Matthew wrong and establish the Tradition that they were not".
I really have no idea how or why the Church Fathers wrote what they wrote. All I know is that they were fallible, they made mistakes, they were subject to all of the influences of power and politics just like anyone else, and I have no Biblical reason to trust them over and above the Bible.
In all cases that Church father simply read the same text you are reading and the meaning was plain to him, because he had the cultural proximity to the evangelist and had the unwritten knowledge.
In that case God failed to author a book that would stand the test of time, and Christianity is not a revealed faith. It also means that God is the most cryptic author in the history of literature. (But thank goodness we have a bunch of men to bail us out from God's shortcomings.)
No, I believe it was a wooden cross.
By your statement you have shown us you believe you must earn your salvation. Paul denies this works-based justification, relying instead on the singular act of Christ's atonement, His blood shed for the elect.
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." -- Romans 3:20-28"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
There is no disagreement in worshiping icons in both Churches, or "idols" in the west. We do not worship "idols" whether they are icons or statues. We believe that saints are alive and we ask them to pray for us. That is not "worship" or idolatry. They are representations of real people. Images or real people are allowed.
When we pray we do not pray to the material that makes up a picture or a statue (paint, wood, stone), but to the person those images represent. If we smile in front of an icon, it's no different than when you look at a picture of you child or grandchild and smile. You do not for a moment believe that the pictures is your child or that the paper the picture is printed on is your child in person. The picture simply reminds you and mentally transports you to the person you are smiling at.
You responded : Yes, they certainly would be, and I am glad I don't know anyone like that. The reason you call us "self-elected" is that your leaders have interpreted scripture to deny certain of God's promises. That is understandable, given that the Church supersedes the Bible.
You don't know anyone like that? God's promises are for those who persevere in Christ, not someone in a moment of emotion "take on Christ as the Lord of their lives", which many times fails to materialize into reality...
As to the last sentence, I am asking you once to knock it off. I think you are beyond the stage of ignorance on this.
I wrote : If God allows us to sin "a little", why would He prevent us from sinning a lot, if that is what WE wanted?
You wrote : Because in this world we don't always get what we want. :) Concerning the elect, I believe God thinks it is more important that they are saved than that they get everything they want during this extremely brief presence on earth.
You are misunderstanding my question. If man sins PERIOD in this life, which God allows, why wouldn't He allow man to sin more often, even to sin grievious and fall away from Him? The fact that man CAN sin tells us that God doesn't actively override our will to prevent us from sinning or falling away. ANY sin is a sin against His infinite justice.
Why bother if God's foreknowledge is not rewritable? What chance does such a man have if God already knows it's over? You say God gives this man an opportunity, but what is it? This is contradictory.
Define what you mean by "Justice". How "just" would God be if He didn't provide ALL men an opportunity to be saved from himself? At the final judgment, we will see that God was just and that no one was unfairly cast into the abyss. They will have rightly earned damnation, as the wages of sin is death. Now, if God did NOT provide any help to such people, what sort of just God is He then? God loves ALL of His creation, it is inconceivable to me that He offers no help to certain parts of creation made in His image. Christ died for the sin of the WORLD - remember that is Scripture.
God directs sunlight over those whom He will, and He puts clouds over others whom He will.
Nice try but it doesn't work that way. Whatever light is available due to God's working of the weather effects ALL men below. This is not a factor in my analogy. God's graces shines on all, the good and evil alike. If man continues to walk in the darkness, as John stresses, then man suffers the consequences.
From God's POV, man's free will is His enemy. My point is that man's free will is in opposition to God's will. Our sin nature always opposes God.
God created man with free will for a greater good. He desired creatures who could love, as He does. You can't love without free will.
Well, under my view God is in full control, He gets all the credit, and His plan will be accomplished in full. I am trying to show you that you do not believe any of these things. :) For example, God is not in full control if He REACTS to the decisions of others rather than makes the decisions Himself. God does not get all the credit if man makes the final salvation decision. And, God's plan is not accomplished if He desires all men to be saved.
I also believe that God is in control. But I don't see it as a matter of God fighting man to drag him into heaven unwillingly. God desires a being who has freely chosen Him. Regarding God's desire that all men be saved, it is plainly in Scripture. Or are you again going to accuse Catholics of twisting the "plain meaning" of Scriptures? That fact of the matter is, whether you understand or agree with it, is that God desires all men to be saved. It is clearly written and we must clearly accept this as fact. Elsewhere, such as in Peter, the same thing is written. God died for the sake of ALL men, for the sin of the WORLD. Why would God die for the sin of the world if He only intended on saving a percentage of men?
God's plan IS accomplished - He STILL desires ALL men to be saved - but at the same time, He desires them to freely choose God. This falls in the same category as God desires all men to obey His commandments. It is a signified will, not a decreed will.
But in any event, I have always thought that God sees clearly who will reject Him, and that He has full foreknowledge. I honestly do not know what I said to make you think otherwise. (You don't have to do a big search, paraphrasing should do it.)
This is not the sense I have received from you on this question. These are my beliefs, but I didn't remember we agreed on this issue. God desires all men to be saved, but some choose to reject Him totally. God foresees this. God calls the rest predestined, and graces them appropriately. Thus, the predestined don't merit anything, while the reprobate earn hell. As I have said time and time again, God does not actively choose the reprobate, AND God actively chooses the rest to be the predestined, since God desires all men be saved - but He will not save those who do NOT desire to be saved.
Well, that view requires a very specific paradigm of interpretation that nullifies the so-called "assurance verses"
"Assurance" verses are given to those who persevere, not the presumptive Pharisees. You make perseverance a moot point in your "system". And believe me, there are plenty of perseverance verses...
Therefore, as God ACTS, inside of time, He really doesn't want all men to be saved.
I didn't follow your logic here. God definitely desires all men to be saved - He died for all men while ALL men were still in sin. God foresees that despite His aid in time, some men will still refuse Him. As a loving Father who has tried so many approaches but still is dealing with a difficult child who demands to be disinherited, the Father leaves such a one to His fate - the wrath of God, as in Romans 1. That is what God does to those who rejects Him, leaves them in sin.
And, that a man without faith can do acts which are moral on their face, but still are not pleasing to God.
Thus, every act of an unregenerated man is not sinful, then, is it?
Well, I never thought of Paul as a sadist, but then again, we're all sinners: :)
Sorry, Paul doesn't say the Law was meant to show how worthless man is. He says that merely following the Law does not earn salvation to heaven. To earn salvation by the Law, one must obey it PERFECTLY. Since men sin, we cannot justify ourselves under the Law. We MUST rely on GRACE. God doesn't give us the law for the express purpose of sadistically proving that man is worthless. That is not a Biblical concept. God is like a loving spouse to His bride. Is that the sort of marriage you see between God and man? Go read Song of Songs or Hosea someday.
I think there is a big misunderstanding when your side uses words like "force" or "coerce" to describe how we think God saves His elect. The elect never, ever, experience being forced.
That is EXACTLY the point I am making. The elect are not forced. You would have God drag EVERYONE to heaven for "God desires all men to be saved"!
It is never "forced" against someone's will, it is that God changes the will to want to come to Christ.
Man is transformed. But according to Protestant theology, man remains unchanged, a lump of crap, covered with the righteousness of Christ. Now, you are saying that man's will is changed for goodness? Perhaps there is hope...
If God wants everyone in heaven, then how strong is God's plea?
Very.
"There is no greater love than this, that one give up his life for his friends"
God died for men who were still in sin, "unfriendly" to God...
Wow. This is new. If I am not saved by a positive response, then what is the difference between NOT rejecting Him (neutral response) and accepting Him (positive response)?
If you are saved by your own positive response, then you are saying you merited heaven. There is no "neutral" response. Either you are with Christ or against Him. Again, that is clear Scripture.
By the way, we are not discussing anything about cooperation with God. That presumes that God is moving me to do His will in the first place. Thus, above, I say "your OWN" positive response.
So from birth salvation is ours to lose??? Joe, this is completely brand new. For an inheritance to work out, all a legatee need do is sit there and wait. In certain cases, he could sin and forfeit his legacy by going to jail or something, I suppose, but there is normally no act that is required of him. This goes against everything I know of Catholicism. Where is this coming from?
An inheritance is not earned. We don't "do" anything alone - but we CAN disinherit ourselves from this free gift. Thus, we are told to persevere in Christ, to work out our faith in works of love. Refusing to is akin to rejecting Christ. This is nothing new! When have I said we must do "x" or "y" to earn salvation? Our actions determine whether we are rejecting Christ, as, for example, He tells us in Matthew 25 and the parable of the sheep and goats. If you thought Catholicism was different, don't blame me, blame whoever is telling you such lies as "Catholics believe in works salvation".
What??? I don't appreciate the Passion and the crucifixion because of what? In your view, the Father could have snapped His fingers to effect the atonement of all of men's sins, but instead, He decided that Christ would go through all that because He loved us so much??? Where is the love in an unnecessary death?
That response merely proves again that you don't appreciate the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior - who CHOSE to give of Himself to the fullest - out of love. Who exactly did God owe the death of His Son to, anyway? God didn't have a debt to pay to some other diety to win us back! He CHOSE to show His death in a most humbling manner out of love - both the Son's love for the Father, and the Father's love for mankind.
The reason for the crucifixion was so that Christ could overcome the large obstacle of not wanting to die on the cross? You've lost me completely. Who are you, and what have you done with Jo Kus?!
Christ's HUMAN will did not desire the impending suffering - but BOTH His wills decided that His Father's will was to be His meat. The Divine Will had decided upon this course of action - not because it was "owed" to anyone, but out of love. What greater way could God have showed how much He cared for us, FK?
And on the other line you were so quick to tell me that God has obligations to us since He decided that He desires all men to be saved. When is it that God's free will applies?
God obligates HIMSELF! He is not bound by anything that man does, but what He does, for example, the various Covenants with man. HE BINDS HIMSELF! And we believe that His promises will be fulfilled because God is rigtheous.
Your discussion regarding the Passion has given me cause to question your concept of WHY He did it. It appears that you think God was 'forced' to crucify His only Son! Perhaps I have judged wrongly, but your posts seem to point in that direction.
I assure you, I am still Jo Kus :-)
Regards
You are confusing being justified with being saved. Once we are "justified" in God's eyes (by faith given to us) we must walk in Christ's footsteps and become Christ-like (theosis), or else our faith (and justification) is null and void.
Saint Paul was referring to the Jewish concept of being "justified" by observing the Law, by giving alms, etc. In other words, if you do ten good deeds, you "earned" ten points that will make you more acceptable to God. Obviously, Christianity does not believe that. But we do believe that faith without works is dead. We are justified by faith, but it takes a lot more than handing us a faith on a silver platter to be Christ-like.
I would imagine you subscribe to the one verse that says that it will be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. I am sure as soon as you were "saved" you sold everything and now live in poverty, love your neighbor as yourself and would slay your own children if God told you to do so, right?
No, of course not! You enjoy the gifts and blessings of the Lord. And you believe, I am sure, that faith alone is all you need to take you to His Kingdom without having to sell everything you have. Aren't we all like that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.