iano writes:
In considering the lesson he learns, we cannot leap ahead and suppose that the partial demand (regarding the commandments) means that following the commandments plays a partial role in salvation.
Bluejay writes:
But, we
can leap ahead and suppose that Jesus's direct statement, "If you want to enter life, keep the commandments," does mean that following the commandments plays at least a partial role in salvation.
I don’t see that as a particularly large leap, either.
I haven’t yet seen an argument that gives me an alternative explanation.
I'm not sure you've understood the point. The point is that if we want to arrive at the object of Jesus' lesson, we must consider the whole and not simply snip out that which suits our own position. That would be quote-mining.
Our question is: what is the
whole demand Jesus places before this ruler regarding inheriting eternal life. That is the rulers question and we are looking for Jesus' answer. If we agreed that Jesus' answer is: follow the law's instruction & follow my instruction, then we can arrive at one of two conclusions regarding the object of his lesson:
- works lead to salvation; follow commands is a part of it (as you suggest), following Jesus instruction is the other part of it. Do both and you will inherit eternal life.
- works won't lead to salvation: no one can do the work required as the bar Jesus sets is too high for a man to clear it.
(you might not agree that these two demands form the totality of Jesus response to the rulers question - in which case that might form a route of objection for us to follow up on. But if agreed then the above is it
-
I'd argue for my version above on the basis of (for example):
- the rulers sadness stems from his inability to give up his wealth. The context doesn't reasonably support any other conclusion.
- Jesus didn't make this demand accidently. It was asking the ruler to give up something Jesus knew to be precious. The deliberateness of Jesus targetting as he did forms a part of the lesson. As does the man failing the test. As you acknowledge yourself: this lesson is intended primarily for this man. We extract an application of this lesson to our own situation, to our own idols.
- Jesus concludes things by stating salvation by man impossible. This is as clear an alignment with the proposal above, and an underlining that this was Jesus' deliberate intent, as one could possibly hope to see. The whole context of the passage is how to be saved and that with man it is impossible.
Conclusion: your position so far hasn't relied on any step-by-step analysis of the passage
as a whole - in which all the various statements and plays are assembled into a coherant body of thinking. Whilst you've made some seemingly valid objections along the way, your contra-position stands on;
- quotemining snippets from the passage
- not dealing with the passage in total - instead your conclusion is attached to the pieces quotemined.
- unlikely alternative interpretations of places where I rely on a reasonable (if not provable) contextual analysis of what's going on. (One example of this is where you suppose the ruler sad because he's planning on giving up his wealth and is sad about that.)
-
But, that hardly matters. Do you agree that, since the statement, If you want to enter life, keep the commandments, exists in the Bible, there is sufficient justification for me to legitimately claim that the salvation doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon is biblical?
You'd be relying on a quote mine, so no, I wouldn't agree. But that's me revealing the standard by which I'd consider a view of mine supported or no. If you want to suppose your case supported on such a flimsy basis for own purposes then that's your affair.
To be honest, I'm more than a little surprised that you'd actually posit a quotemine as suporting your justification in any way, shape or form. It's not your form as I've ever seen it.
-
Remember, to win this argument, I do not have to convince anybody here that salvation by works is a correct doctrine: I only have to show that it is based on the Bible. I feel that I have shown sufficient support for that.
I'm sure I could find Richard Dawkins saying "God exists" were I to snip what he says out of context. I wouldn't hope to win any argument based on such a move however. Nor should you here.
-
If we begin with Jesus’s statement in Matthew 19:17, and interpret the rest of the Bible in light of that, with the combined support of James 2:24 (...faith without works is dead...), Hebrews 5:8-9 (...salvation for all those who obey him...), and Philippians 2:12 (...work out your salvation...), what emerges is an entirely different doctrinal picture.
Extending the scope of your mining activities doth not a more substantial case make.
What you need to do is reconcile the whole thing. And because you can't do that you disappear down the wormhole of "Bible corrupt/contradictory - need the Book of Mormon to resolve things".
You've effectively exited the debate because it's not the Bible you're saying the Book of Mormon doesn't contradict, it's
certain bits of the Bible the Book of Mormon doesn't contradict. If the title of the thread was that, then I wouldn't be here.
-
Paul tells us of the work which is produced by faith. In the light of both that, and the Bible telling us of false professions, James 'faith without works is dead' is harmonised perfectly with salvation by grace alone. Such a salvation results in faith > which produces work.
isn't: work produces faith produces salvation
is: salvation produces faith produces work
That's an example of what I mean by 'harmonising the whole Bible'. You can't harmonise James and Paul and BoM so throw out Paul. I can harmonise James and Paul so throw out BoM.
"Work out your salvation" is another case in point. Work it out, express it out, let it be displayed outwards. But what's
it? Well, it's your
salvation. First salvation comes to a man, then work comes out of that man - that is the sequence here too. And as ever, the second part of this verse is excluded by the work-for-your-salvationista:
"..for (ie: because) it is
God who works in you to will and to act according to his good pleasure"
Why let your (if you are saved) salvation shine out to the world? Why let your light (if you are saved) stand on a hill where all can see it - rather than under a bushel where nobody can see it? Because God is working in you; to motivate you, to encourage you, to set your minds on his will so that you'll act according to his purpose.
-
That you and KBertsche can explain these things away with semantic riddles does not change the fact that an alternative interpretation is equally consistent with the writings of the Bible. The doctrine of salvation by works is supportable by the Bible, and that’s all that is being debated on this thread.
As pointed out: the manner and means of your activity is quote mining. And whether the workist is an unbeliever, a Roman Catholic, a Jehovahs Witness or a Mormon, it's always the same few (often snippets of) verses that come up. When you have to pit such flimsy evidence this against the likes of the first half of the book of Romans, which lays out in step-by-step fashion, the need for and intricate workings of Salvation by Grace (without works) - you've an insurmountable mountain in your way and your case is already lost.
Reconcile your view with the whole of the Bible. Or admit that you are defeated
by the Bible. Tearing out reams of pages that confound your case is not an acceptable approach.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
