False Argument #16: Bible Offers Contradictory Criteria For Salvation
Posted in Bible, Daylight Atheism, False Arguments, Logic, Religion, Responses on | 12 minutes | 20 Comments →
The question of biblical inerrancy comes up often in debates between believers and skeptics of all stripe, with the typical formula being gross overstatements on behalf of skeptics, and inefficient responses to these gross overstatements on behalf of believers. At the request of a commenter on DA calling himself Brad, I said that I would take a look at an essay titled Foundation of Sand, alleged to prove biblical contradiction and error.
Now, in logic, we wish to present a case such that any reasonable observer can deduce our conclusion for his or her self on the basis of evidence. What we typically don’t do is begin with opinions about the conclusion we are trying to prove. As far as this goes, I’m already highly suspicious of our host’s appeals to objectivity from the very first sentences of Foundation:
The Bible is a flawed book… It contains many absurdities, passages that are bizarre or that make no sense…
Why start by inundating the reader with the conclusion we ought to lead them to through conclusive evidence? Not the most objective approach, but hey, whatever works to get the point across I suppose. We insinuate that because a particular passage is bizarre, or that because we are currently unable to discern sense from a certain passage, that such are intrinsic flaws or contradictions of the Bible? The conclusion does not flow from the premise at all.
On numerous occasions it depicts God as committing atrocities, acting in ways that are cruel, violent and unjust.
This is beside the point, but I submit that POE is a logical draw. We lack appropriate information to judge God’s actions in the Old Testament accurately or conclusively.
And there are striking inconsistencies between its two major divisions, the Old and New Testaments, each one depicting a deity radically different in behavior and temperament.
It annoys me that thus far, definitions are not provided. How does human perception of inconsistency entails contradiction?
Reading the Bible as a whole, the impression one gets is like a prism of fractured glass, reflecting back out what went into it, but in a distorted and disharmonious pattern.
So far, this sounds more like an anti-sermon than a logical argument, just saying.
I have almost never met a believer in the Bible who has read the Bible all the way through. (emph. mine)
While I appreciate proper scope, this is neither applicable to me nor the argument at hand, and certainly muddies the waters. What does any of this have to do with contradiction in the Bible? I don’t care about the subjective interpretations or relative ignorance of other Christians when the objective, factual correctness of the Bible is the matter at hand. After a good half-dozen paragraphs of similar non-reason, I got overly impatient and decided to click the first link I saw that promised any semblance of an objective argument: Faith Alone
Ebonmuse alleges contradiction in the Bible over what one must do to be saved. Finally, but first, let’s pick up some slack by providing a reasonable definition of contradiction: From Wikipedia, “[A] contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical inversions of each other.” We don’t need all that. I feel it’s sufficient to say a contradiction can be represented by the following formula:
After citing Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, Acts 16:30-31, Romans 1:16 and John 3:16-18 to demonstrate that faith is a prerequisite for salvation, something effected from God’s grace and not man’s works, Ebonmuse writes,
The first verse, from Titus, repeats that good works do not save, and the latter three verses all say the same thing when discussing what does save: belief in Jesus Christ. None of them mention any other requirement.
True. No verses cited offer another requirement. At this point I must ask, Does the omission of any other requirement entail a logical inverse? Have we established that the Bible states both (x) and (-x)? Of course not.
As plainly as the above verses say faith alone is needed for salvation, this verse from the Gospel of Mark says that two things are needed: faith and baptism. (emph. mine)
Yet, of the verses listed, absolutely zero of them say that “faith alone” is required. Such is Ebonmuse’s addition, which he himself sets up:
Salvation “is the gift of God” and “not of works”; it is faith alone that saves.
Is this intellectually dishonest? I don’t know, but the Bible reserves strong words for those who add to its words. That salvation is the gift of God and not of works does not logically entail that “faith alone” saves, and the quantifier “alone” is nowhere in the supporting scriptures, which merely illustrate that salvation is not attainable via self-efficacy. Moving along to Baptism, Ebon writes:
However, there are other verses that say differently – verses that, when enumerating the requirements for salvation, add an additional requirement about which the above passages say nothing. …the Gospel of Mark says that two things are needed: faith and baptism. Needless to say, if this is the case, then the “faith alone” verses have omitted a crucial requirement.
It is true that Mark adds the criteria of Baptism, and it is true that if faith and Baptism are required, then all verses which omit Baptism omit a crucial requirement. Such is not contradiction at all, and that “faith alone” is a scriptural requirement is something Ebonmuse seems to have borrowed from Greg Graffin, the articulate lead singer of Bad Religion, and not from the Bible itself. Ebon’s citations are not “faith alone” verses. In the absence of a conclusive quantifier, to state a single requirement is not to state the only requirement. Partial delineation does not logically entail contradiction. Now, we might have a semblance of an argument here if Ebonmuse wanted to claim that Baptism constitutes works, but I didn’t hear that one.
Skip a bunch of irrelevant paragraphs, then:
I wonder if it has occurred to Mr. Holding that, by this interpretation, human fetuses and children that die before being physically born will be damned to Hell.
The scriptures do not support this claim. Even if they did, such does not establish contradiction regarding the biblical criteria for salvation. This is a red herring at best. Ebonmuse then turns to the epistle of James, citing a response to the claim that works effect salvation ala James:
The most common evangelical reply to this is that James is not saying that good works are necessary for salvation, but that faith in God produces good works by definition, and so the two are inseparable.
That’s correct. Then,
But this will not suffice. The writer of the epistle himself refutes this position in verse 2:19. As he explains, his argument is not that faith produces good works which are not truly needed – indeed, he says that “by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” His argument is that faith alone is not enough for salvation – after all, he says, the demons also have faith in God, but they are not saved by it. Nowhere does the writer draw a distinction between the type of faith demons have and the type believers have. Instead, the distinction he points out is that believers do good works, and demons do not.
James’ argument is that if there’s no fruit, there’s no faith. When he says, “By works a man is justified,” did he say, “By works a man is saved?” Did James say, “By works a man escapes Sheol, Hades?” Dikaioo does not entail sozo, and the appeal to verse 2:19 is irrelevant. More importantly, did James offer a logical inverse? He could have easily said, “By works a man is saved, and not by faith.” That would be a bona fide contradiction IMO, because (x) would seem to equal (-x).
Ebonmuse then muddies the water by criticizing Holding on the deathbed conversion trope:
As a final point in favor of this interpretation, consider the words of a famous past Christian…
Again, I don’t care about the subjective interpretations or relative ignorance of other Christians past, present, future or famous when the objective, factual correctness of the Bible is the matter at hand. Ebonmuse’s obligation is to prove his case through logic and evidence in scripture, not via other people’s interpretations of scripture or by attacking and questioning believers’ credibility.
The exegesis of 2 Corinthians 5:10 is flimsy IMO. God is not
..telling us is that everyone who has ever lived or will ever live is condemned to eternal damnation, because if we receive “what is due us” for the things we have done, that is the inevitable result.
That we all face judgment for deeds done in the body does not entail that we all go to hell, that nobody is saved. Are ‘judgment’ and ‘eternal damnation’ synonymous terms?
Ebonmuse then lists Matthew 16:27, John 5:29, and Romans 2:6-7 to justify:
All these verses say the same thing – that at the time of judgment we will be punished or rewarded as our deeds deserve, that those who have done evil will be damned, and those who have done good will be saved.
True, they do all say the same thing, but what in them sustains the idea that neither faith nor Baptism are necessary? Where’s the logical inverse? Where are both (x) and (-x) stated conclusively? What reason is there to assume that Jesus’ pre-stated criteria of Baptism or faith aren’t still applicable? If you believe in Jesus, you’re likely going to get baptized, and if your conversion was authentic, you will produce fruit. The above verses don’t justify the claim that salvation results from “faith alone,” and the Bible does not say that salvation results from “faith alone.”
Moving on to predestination,
Calvinism is rare today, probably due in part to the perception that a God who would condemn a person to eternal torment purely because that person is one of the ones whom God has decided to condemn to eternal torment, makes God out to be cruel, sadistic and unjust. This perception is correct. Nevertheless, the doctrine of predestination has abundant Biblical support.
Which verses say God decides to condemn people?
The standard Arminian reply to predestinationist arguments is that God does not actually choose who will and will not be saved, but that in his omniscience he knows ahead of time who will freely choose him, and that these people are the “elect”. The above verses annihilate that argument. As the Greek translations show in each case, these verses speak of God’s predestination, of his decision (not his foreknowledge) beforehand, of his dragging or impelling people to come to him, of his appointing, or ordaining, or picking out, some for eternal life.
If God is all-knowing, as Ebonmuse commonly posits in his anti-God arguments, then all of God’s decisions are reasonably influenced by God’s foreknowledge. For example, it’s special pleading or cherrypicking (not quite sure which right now, maybe both) to assume God all-knowing when deliberating on POE, but not here.
However, no verse better lays out the predestinationist position than the ones quoted from Romans chapter 9. Paul says flat-out that salvation “does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort,” but that “God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” (NIV). To be absolutely clear, Paul is saying that being saved has nothing to do with any desire or action on the part of any human. God has mercy on the people he wants to have mercy on, and those he does not want to have mercy on, he “hardens” them so they cannot or will not choose him (the example given is the Egyptian Pharaoh, who is indeed spoken of as having his heart “hardened” by God numerous times in Exodus).
Did Paul say salvation does not depend on man’s decision? None of Romans 9 or the concept of predestination necessarily removes human decision from the equation, only self-efficacy. So where’s the logical inverse? Somewhat incidentally, there certainly could be legitimate, justifiable, logical reasons God chooses whom to enable vs. whom to harden, couldn’t there?
Nearing the conclusion,
If salvation is by faith alone, it is not by faith and baptism; if it is by faith and baptism, it is not by faith and good works, and if it is any of these three, it is not by predestination.
As pointed out, the “faith alone” trope is a strawman argument Ebonmuse added to Ephesians 2:8-9. Neither do the other verses cited justify the claim that salvation is by “faith alone,” and nothing in any verses cited are logically inverse to Baptism. The Bible does not argue that good works lead to salvation, and in short, I don’t think anything about predestination as discussed here contradicts statements that salvation requires both faith and Baptism, or that real faith produces fruit, or that we might all one day sit before the judgment seat of Christ.
I don’t mean to be rude, but in a spirit only of rational rigor, Ebonmuse’s arguments as stated contain insurmountable fallacies, including demonstrated special pleading, cherry-picking, strawman and slippery slope argumentation, muddying the waters with red herrrings, and most importantly, the establishment of false dichotomies, all based on words added to scripture that do not exist in the original verses. When we correctly note such, the argument is undermined completely, and in their proper context, I don’t find one clear instance of a logical inverse in any scripture cited here.
Although a valiant effort, indeed, Foundation of Sand is an entirely appropriate title.
mike
says...What we don’t do is assume the truth of our conclusion before proving it, but Ebon doesn’t do this.
This is basic high school English composition — starting with a top-down summary. You start by stating your (so far unsupported) thesis statement. Then you describe at a high level (again without logical argument) the kinds of things you plan to establish to support your thesis. You complain that they are loaded — of course they are, they are a preview of his conclusions, they are not his actual arguments! These things are done to give the reader an idea of where things are going. It is totally customary to do this first, and it is implied that the formal argumentation follows. In fact, I can’t believe I’m explaining this to someone.
I’m reluctant to continue reading your response.. You’ve started it out with some very ridiculous and disingenuous criticism (not to mention that talking about biblical interpretation is one of my least favorite things ever).
cl
says...Mike,
I accept your criticisms, and you are justified in your reaction. I understand the customary top-down format in writing a paper.
However, I guess I just prefer to state the facts and let the reader decide. When writing on a topic like this, I think it is crucial to keep opinion outside of argument – don’t you? For example, I would not begin a treatise on evolution with my own opinion of it, nor would I begin by either accepting or denying it. I wouldn’t come out with, “X is Y, and here’s why,” I would come out with, “Here’s X. By definition, Y means Z. Is X the same as Y?” And I would let the reader decide. I guess it’s a matter of stylistic preference.
I’m aware, but in a piece alleging to prove contradiction (without a definition at that), saying the Bible is ‘bizarre’ or ‘absurd’ or ‘doesn’t make sense’ is not a preview of his conclusion. His conclusion is going to be that, yes, the Bible contradicts itself. Note that Foundation is about contradiction; so my gripes against labeling the Bible as ‘bizarre’ and ‘absurdities’ and ‘making no sense’ are valid. None of those entail logical inverse, and such subjective judgments don’t belong in the piece IMO, much less the opening paragraph.
There’s not much else I can say. I’m sorry if I came off tough or disingenuous. The last thing I want to do is isolate anyone and perhaps I should hold that more in view at all times. From your tone, I doubt I’ll rectify your opinion of me on this matter, and that I upset somebody that much will certainly cause me to reconsider my approach next time.
At any rate, I do value your criticisms, and would be especially interested in hearing your thoughts on the meat of the post, especially whether Ebonmuse has successfully demonstrated a logical inverse or not.
mike
says...cl,
Don’t worry that I was offended or upset, I just didn’t think much of those criticisms. Nothing personal and no hard feelings here. I probably came across harshly because I was dreading having to read a long post about Biblical interpretation, which is a subject I don’t care for. But since you asked so nicely… ;)
I looked at Ebon’s article, specifically at the discussion of by faith alone (btw, the link in your post goes somewhere else).
You seem to have conceded (correct me if I’m wrong) that some verses enumerate multiple requirements (i.e., faith + baptism) for salvation. So let’s talk about the “faith alone” verses.
I fail to see how this means anything other than “IF you believe in Jesus, THEN you will be saved”. Not “believe and thou can/may be saved”, but “believe and thou SHALT be saved.”
If a car salesmen said “give me $1000 and the car shall be yours”, wouldn’t you be pretty surprised if he later claimed “nowhere did I mention ‘$1000 alone’, I also require you to give me your Rolex” ? If the original deal was in writing, you would have good grounds for litigation (a metric which I think is quite reasonable).
I fail to see how this means anything other than “IF you believe in Jesus THEN you get everlasting life and are not condemned (i.e., you get salvation)”. It says “whosoever believeth”, i.e., anyone who believes, regardless of whatever else they might do, shall be saved.
Again, imagine a car salesman saying “whoever gives me $1000 will be the new owner of this car” ..
Even if you don’t agree with my interpretation of the above verses (which presumably you must not), at least agree that this interpretation is reasonable and made in good faith (viz, the scenario of suing the car salesman for fraud). I’m not trying to smuggle in any extra words, etc.
I fully anticipate you to tell me that in Greek, these words don’t mean what they are saying. But it’s unambiguous to me what formal logic the KJV translators wanted to convey in these verses. Not knowing Greek, I also checked the NIV translation. I concede that it leaves logical wiggle room in John 3:18, but the wording is logically equivalent to KJV in John 3:16 and Acts 16:30-31.
And this is why I hate arguing about Biblical interpretation (apart from the fact that I’m not a Biblical scholar, so I don’t have sufficient familiarity with the entire work — not that it has stopped other theists and atheists in the past). The correctness (or whatever it is we’re arguing) of the Bible depends on the interpretation. Since everyone has their own mutually exclusive pet “one true interpretation”, it is impossible to argue anything. Any problem can be solved by saying “you’re not interpreting it correctly” — or if you’re a lolcat, “ur doin it rong” ;)
That’s why I kinda like my example of a lawsuit. If a car salesman said one thing, and (apparently) did something different, was it absolutely reasonable for me to interpret his words the way I did? If not, then why is he saying things that require an unreasonable interpretation?
cl
says...Mike,
Just a quick regress, then I’ll gladly get to your comment.
I think Ebon does assume the conclusion is true before the argument, and that was the impression I got, but that’s JMO. I know you didn’t think much of my criticisms and that’s okay, but can you see why I objected so strongly to the above? Whether or not a document contains an internal contradiction and the author’s opinions of said document are two totally different issues, right? If Ebon had wrote, “I will argue that the Bible is flawed, contradictory book,” I wouldn’t have reacted so strongly. Of course I realize you state your conclusion up front when you write a paper, but the opinions should come last if even at all, and if the author does include opinions, it’s also courteous to identify them as such. It’s just that when I read the piece, I got the feeling the author was doing the thinking and concluding for me, and as a bull-headed, independent thinker, such rubbed me wrong because I felt guided or leaded to pre-accept the conclusion. Just saying. Now let’s get to your wonderful car analogy.
First, do you agree with the definitions of contradiction offered? That a logical inverse is a necessary prerequisite of a contradiction?
We’re in agreement there, and
We’re in agreement here, too, although I’ll be clarifying something shortly to this end.
I like your car analogy, and even if I didn’t have a response to it, I could simply say that disingenuous as that salesman might be, x only = -x if the salesman uses the words “$1,000 alone.” Now, if the salesman also asked for my Rolex, after saying $1,000 alone, then yes, we have a logical inverse, because “$1,000 alone” != “$1,000 plus Rolex.” Then I could fight on the front of Ebonmuse adding the words ‘alone’ to Ephesians 2:8-9. Although valid, I don’t find that
very useful.
Let’s think a bit about the transaction and process of buying a car and using it, for I think you’ve picked a far more fitting analogy than you might realize. There is indeed a tripartite analogy here, as well. First you buy the car for said price, then you fill out the necessary paperwork to identify yourself as the rightful owner of the car, then you drive the car to Phoenix, Rhode Island, or any other place the car will go, right? The purchase effects the ownership (belief), the DMV paperwork documents the change in identity (Baptism), and then you go driving (works). All three steps are complementary not contradictory, and all three steps are required to be a legal, driving person, right?
Now, what about where Jesus says, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit?” (John 3:5) Again, if Ephesians 2:8-9 or any other verse included the quantifiers ‘alone’ or ‘only’ we might be in trouble. But here I see Jesus expositing on salvation as a transaction much like buying a car. As money and only money gets the car, faith and only faith gets salvation. As DMV paperwork establishes the change of ownership, so Baptism fills the believer with the Holy Spirit and marks the person with a new identity. And as the rightful owner of their new car is free and even expected to drive, the believer is free and even expected to go forth and bear fruit. Believing the message is an inward act of taking it in; getting Baptized is an outward act showing that belief; and works are the fruit that comes afterwards. All three steps are complementary not contradictory, and all three steps are required to be a believer.
Where do you feel the logical inverse occurs?
mike
says...Sure, but logical contradictions are among the things that can be called “absurdities” and “make no sense” .. Perhaps “bizarre” is a strange way to classify an internal contradiction. Anyway, I see your point with that particular sentence.
What happens when you only do one of the steps? Then your lack of salvation would contradict the verse that said “if you do this step, you get salvation” …
The verse from John 3:5 is great because it gives you a way to string these implications together. It says “IF you don’t get baptized, THEN you don’t get salvation” .. The contrapositive of this statement is “IF you get salvation, THEN you must have been baptized.” Though it doesn’t say “only” in words, its logic is equivalent to “only by baptism are you saved”.
String it together with the verse from Acts, you have “IF you believe in Jesus, THEN you must have been baptized.” It’s not an explicit contradiction of asserting x and also its negation. But it’s a contradiction in that “believing” in Jesus does not entail being baptized, unless you equivocate on definitions. What if I have a religious experience and get “born again” and then have a heart attack on my way to get baptized?
If that really is the requirement (I’m not convinced there is one consistent condition given), then is it too much to ask for the book to actually say this? Right now it says “if you do X, you get salvation”, then in some other book it says “if you do Y you get salvation”. Then in a totally different place it says “if you do Z you get salvation.” From that, we’re supposed to piece together what you’ve outlined?
“What must I do to buy a car?” And they said unto him, “Thou must pass a driving test, and then thou shalt have a car.”
“I tell you the truth, no one can have a car unless he obtains minimum liability insurance.”
cl
says...Mike,
Thank you. I don’t feel like such a big jerk now.. :)
I’ve not said if one does not undergo Baptism, they are not saved. Nor does John 3:5 say that. The English words ‘saved’ or ‘salvation’ do not occur in John 3:5. Nor does the Greek word for salvation, sÅ?zÅ?, appear in John 3:5. So we’ve inadvertently mixed some verses up here, it seems.
Okay, don’t take this in offense because that’s not the spirit I’m in. Note that the definition provided is not of an ‘explicit contradiction’ but ‘contradiction.’ Very plainly, a contradiction occurs when (x) = (-x). So it’s you who has equivocated on a definition in this respect. Although it can and usually does, it’s true that believing in Jesus does not entail Baptism. Again, the words ‘saved’ or ‘salvation’ are not present in John 3:5.
One doesn’t get born again by religious experience, but Baptism. May I rephrase the question for you? It should read, “What if I come to saving faith, then have a heart attack on my way to get Baptized?
My twofold answer to that question is an honest “I don’t have an answer right now,” and that for our discussion I don’t need to, because no logical inverse has been shown. However, the structure of the question seems to indicate confusion between ‘born again’ and ‘salvation,’ or the idea that perhaps the terms may be used interchangeably, when they cannot IMO.
I disagree. Many verses say faith gets salvation. A few verses say “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” The error is in implying equality between sÅ?zÅ? and being born again. If Jesus had meant sÅ?zÅ?, Jesus would have used sÅ?zÅ?. Lastly, no verse in scripture states that one must do good works to effect sÅ?zÅ?.
I don’t think I’m any more capable than the next man or woman, so I can’t accept that the Bible is too unclear as an argument here. IOW, if I can do it, anyone can. But one group of people who might not ever be able to piece this together are those who’ve already made up their minds and are looking for contradictions to justify their conclusions. Not implying that’s you, either. I don’t know you well enough, and such is not my position to comment on anyways.
I still disagree that Ebon has provided an example of a logical inverse.
cl
says...Mike,
I found something I’m in error about. Regarding the opening statements I criticized, Ebonmuse did say,
My mistake. So I grant that Ebonmuse is correct in that respect. He did state such were his opinions. So apologies to Ebonmuse are in order on this point.
Ebon, I’m sorry for my oversight; but I still think the argument fails.
mike
says...So then what is the difference between “entering the kingdom of heaven” and “being saved”? For your logic to hold, one must be possible without the other.
cl
says...Escaping hell does not directly entail entering heaven unless as a precondition we state that no intermittent or transitory states may exist. I don’t think the Bible goes that far, so it could very well be that one is possible without the other. SÅ?zÅ? refers to the act of escaping damnation. From my understanding, being born again refers to the renewal of the believer’s spirit, and I usually also presume the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In our analogy, salvation is getting the car, Baptism is signing the paperwork and transferring the title. In reality, one can buy a car and sign zero paperwork, right? They’re still driving, but ownership has not been properly transferred.
Presuming I’ve answered your questions satisfactorily, in light of our exchanges, do you think Ebonmuse successfully presented a logical inverse? Or have I adequately responded to his criticisms of contradiction in this particular example?
mike
says...After a very long winter break, I am back in the swing of things…
I think you’ve provided a plausible interpretation that avoids an explicit contradiction. But I also want to mention the following observations:
First, some of the verses are not clear cut as to their strict logical interpretation. This is a problem with all language, and knowing the original Greek would help (but I don’t).
Second, as with some of the other things I’ve seen from you, I get an impression that the Bible gives you just enough rope to hang yourself with. What I mean is that it uses lots of confusing (subtle?) vocabulary. Example: spirit/soul, being-born-again/salvation/eternal-life, father/son/holy-ghost. To avoid contradictions, you have to interpret the different terms in very very specific ways. But it’s not clear to me that this is what was really meant by the text. At least, I’m not aware that these very subtle distinctions are ever spelled out.
It’s a question that is interesting to me from a linguistic perspective. For instance, to learn more about me, you might interview my friends and family and develop some deep convoluted theory about my mysterious bipartite nature, since some people call me “Mike” and others call me “Michael”. But those are just two terms that both refer to me.
I don’t want to take a position that our default starting point should be that all words mean the same thing. But in this case (as well as the soul/spirit discussion), I think this is where the difference of opinion comes in. The verses talk about requirements for roughly the same thing (the goal of “salvation”) using different wording. Your interpretation depends on the fact that these different wordings are related to each other in a certain precise way, but since the concepts are related in such a subtle way, it’s not immediately clear that the writers are not just calling the same person Mike vs Michael.
mike
says...A similar argument concerning subtle vocabulary is that the prophecy of Isaiah was not fulfilled because Mary did not name the baby Immanuel (nor does anyone ever refer to him by that title, or by “God with us”).
mike
says...Just saw this recent post about the Biblical requirement for salvation and thought of you. The post will probably annoy you ;)
cl
says...mike,
Thanks for thinking of me.. :)
You’re right, it is annoying, but that’s not a testimony to its strength. As for the so-called ‘argument’, I stopped at the first verse cited, because the author cited the verse extremely out-of-context to prove their point, and I’ve about zero time for intellectual dishonesty that I suspect stems from bias.
Your statement that the Bible uses confusing language, although I agree at a few disparate places, is entirely subjective. As for the other arguments about the subtleties of words and such, calling the same person Mike and Michael relates nothing to the fact that there are separate words for each of the terms you mention in the original languages, right? You do seem to concede that they are different terms, then:
In what way would you like me to clarify, or attempt to show you that they are? What would be convincing?
James
says...Well, that was a bit of a slog, but it seems to me that the constant preoccupation here with whether or not there is a “true” logical contradiction to miss the point.
Imagine that you are the jailer in Acts 16. You ask Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” The only response that they give you is, “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Of course, you heed your advice.
But when you die and are standing at the gates of heaven you are told that you have not been saved and will not be joining God and Jesus in heaven. You protest, repeating what Paul and Silas told you earlier. The gatekeeper responds: It is true that you need to believe in the Lord Jesus, but Jesus also said that you must be baptized.
I hardly think that you would feel consoled by reassuring yourself that Paul and Silas ‘merely’ made an omission, and it was not the case that (x)=(-x). Too bad the jailer didn’t have the gospels at hand to tease out the full list of requirements that Paul and Silas so thoughtfully decided not to give him. The point is that such an omission is unthinkable – why would the author of Acts omit important requirements for eternal life unless he didn’t agree with them?
James
says...Should have reviewed my prose before posting.
“whether or not there is a “true” logical contradiction to miss the point.”
to miss the point -> misses the point
“Of course, you heed your advice.” should read “Of course, you heed their advice.”
cl
says...James,
Thanks for dropping by and participating. Also, I responded here to the original comment you left, because for some reason it got pulled from Anatheist.net – I’m presuming because I submitted from a different IP address and their sockpuppetry rules are probably too tight? They’re sorta HTML-nazis over there, no? They denied my link and even basic glyphs! Maybe I did something wrong, who knows. At any rate, if you’re interested, there’s a response there for you, underneath your original.
The bit about contradiction here in the post is to show that the original essay in question fails to establish that contradictory criteria exist. And it does.
As far as your hypothetical situation, you provide zero reason why the person in the scenario would be told they would not be saved. Why, IYO, would the person be denied, if the person believed?
James
says...I am not sure why your replies did not initially show up on the post – even though I could see them in the WP admin panel. I re-synced my comments with intense debate and, as you saw by now, they reappeared. So hopefully that should take care of that (I don’t know what their HTML rules are…).
Concerning your question about the hypothetical – I presume that you are asking why the person would be denied entrance to heaven despite believing? I thought I answered that: because Jesus also said baptism was required. Turns out that my example is rather poor, however, as the person in Acts 16 actually does get baptized along with his entire family upon returning home. It just doesn’t say that this was a requirement.
Nevertheless, you could substitute baptism with something else that Jesus said, like keeping the commandments. The point of my hypothetical is that, if someone asked you what he needs to do to gain salvation, you are not going to omit any requirements in your answer.
cl
says...James,
Actually you did mention baptism so that’s my oversight and mistake. But yes, my response likely would have been that such was a bad example precisely because of what you noted. As for,
Well, no, not in the verse in question from Acts, but such is certainly delineated elsewhere in scripture, correct? And that baptism ensued is certainly reasonable grounds that the jailer was informed about its necessity, correct?
I’ll disagree. This amounts to salvation by works, and I don’t think an appeal to the parable of the rich man in Matthew 19:16-24 justifies this, either. In that case, after telling the man to keep all the commandments, Jesus then told him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” (bold mine) Note Jesus said, treasure in heaven, and not salvation or eternal life, and note that’s where the conversation ended abruptly. The man walked away!
What I get from this verse is that Jesus knew this man would stop searching for the answer when told that he must sell his possessions and give to the poor. Had the man accepted Jesus’ tough words, I suspect Jesus’ next words would have been akin to other words Jesus spoke to people asking the same questions about eternal life. Hence, the purpose of the verse is to illustrate the difficulty the rich face in entering eternal life – not further delineation on the requirements of salvation or eternal life.
Seems logical to me, anyways.
James
says...“Hence, the purpose of the verse is to illustrate the difficulty the rich face in entering eternal life – not further delineation on the requirements of salvation or eternal life. Seems logical to me, anyways.”
It would, except Jesus states quite plainly: “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
Hard to be any more straightforward than that…
cl
says...James,
Does Jesus stop there? Or are other things said to the rich man afterwards? When I read the whole passage, I see an unfinished conversation. The rich man walked away as soon as Jesus informed him of what he would have to do. Jesus implied that there was plenty more to learn by telling the man, “Follow me”, but the man walked away.
I don’t see this unfinished conversation as a conclusive delineation on sozo. Do you? If so, why?
And do you disagree with anything else in the post?