Appreciate the feedback. I wanted to make sure.



The verses directly following the ones TitL quote also have some bearing on the discussion, as they talk about 'false disciples':

Or, being a direct continuation about false prophets, and making sure that it speaks about how they prophesied in his name, but are evildoers, and will not be saved.

Um, no.  The second verse refers specifically to actions and works, not faith and belief.  Your argument is refuted.

Actually, I think it's about two different groups (false followers vs. false prophets), though that's not overly important to the heart of the matter. Notice that you described them as evildoers.  Evildoers.  Ones who do evil. That's describing actions.  It's about their works.  You didn't say "evilbelievers."

By the faith-alone doctrine, doing evil doesn't keep you out of heaven.  In fact, according to it, everyone is an evildoer.  Those who are really-really evil are equally deserving of hell as the most saintly person to have ever lived.  This verse seems to have Jesus saying that being an evildoer, ie taking lots of evil actions, can keep you of heaven, even if you believe in Jesus, and think you're doing it for him.  He seems to be coming down pretty firmly on the side of works in this verse.

I think I can understand TitL's point about being Christian vs. being saved. From my understanding, God is pretty forgiving about people who have the wrong information. However, definitions really aren't. So someone could have faith in an understanding of Jesus which is far too loose to make that person a Christian (for instance, perhaps he believes Jesus is actually a sasquatch). If this is as much Jesus as he was taught, or is capable of handling, Jesus will roll with that.

In the specific case of Phelps, I would argue that he does meet the strict definition of a Christian. He's just not a very good one. (But to be fair, Satan could be defined as a Christian as well, since he believes in Jesus Christ as the savior of humanity. Again, that doesn't speak poorly on the average Christian though.)

And then we have the outside perspective.

Since I don't believe in salvation or christianity, the distinction between an evildoer and an evil believer is meaningless.  I don't have to take the bible literally, or even accept any of Jesus's teachings at all.

From that perspective, I'm free to interpret that verse as a metaphor.  even if it literally says one thing, the thrust is slightly different, and so I can accept the gist of the teaching without needing to analyze it.

I would agree with you. If you're someone who doesn't believe the concept of Jesus being able to read your actual intentions and soul, the faith aspect of the discussion becomes irrelevant.

Someone posted this on facebook, but I thought it might be worth reposting here:


This message was last edited by the player at 05:14, Fri 24 Aug 2012.

John 6:28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
John 6:29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this; to believe in the one he has sent."

Another example where we see even Jesus saying you must believe in the one God sent, (Which is Jesus) That is the only works required for salvation, faith.

We see examples of this in the bible. Such as the thief crucified beside Jesus.
Luke 23:42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. 43 Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

No works, but faith. The bible does mention about how people want works to determine their salvation. That they want to be judged by the law, that literally they want to earn their way to heaven. But no one is good enough.

Romans 3:19,20 19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 24-28  24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

The law shows why you need Jesus. It is not there so that you can work harder for salvation. The jews, the people who believe works are needed, and do not believe in Jesus Christ, and many people of the world feel works are needed. But that is not where God's plan ends. It's only there to show people where they have done wrong.

Why else would works be important for? Does anyone feel that God will love you more if you work harder? Does God want you to work harder to meet him closer to heaven? Like meeting him half way so that Jesus didn't have to take up all of your sins?

Okay, can you be more specific?  Which of those three things do you think Phelps doesn't believe?  That Jesus is the Son of God?  That Jesus died for his sins?  That he (Phelps) is a sinner?  I think he believes all of those (and other kooky stuff), but you disagree.  Can you tell me which one he doesn't believe, in your opinion?




But "following" is works, right?  And works don't get you salvation, you're saying.  So it doesn't matter how good he is at following Jesus, as long as he has FAITH in Jesus.  And he uses the same bible you do (or close enough, we can quibble about which translation is the one Jesus wants you to use if you like, but that seems like another thread), so even if he's got kooky ideas about Jesus, it's still the same Jesus you believe in.



You're all over the place here.  I'm not saying Phelps is saved because he believes he's a christian.  I'm saying that according to the faith-alone doctrine, Phelps is saved because he believes Jesus is the son of God, and died for his sins.

I DO think that his beliefs are what make him a christian, but that's sort of tangential, and I see no need for us to debate it here.  What we're focussing on is salvation through faith.  Phelps has faith.  Not "faith that he's a christian" but faith that Jesus is the son of God and died for his sins.  According to the faith-alone doctrine, that's the faith that gets you salvation, so Phelps will be saved.



But believing incorrect stuff about Jesus doesn't matter to salvation, right?  The ONLY thing that matters is whether you accept that he is the son of God and that he died for your sins.  Everything else is details, as far as salvation is concerned.  You can believe that Jesus had purple hair and four arms if you want, as long as you accept that he's the son of God and died for your sins.  Phelps has that.  He has a lot of other stuff that I'm sure Jesus wouldn't approve of, but so does every christian. That's sort of part of the whole faith-alone doctrine--we're all EQUALLY horrible in God's eyes, and we all EQUALLY deserve an enternity in hell for being so sinful.  There's no degrees in it.  As far as God's concerned (according the faith-alone doctrine), mother Teresa is no better than Hitler in terms of their works.  They both deserve the absolute worst punishment in the universe.  But if either of them believe Jesus was the son of God, and died for their sins, then they get into heaven.  Doesn't matter how many poor people you helped, or how many jews you killed in the gas chambers, it's what you believe that matters.  Phelps is a nutter, but he ticks the only box that matters under the faith-alone doctrine--he believes that Jesus is the son of God and died for his sins.  Anything he does or says beyond that has no bearing on his salvation.


Maybe so, but that's the faith-alone doctrine.  The whole point of the faith alone doctrine is that no matter how bad a christian you are, no matter how miserable you are doing what Jesus says, no matter if you fail every single time, no matter if you lie, cheat, steal, yada yada yada, if at the end of the day you believe that Jesus is the son of God, and that he died for you Sins, you get saved.  Remember the guy who got crucified next to Jesus.  He didn't live a good life.  He didn't "follow Jesus" at all.  He just accepted Jesus' forgiveness just before he died.  That's the faith alone doctrine.  It's not "good people get into heaven," it's "there are no good people. ONLY bad people get into heaven, because we're all EQUALLY BAD.  Being good is nice, but it has nothing to do with getting into heaven."



Look at what you said, then look at what I said.  They're not the same.  You're talking about whether Phelps believes he is a christian.  I'm talking about whether he believes in Jesus.  You're saying "he's a christian, so he gets saved" I'm saying "he believes Jesus is the son of God, and accepts that Jesus died for his Sins."  You're trying to make it sounds like I'm saying "anyone to says they're a christian gets saved, no matter what they believe."  I'm trying to make it as simple as possible, and you keep trying to change my words away from that.  It's very easy:  the faith-alone doctrine says all that gets you into heaven is faith.  Phelps has faith.  Therefore, he gets saved.  It's that simple.  You're saying no, he's not saved, because look at how he doesn't follow Jesus!  Look at all the bad things he does and says!  But those are WORKS, not faith.  The "he can't get into heaven, he's a bad person!" argument is the WORKS-based position, not the FAITH based position that you're holding.  You're trying to have it both ways.  The downside to the faith-alone doctrine is that people you think really don't deserve to get into heaven can still get in.  Really unpleasant people, who do really unpleasant things (rape, murder, theft, you name it) still get into heaven, and to add insult to injury, God views us as no better than any of them.  That's what you get with the faith-alone doctrine.  If you're not comfortable with that, then you don't really hold to the faith-alone doctrine, or at least haven't thought through the implications fully.


But HE is going to make people go to hell if they don't toe the line, right?  If they don't believe the right thing, He'll send them to this place, so bad, that it's worse than anything we can imagine.  That's not "letting you be you," it's "inflicting mindblowing torture for eternity on you for being you."  It's like pointing a gun at your wife, and saying "hey, just to let you know, I'm going to shoot her if you don't do what I want right now.  I'm not forcing you, it's your choice and all, but I've got this gun, and I fully intend to use it.  I'm not trying to take away your free will, but do what I say or else, got it?"  He's not being 'nice' by giving us a way out, he's being sadistic by considering Hell an option for us in the first place.



No, he shouldn't punishment with something worse that torture for being me.  Good people don't try to get their way by threatening people with torture for not acting as you want them to.


Yes.  And capturing him, and inflicting the most horrific torture I could come up with would not be "letting him make that choice."  It'd be just the opposite.  It'd be trying to force him to make the choice I wanted him to make but threatening him with horrible, sadistic punishment if he didn't do what I told him to.


Actually, you haven't shown any evidence of this.  You've asserted it, but you've given no evidence or reason of why it should be the case.  I disagree with it.  Punching a child in the face is worse than punching a boxer in the face, even though the boxer is 'greater' in someways.  Nothing we do can harm God in anyway.  We can't hurt Him.  We can't even change Him at all.  And we can't learn from the punishment, so there's no benefit from sending people to hell.  It's pure sadism.  It serves no purpose, other than possibly revenge.  Again, it's not what a good being would do.



Sounds like your only concern is about being more right than Phelps, and not about whether its possible that you're wrong about anything.  You and I can agree that Phelps' interpretation of the bible is kooky.  That's not really the point.  God doesn't kick you out of heaven for that (according to the faith alone doctrine).  You're also convince every interpretation you've ever made of the bible is correct, but again, that's not important.  I think you've probably made some errors (you're just a human, and there's lots of stuff in the bible, afterall), but according the faith alone doctrine, that's not going to keep you out of heaven.  I think your errors are, under the faith alone doctrine, no worse nor no better than Phelps.  By the faith alone doctrine, you both get a passing grade, and nothing else.  In God's view you're both absolutely horrible sinners, the worst of the worst, and deserve to be tortured for eternity...but since you both believe in Jesus, you both get into heaven.  Tycho thinks TitL is way less crazy than Phelps, but Tycho's opinion doesn't carry any weight in heaven.  Neither does TitL's, or Phelps'.  It's a one-question test, and you both pass.  None of the other differences between you matter one iota to the faith alone doctrine.

Moving this away from the OOC thread per mod request.

Compared to his previous posts in this thread and elsewhere, does everyone else see the contradiction here?

Yes, Lard and Lord sound similar.  I know I made a joke about seaponies in the example code I gave you but let's try to follow Tycho's advice and cut back on the subtle jabs at one another.

And yes, I see the contradiction, but it's less of a contradiction using TITL's definition of Good.

In which case it's less of a contradiction and more of a bait and switch. The argument is much like the Race Realist's way of making their statement that "Whites are superior to Asians and Blacks" sound superficially more appealing by saying "On Average Asians have higher intelligence than Whites, but Whites have more Geniuses".

I think "Half-Truth" or "contextual Lie" might be the term I'm looking for.

Of course, Titl's definition of "good" doesn't stand up under biblical scrutiny either.  The same passage from Romans he likes to cite includes the phrase: "All have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of god."  This doesn't mean no human is good, but rather that all humans have committed sin.  Since the bible is full of good people (who, by this verse, are also sinners), it's safe to conclude that his definition also is not biblically supported.

Are they called good, or righteous?  One might make the same distinction between the two as between sinner and not good.

Meh, yes and no.  I see what you're saying, but I also see what he's saying.  On one level it's technically a contradiction, but his intended meaning is that no one is good, so the only way to get to heaven is faith, which is consistent with what he's said.  So yes, saying "the ONLY way to get to heaven is faith," and then saying "there are two ways to get to heaven, be good, or have faith," is a contradiction.  But since he's saying "oh, and no one is good, so you have to have faith to get to heaven" sort of deals with the contradiction.  It'd have been more honest to just say "you can't get to heaven by being good because no one can be good," I guess, but what he means is fairly clear.

I'd also say the "no one is good enough to get into heaven" is pretty consistent with the common interpretations of the bible.  Yes, "good enough" means "perfect" in this case, but again that's not a contradiction so much, as just a standard so strict as to be not a standard at all.

Basically all of this disagreement could have been avoided if instead of "good people can get into heaven" TitL had just said "no one is good enough to get into heaven," I think.  It seems a bit of a red herring to me, to chase after a technical contradiction, rather that focusing on the implications of his position.  I find Dolous' comments about what it tells us about God that He would create a system where He knew people would be tortured for eternity much more interesting than any debate about whether or not TitL said two things that contradict.  I mean, even if you convince TitL that his statements are contradictory, all that will come of it is him saying "oh, okay, then no, good people don't go to heaven without faith," or "oh, okay, technically it's not faith alone, it's just faith alone for anyone who's not perfect."  And you'll have argued back and forth for five pages without changing anyone's views about anything of real substance.

Neither.  It's sinners, according the the verse cited.  Now, you can easily be a sinner and good, which is what the problem is.

No I mean the good people you're referring to in the Bible, does the Bible call them good or Rightous; the only one I can think of wasn't referred to as Good, at least not that I can remember.  Lot was a Rightous Man, etc.

The Good Samaritan comes immediately to mind.  Definitely "good" and not "righteous", even though he's a parable.

TitL, could you please define "good" for me? What is a "good person".

Good is defined by God. A good person is one who is without sin.

So there have been, what, two good people in all of creation?

I prefer to say that actions are good or evil (or neutral), and that people are neither good nor evil. A good action is one which is based in love of God or love of humanity, and an evil action is based in harm. (A neutral action is one which does neither, like choosing what color to paint your house.) We tend to rank some actions as 'more good' or 'more evil' than others, while also recognizing that one action can include both good and evil, and also that one can perform good or evil acts without intending to.

Judging a person as good or evil based on their past actions is what I believe the biblical injunction against judging is referring to. Only God knows the entirety of a person's actions and intentions and whether their evil acts have been forgiven.

Another backpedal.  Do you actually have a citation for this?  As I said, I can think of a couple of people off the top of my head who were considered good without being sin-free.

Well, that's one more than what the bible says.

Mark 10:18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.



Yea, but according to God, if you break one law, you are guilty of breaking them all.

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

I get you feel this has gone unanswered, but I think you may have missed some important posts from the original discussion.

Science and I were discussing what makes a person good, and if judged by God's standards, such as using the ten commandments as we were, we all fail at being good.

Also, Doulos pointed out the scenario and how it did not need to be in contradiction, and I pointed out that is exactly the point.

It really made no sense to me to continue the debate after we discussed what is good by God's standards, plus that I explained why there was no contradiction.

The two I am referring to are Jesus and his mother Mary.

So, in the end you're saying there is only one good person (Jesus)?