What must I do to be saved? Research

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1207812#Comment_1207812

MJ.

I disagree with your opinion.

The forum guidelines are not my opinion to disagree with.

[quote]

Please abide by the following guidelines as you interact on our forums.

Please keep your discussions focused on Logos Bible Software: our software, products, websites, company, tools, etc.
Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics. Use one of the many web forums intended for these kinds of discussions.
Please treat each other with the love, courtesy, respect, and kindness that you would if you were sitting in your living room together.
Please do not use our forums to
- sell or give away anything or link to anything you’re selling or giving away—including Logos products
- promote or link to competitors
- promote affiliate links or discounts
- point people to other places that sell Logos-compatible products
- advertise yourself, your business, your ministry, your website, etc. (a tasteful link in your forum signature is acceptable)
- post Logos Coupon Codes. If you are aware of a special promotion Logos is running online, you are welcome to link directly to the promotion.
Please search before posting. It’s likely that someone has already asked your question.
Please help others follow these guidelines. If the problems continue after you’ve given a gentle reminder of these expectations, please click “Report Abuse” under “More” or send an email to forums@logos.com. If a user is a repeat offender, we may temporarily suspend their account. If the offenses continue, we reserve the right to permanently ban the offender's account from the forums either by shadow banning it or blocking it entirely.

Thank you for your cooperation. Enjoy discussing and learning about Logos Bible Software.

By engaging in theological discussion rather than simply answering DAL's question, you are threatening everyone's freedom to ask theological questions in a neutral manner. I welcome your presence to represent gnostic views although I personally would lean more towards perennial philosophy. Please respect the guidelines so as to become a valued member of the community rather than a suspected troll.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1207111#Comment_1207111

I wonder if there’s a resource or if Logos could make a guide that answers this question from each tradition’s perspective?

An idea is searching Logos.com for views salvation => https://www.logos.com/search?query=views%20salvation&sortBy=Relevance&limit=60&page=1&ownership=all&geographicAvailability=availableToMe finds a variety of resources that could be used in a guide.

Keep Smiling [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1207855#Comment_1207855

To D L......

The Immoral calling the Moral Immoral? From what righteous pinnacle do you stand to do such a thing? Yet this is what you seem to do... Your only purpose seems to be to call out so called "Christians" because they think differently than you do... and you do this by implying a "better than thou" attitude?

I see in you, a closed mind. One that is not open to learning... one that has determined you know better than others and therefore have the right to be belligerent, offensive and otherwise rude...

I wonder.... if there hope for one that is not willing to open their eyes to truth?

Can a man with a closed mind ... learn?

Can an honest man... actually have a closed mind?

In my pondering mind.... I ponder... [8-|]

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1207855#Comment_1207855

I wonder if there’s a resource or if Logos could make a guide that answers this question from each tradition’s perspective?

An idea is searching Logos.com for views salvation => https://www.logos.com/search?query=views%20salvation&sortBy=Relevance&limit=60&page=1&ownership=all&geographicAvailability=availableToMe finds a variety of resources that could be used in a guide.

Keep Smiling

Thanks, KS4J! I’ve found some more answers by prominent authors like Carson, Chandler, Platt and Johnny Mac to add to my research. Hopefully these and some google searches will round it up!

DAL

Rodney Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1207196#Comment_1207196

As simple as John 3:16

danwdoo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1207884#Comment_1207884

Hey all. Trolls feed on attention and controversy. Stop feeding trolls and they eventually lose interest and move on. No one ever convinced anyone of anything meaningful in such a forum discussion so no reason to keep engaging. This thread has outlived its original purpose so it's best to hit that stop emailing feature and let it lie. This is certainly my last post in this thread.

skypeace

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1207897#Comment_1207897

Quite the inspiring and meditative thread up to a point. Truly challenging and enjoyable, again to a point, thank you to all that contributed.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1207917#Comment_1207917

Quite the inspiring and meditative thread up to a point. Truly challenging and enjoyable, again to a point, thank you to all that contributed.

Ditto!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1207884#Comment_1207884

As simple as John 3:16

Favoring the simple may indicate a tendency to approve what is simple-minded. Jn. 3:36 NASB (only 20 verses later) shows that there is a Scriptural equivalency between "believe" and "obey".

From DBLG:
577 ἀπείθεια (apeitheia), ας (as), ἡ (hē): n.fem.; ≡ Str 543; TDNT 6.11—1. LN 36.23 disobedience (Ro 11:30, 32; Eph 5:6; Col 3:6; Heb 4:6, 11+); 2. LN 31.107 rejection of belief, refuse to believe (Eph 2:2+), for another interp, see prior
578 ἀπειθέω (apeitheō): vb.; ≡ Str 544; TDNT 6.10—1. LN 36.23 disobey, be disobedient (Ro 10:21; 11:30, 31; Heb 3:18; 11:31; 1Pe 2:8; 3:20; 4:17+); 2. LN 31.107 reject belief, refuse to believe (Jn 3:36; Ac 14:2; 19:9; Ro 2:8; 15:31; 1Pe 3:1+), note: there may be overlap of verses and entries
579 ἀπειθής (apeithēs), ές (es): adj.; ≡ Str 545; TDNT 6.10—LN 36.24 disobedient (Lk 1:17; Ac 26:19; Ro 1:30; 2Ti 3:2; Tit 1:16; 3:3+)

Fwiw, in the NASB, every underlined verse entry that is listed above under "reject belief, refuse to believe" (save Acts 14:2 which has "disobeyed" in the margin) is actually translated by a form of "disobey".

To answer the thread question: Do what YHWH says. It's that "simple"...and that involved.

One way of expressing that is "keep Tohraah". Another is keep "every word that proceeds from the mouth of 'Elohhiym."

Rodney Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1207978#Comment_1207978

The Gospel at its core is VERY simple.. Works will not get you into Heaven.. The Bible is very clear on this.. And there has only been one person that ever kept the Tora and the Laws without breaking them. And that was Jesus.. And as the OT teaches, if you have broken even just one of the laws, you have broken all of them..

John Brumett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208016#Comment_1208016

The answer by Paul in Acts 16:31 Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved (NKJV). Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins. He was our substitute. I Corinthians 15:3-4 He paid the price for our sin. He offers eternal life the moment you believe. John 3:16. Salvation is a free gift received by faith alone in Christ alone. Ephesians 2:8-9. We must look to Christ for salvation. My assurance of salvation comes not by looking at myself or my works but by looking to Christ and his finished work. John 19:30. I can have assurance the moment I believe the Gospel. In heaven they won't be singing my praises but Worthy is the Lamb that was slain. Revelation 5:12.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208016#Comment_1208016

The Gospel at its core is VERY simple.. Works will not get you into Heaven.. The Bible is very clear on this.. And there has only been one person that ever kept the Tora and the Laws without breaking them. And that was Jesus.. And as the OT teaches, if you have broken even just one of the laws, you have broken all of them..

And yet in Mark 10.17-31, when asked by a man what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus says follow the commandments (Mark 10.19); he says nothing about faith or belief or the impossibility of commandment-keeping. When his questioner claims to have obeyed the commandments from his youth (Mark 10.20), Jesus still says nothing about faith or belief or the impossibility of commandment-keeping, but instead tells him the one thing he hasn't done is to sell all of his possessions, give the proceeds to the poor, and follow him (Mark 10.21). In neither his interaction with the man nor the conversation with his disciples that follows does Jesus reference faith, belief, or the impossibility of commandment-keeping. I think it's a subject well worth exploring via our Logos resources (and beyond) why Jesus responded to the man's question the way he did, and how his responses in the Mark 10 scene merge with and/or detour from other New Testament declarations about the path to eternal life.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208119#Comment_1208119

And yet in Mark 10.17-31, when asked by a man what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus says follow the commandments (Mark 10.19); he says nothing about faith or belief or the impossibility of commandment-keeping. When his questioner claims to have obeyed the commandments from his youth (Mark 10.20), Jesus still says nothing about faith or belief or the impossibility of commandment-keeping, but instead tells him the one thing he hasn't done is to sell all of his possessions, give the proceeds to the poor, and follow him (Mark 10.21). In neither his interaction with the man nor the conversation with his disciples that follows does Jesus reference faith, belief, or the impossibility of commandment-keeping. I think it's a subject well worth exploring via our Logos resources (and beyond) why Jesus responded to the man's question the way he did, and how his responses in the Mark 10 scene merge with and/or detour from other New Testament declarations about the path to eternal life.

But did Jesus reference belief and keeping commandments and repentance in other places?

Which brings up a good question about this question of "What must I do to be saved?"... is the answer only recorded in the teaching of Jesus ... only in one place or is there more than one place I have to go to to find the true answer?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208119#Comment_1208119

And yet in Mark 10.17-31, when asked by a man what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus says follow the commandments (Mark 10.19); he says nothing about faith or belief or the impossibility of commandment-keeping. When his questioner claims to have obeyed the commandments from his youth (Mark 10.20), Jesus still says nothing about faith or belief or the impossibility of commandment-keeping, but instead tells him the one thing he hasn't done is to sell all of his possessions, give the proceeds to the poor, and follow him (Mark 10.21)..

Within DAL's research question, Jesus also doesn't spell out saved 'from what'. The 'what' also varied considerably, with Origen later suggesting no worries, Whatever the 'what' was, the crowds didn't seem to be mystified.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208121#Comment_1208121

... only in one place or is there more than one place I have to go to to find the true answer?

You're absolutely correct ... Judgment Day uses a histogram of 'times mentioned'. Some will not make it, if they don't count correctly.

1Cor10 31

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208125#Comment_1208125

Studying one doctrine at a time in isolation (in this case: what is needed to be saved?) is sure to be doomed to failure. Let me use an analogy to explain. If you take a loan to buy a house, there are many features in the contract to consider: interest rate, length of the loan (15 years or 30 years), down payment needed (3% of 5% or 20% of the value of the property),….Each bank chooses the various design features optimally. They didn’t choose each feature separately.

As a borrower, when I wanted to buy a house, I got quotes from several banks. I didn’t compare just the interest rate alone or the length of the loan or the down payment needed alone to decide which bank to choose. While bank A may be cheaper in terms of interest rate, bank B might be better in terms of down payment, but bank C might be best once I take all feature of the contract into account.

Just like the bank, God didn’t choose each of the doctrines we believe in, in isolation. Collectively, the entire set of doctrines were chosen by God so as to achieve His goal. What is this goal? Reveal His glory. I’ve read probably 40 systematic theology books on God’s wisdom. They all pretty much say the same: God’s wisdom is to choose this goal (reveal His glory) and the means to achieve His goal. And I agree wholeheartedly with that assessment. Additionally, in my mind, the means by which God achieves His goal are the doctrines He has chosen to articulate through the Bible.

Thus, if we try to study one doctrine at a time without understanding how each doctrine contributes to God achieving His goal, we will be making wrong inferences. The last few years I have spent digging into the Scriptures has been trying to piece this puzzle together. I know I’ll never complete the puzzle and I know no human will ever complete the puzzle because we do not have God’s infinite wisdom. But the goal is to try and put as many puzzle pieces together as possible. Right now, I just see so many contradictions in people’s beliefs and my own beliefs, and that just bothers me.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208121#Comment_1208121

But did Jesus reference belief and keeping commandments and repentance in other places?

Yes. But the Mark 10 scene is Jesus' first and perhaps only opportunity to tell that specific person about the requirements for eternal life or to identify for his disciples the lessons from the man's apparent rejection of Jesus' direction. What was it about the moment and/or the man with whom he shared it that led Jesus to conclude he didn't need to mention faith, belief, the impossibility of commandment-keeping, or repentance in his response to the man's question about the path to eternal life?

Which brings up a good question about this question of "What must I do to be saved?"... is the answer only recorded in the teaching of Jesus ... only in one place or is there more than one place I have to go to to find the true answer?

As far as we know, the Mark 10 scene (and synoptic parallels, of course) is the only place that specific person heard Jesus' direct response to the question, "What must I do to be saved?" Did Jesus mean for his answer to the man to be fully sufficient? The way for him to be saved was to follow commandments (or, if the man wanted a comprehensive solution, also to sell possessions, give to the poor, and follow Jesus?) For that scene, it seems to me, the man believed he would hear in a single conversation with Jesus what you call the "true answer" to his question. Did Jesus give him one?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208125#Comment_1208125

Within DAL's research question, Jesus also doesn't spell out saved 'from what'. The 'what' also varied considerably, with Origen later suggesting no worries, Whatever the 'what' was, the crowds didn't seem to be mystified.

I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that "saved" in DAL's research question referred to the subject of the man's question to Jesus in Mark 10.

In the synoptic parallels of the Marcan account -- i.e. Matthew 19.16-30 and Luke 18.18-30 -- the question is what the man must do to "inherit eternal life." It seems reasonable to me to conclude that in Mark 10, the man wants to know what he must do to be "saved" into eternal life.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208130#Comment_1208130

I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that "saved" in DAL's research question referred to the subject of the man's question to Jesus in Mark 10.

I

Not arguing; your points have been quite cogent and refreshing. But the 'then' to the 'if' clause appears to have shifted across time and author. Of course, the crowds didn't have the 27 book concatination, later to assist xnman in properly calculating the truth.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208016#Comment_1208016

And as the OT teaches, if you have broken even just one of the laws, you have broken all of them..

Would love for you to quote that particular scripture. Actually, in numerous places Tanakh: says plainly that all that is necessary to resume a right relationship with YHWH if one sins is to repent, offer the appropriate sacrifice, and resume the proper path of obedience. Throughout the Bible (Paulus excepted, except for the exceptions to those exceptions), there is an explicit recognition that humans, even those favorably disposed toward 'Elohhiym, are susceptible to failure. Nevertheless, He readily offers compassion, forgiveness, and mercy in reply to our responsive efforts to deliberately limit and confine those periods of infraction and "target-missing", as long as we actively return to a pattern and habit of aiming for and hitting the targets He has set for us. This responsive behavior is what YHWH wants, expects, and is soothed by. He knows we are but flesh because He's the one who made us that way. He doesn't hold us to an impossible standard, especially since He is the responsible party for our having fleshly minds. He simply asks that we deny the fabric of our being and do His will instead of our own. He knows that is difficult and He appreciates the struggle as long as our developed pattern of behavior is obedience and occasional necessary repentance.

Phrased differently, there isn't a single place in Tanakh: that says a single sin dooms a person to certain destruction and expulsion from His kingdom. That concept is not just foreign to the Scripture Yeishuua` knew, it is contrary to it.

Rodney Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208149#Comment_1208149

Sorry.. NT. James 2:10

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208150#Comment_1208150

Watch out ... something like a shift from a neutral statement of position to a calm discussion of theology has occurred. For an analogy, I would think thin ice, very thin ice on a warm day ... what must one do to be saved? Hope the big freeze happens very soon or get off the ice.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208150#Comment_1208150

Sorry.. NT. James 2:10

I suggest 3 things to help keep things in context...

1. Who is talking...

2. To whom are they talking...

3. What is the context of the conversation...

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208150#Comment_1208150

Sorry.. NT. James 2:10

Generally misunderstood, that verse isn't saying that if a person breaks a single commandment he or she is considered guilty of breaking every commandment. Jacob is saying you can't say I'm only 10% guilty (and 90% righteous) if you break a commandment; rather, you are 100% guilty of having "broken the Law". Also, although he uses the examples of muder and adultery in verse 11, contextually he is speaking about "showing partiality" (as in willfully ignoring and disregarding sins of a favored politician while harping on every sin, real or imagined, of a disfavor politician), a sin which is by its nature a sin of habitual practice, for a person must harbor and nurture partiality for it to exist. Absolutely ANY sin can become an unpardonable sin if it is never repented of, which is why partiality is the equivalent of the unpardonable sin, as demonstrated in calling good "evil" and evil "good, sweet "bitter" and bitter "sweet", light "dark" and dark "light". In Jam. 2:9 NASB, the verbs are present, meaning "if you are CURRENTLY showing partiality then you are CURRENTLY committing sin and are thus CURRENTLY standing convicted of law-breaking. Most people who show partiality will never repent of it because they are partial to being partial.

However, not only does Jacob leave room for repentance from being partial, but he advises precisely that in Jam. 2:12 NASB, indicating that those reading his words WILL BE JUDGED by that Law (as opposed to receiving nebulous grace regardless of behavior). In the next verse, Jam. 2:13 NASB, he indicates that the repentant mercy shown (by the now, as of verse 12, former transgressor) to those who are the victims of their previous partiality will result in mercy--that is, forgiveness of sin, rather than the previously earned judgment--being shown to the former practitioner of partiality.

In other words, there is no statement in Jacob that says a single sin results in inevitable judgment leading to destruction. In fact, he throughout supports the plain teaching of Tanakh:, which is that repentance (i.e. change of behavior, per verse 12) elicits YHWH's compassion and forgiveness.

In fact, there is an explicit teaching in Ezek. 18 (and elsewhere) that if a WICKED man ceases practicing his wickedness and begins practicing righteousness, that man will save his life. That whole conversation would be IMPOSSIBLE if there was any truth at all to stories suggesting that a single sin immediately and inevitably comdemns a person to destruction.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208163#Comment_1208163

DP - most people in the thread avoided debate which was a very good thing. Don't ruin it for everyone.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208128#Comment_1208128

The last few years I have spent digging into the Scriptures has been trying to piece this puzzle together. I know I’ll never complete the puzzle and I know no human will ever complete the puzzle because we do not have God’s infinite wisdom. But the goal is to try and put as many puzzle pieces together as possible. Right now, I just see so many contradictions in people’s beliefs and my own beliefs, and that just bothers me.

Understandable, but there is actually a reason things are as you perceive them...a reason prophesied in Scripture. "Puzzle" is the correct analogy and things are as bad as you have recognized, but at least there is an explanation for how and why it is so. Unfortunately, the explanation is unbelievable, per Hab. 1:5. Fortunately, some will eventually capitulate and believe it, though it will entail wholesale conceptual defacement and entire reconstruction for folks to get there. Unfortunately, most won't be able to get past their initial resistance and unwillingness to basically start from scratch. The only track at present is patience until YHWH begins challenging people with the revelations they cannot immediately and in most cases will never accept. The best course of action is to know and be prepared in advance for His challenge to come, because there won't be a single person on the planet who won't openly declare their unwillingness to accept and believe what He reveals about His prophesied redemptive work as the end draws near. That's what the prophecy says. For some reason, people always expect themselves to be an exception to the prophesied rule, and most don't think they will ever be placed in such a predicament. Regardless, all will be...Christian or not. Consider it the bad news about the eventual good news. Nevertheless, eventually, some--His little flock who hear and know His voice--will begin to accept the revelations as all the prophetic evidences in Scripture begin to coalesce. Once that occurs, vast swaths of things currently regarded as "mystery" won't be mysterious any more.

Fwiw, I only bring this up to assuage 1Cor10:31's perplexity and concerns...and because it absolutely impacts this topic.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208179#Comment_1208179

Years ago... I studied "Why does God punish people?" and I came to this conclusion...

I don't think anyone would want to live in world where there is no laws, no restrictions, just all liberty and whatever is right in the persons mind, so be it. That world would be total chaotic and nothing could ever be said to be "right". Mass confusion would be rampant.

I believe God is not like that... He is not the author of confusion.... and as such there are "rules" in God's world. Rules to get into God's world as well as rules to stay in God's world.

What this thread has become....is the discussion of the different "rules" that one must do to get into God's world.

I don't believe... there as single passage, or concurrent group of passages, in the Bible...that states all the rules to get to get into God's world. I do believe the process is simple.... but one must search for it... as it seems God wanted one to do that.

And we can discuss whether one "must do" such and such... but can it be proven that it is a "Must do"? If we can prove that it is a "must do" in the case of salvation.... then the argument is over isn't it? And it really doesn't matter what the "must do" is... does it?

If God said (for example only) "Thou must stand on thy head to be saved"... well.. it may take me while... but I'm a gonna stand on my head... and I don't think I'm alone in this thinking. [8-|]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208209#Comment_1208209

What this thread has become....is the discussion of the different "rules" that one must do to get into God's world.

I don't believe... there as single passage, or concurrent group of passages, in the Bible...that states all the rules to get to get into God's world. I do believe the process is simple.... but one must search for it... as it seems God wanted one to do that.

And we can discuss whether one "must do" such and such... but can it be proven that it is a "Must do"? If we can prove that it is a "must do" in the case of salvation.... then the argument is over isn't it? And it really doesn't matter what the "must do" is... does it?

For the issue I've raised in this thread, I think it DOES matter what the "must do" is because I've asked about the "must do" for the specific person with whom Jesus interacts in Mark 10.17-31 and its synoptic parallel accounts found in Matthew 19 and Luke 18. To avoid additional posted forum guideline reminders, advisories, caution flags, and warning lights, I rephrase my issue these ways: Can anyone recommend a resource which addresses whether Jesus intended his response to the person in those passages to report the fully sufficient path FOR THAT PERSON to "inherit eternal life"? Is there a resource that engages the question, what did Jesus want THAT PERSON to believe he had to do in order to "inherit eternal life"?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208209#Comment_1208209

I believe God is not like that... He is not the author of confusion....

Gen. 11:6-7 ...'Elohhiym IS an Author of confusion. It's been awhile since I looked it up (and I'm on my tablet now so confirming isn't workable), but I'm pretty sure that the majority of times "confusion" (or a derivative) is used in the NASB, YHWH is the agent.

What 1 Cor. 14:33 NASB (note NASB doesn't have the words "author of"...and neither does the Greek) says in the Greek is basically "God is not of disorder but peace." Paul's statement is an observation about YHWH's "resting nature" so to speak, not a declaration about what He can or cannot do when He chooses to exercise His will. It ought to be painfully obvious that YHWH does utilize confusion to further His purposes. It does no good to insist that the chaos of our world is due to the activity of Satan, because hassaattaan is nothing more than a tool that YHWH is manipulating to further His own agenda. All of Satan's activity, even though it is performed intentionally to be contrary to YHWH's will, is nevertheless ultimately flipped by 'Elohhiym to fulfill His own objectives. Perhaps the most explicit example of YHWH authoring confusion found in the Greek scriptures is 2 Thes. 2:11-12 NASB. He authorizes and executively sends a strong delusion (in Greek, "a working of error"). Let's be clear...this crowd who is being deluded by YHWH consists of religiously-minded, Bible engaged individuals, quite like those found in Mt. 7:21, 22, 23. This "working of error" corresponds in part with "the work working" (per the Hebrew) of Hab. 1:5 that you won't believe even if you're told. Perhaps you do accept what was just said...great!! The Unbelievable Work will simply confront you elsewhere in order to extract and manifest your resistance. On the other hand, perhaps you don't believe a word that was said. Congratulations! You've just fulfilled prophecy! [li]

Oh, btw, per the thread topic, Mt. 7:21 that we looked at above is another of dozens upon dozens of verses that declares (this time from Yeishuua`'s own mouth), that to enter the kingdom of heaven one must DO the Father's will. But, perhaps you don't believe that? [See last sentence of previous paragraph.]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208234#Comment_1208234

Can anyone recommend a resource which addresses whether Jesus intended his response to the person in those passages to report the fully sufficient path FOR THAT PERSON to "inherit eternal life"? Is there a resource that engages the question, what did Jesus want THAT PERSON to believe he had to do in order to "inherit eternal life"?

I don't know of one (you're being very specific; most commentaries tippy-toe around him). But the earlier discussion of the thief on the cross gets considerable attention. I thought AYB's Mark discussion was interesting (DP would no doubt disagree) .... my emphasis below:

"Such summaries of the Law were frequent in Jewish contexts (see the NOTE on “second” in 12:31), and an appeal to the Decalogue in response to a question about the attainment of eternal life would have been perfectly predictable; it was a basic principle of the OT and Judaism that the pathway to life was observance of the statutes of the Torah (see, e.g., Deut 30:15–16; Lev 18:5; Pss. Sol. 14:2; m.’Abot 2:7), and these in turn were epitomized by the Decalogue, which was considered to be a summary of the whole Law (see Philo, On the Decalogue 19–20; 154; Special Laws 1.1; Targ. Ps.-J. Exod 24:12). Matthew, then, is only bringing out Mark’s meaning when he has Jesus say, “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments” (Matt 19:17)."

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208254#Comment_1208254

I don't know of one (you're being very specific; most commentaries tippy-toe around him). But the earlier discussion of the thief on the cross gets considerable attention. I thought AYB's Mark discussion was interesting (DP would no doubt disagree) .... my emphasis below:

Thanks for the quotation from AYB's discussion of Mark. I find its comments helpful but not on point for the questions I raised (which, as you correctly noted, are quite specific).

The message that Jesus and, post-resurrection, the apostles intended their audiences to hear from their teachings is a matter of endless exegetical curiosity to me. For example, what conclusions about Jesus did Peter want his Jerusalem audience to take from his presentation in Acts 2 in which he described Jesus as "a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him," one who had been crucified by them but then raised up by God (Acts 2.22-24, NET, 2nd ed.)? And what did Peter want Cornelius and company to take from his calling Jesus "one appointed by God to be the judge of all" (Acts 10.42, NLT)?

Notice please that I'm NOT asking about the message(s) we modern day Jesus followers should take from Peter's words [EDIT: or the message(s) we should take from these texts when viewed in the context of the broader biblical canon]! Perhaps we should take the same message(s) as the one(s) Peter intended for those who first heard his words, perhaps not, but I'm not asking about these stories' modern consequences [EDIT: or their meaning in Scripture writ large]; I'm asking about the message(s) Peter, Jesus, Paul, and others wanted the people to whom they originally spoke to take from their words. Hence, my question, what did Jesus want the man to whom he spoke in Mark 10.17-31 to believe he had to do to be "saved," or to "inherit eternal life"?

I will welcome all other suggested resources that address the issue I raise.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208254#Comment_1208254

the earlier discussion of the thief on the cross gets considerable attention.

Yeah...this.

Seems extremely tenuous to base a supposedly universal teaching regarding what we are required to do to please God on the extreme example of a person who is literally incapabe of doing anything at all. Concluding "he couldn't do anything...so I don't have to do anything" strikes me as the most brazen form of dodge possible. Also, I'm at present only addressing this tableau in isolation, without appealing to the multiple dozens of scriptures that spell out in detail precisely what we are expected to do. As soon as such details are allowed to inform the query, it is far more likely (I'd say certain) that Yeishuua`, given the extraordinary circumstance of the thief, engaged in making an extraordinary judgment based, so to speak, on "what if?" It seems quite like the old widow woman who threw her mites into the treasury. That was EVERYTHING she had, and it was reckoned as more than anyone else had given. If she had more, would she have given more? What do you think? Whatever you or I think, Yeishuua` knew what her heart would motivate her to do if things were different. For the thief, it was the same way. He couldn't do anything actively, but he did repent of his earlier derogatory attitude and acknowledged his need, requesting mercy. That was everything he could do, and Yeishuua` judged it sufficient.

Question: If all the others standing by heard Yeishuua` praise the widow's two mites...would it be adequate for them to then give only three? If your answer is "of course not...they were capable of giving so much more!", then you have your answer with regard to the thief's limited response and the response YHWH expects from those of us who are able...precisely because we are not unable...to DO HIS WILL.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208281#Comment_1208281

I am packing my physical books for an eventual move and came across this title. Turns out it is available in Logos, and I own it in Logos and didn't realize it. For those who may be interested.

Apparently I got it as part of this collection, which I picked up when I bought this package.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208281#Comment_1208281

the earlier discussion of the thief on the cross gets considerable attention.

Yeah...this.

Seems extremely tenuous to base a supposedly universal teaching regarding what we are required to do to please God on the extreme example of a person who is literally incapabe of doing anything at all. Concluding "he couldn't do anything...so I don't have to do anything" strikes me as the most brazen form of dodge possible. Also, I'm at present only addressing this tableau in isolation, without appealing to the multiple dozens of scriptures that spell out in detail precisely what we are expected to do. As soon as such details are allowed to inform the query, it is far more likely (I'd say certain) that Yeishuua`, given the extraordinary circumstance of the thief, engaged in making an extraordinary judgment based, so to speak, on "what if?" It seems quite like the old widow woman who threw her mites into the treasury. That was EVERYTHING she had, and it was reckoned as more than anyone else had given. If she had more, would she have given more? What do you think? Whatever you or I think, Yeishuua` knew what her heart would motivate her to do if things were different. For the thief, it was the same way. He couldn't do anything actively, but he did repent of his earlier derogatory attitude and acknowledged his need, requesting mercy. That was everything he could do, and Yeishuua` judged it sufficient.

Question: If all the others standing by heard Yeishuua` praise the widow's two mites...would it be adequate for them to then give only three? If your answer is "of course not...they were capable of giving so much more!", then you have your answer with regard to the thief's limited response and the response YHWH expects from those of us who are able...precisely because we are not unable...to DO HIS WILL.

Is the way ... the thief on the cross was saved.... the way all people are saved today? Or did religious law change when Christ died, was resurrected and ascended to heaven? I think these are questions that are good to talk about in a discussion like this.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208601#Comment_1208601

that are good to talk about in a discussion like this.

In a discussion somewhere other than the FL forums.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208640#Comment_1208640

that are good to talk about in a discussion like this.

In a discussion somewhere other than the FL forums.

Definite maybe on this...

Kiyah

Can you help me answer this question based on your tradition? I’m not interested in who’s right, just on what you would tell me if I visited your church, whatever your tradition is. Examples of traditions I’m interested in:

5. Orthodox

I heard about this website from the Orthodox perspective on an Ancient Faith Radio podcast:

https://www.orthodoxintro.org/what-is-the-gospel/

https://www.orthodoxintro.org/how-do-i-become-a-christian-believing-belonging-and-becoming/

I'm not Orthodox so I can't vouch for it but thought I'd share the link.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208687#Comment_1208687

Were you around in the late 70's to early 90's when Jesus Freaks, Vineyard congregations, etc. were becoming Orthodox en masse? (see O Lord, Establish This Vineyard (journeytoorthodoxy.com) if you are too young to remember) Ancient Faith is run by the Antiochian Orthodox Church which was flexible enough in their requirements to make such whole congregation conversions practical. See Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208687#Comment_1208687

Thanks for the links Kiyah!

I realized other groups besides Churches of Christ are also divided on the issue of baptism. I even read quite a few eye opening comments on Logos Tips and Tricks on Facebook. How the majority of the early church fathers taught baptism was essential to salvation and how it wasn’t until Zwingly started teaching otherwise that many followed along during the early stages of the reformation. There’s another topic to research and keep me busy.

This is proving to be an interesting study. Thanks!

DAL

Kiyah

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208688#Comment_1208688

Were you around in the 70's and 80's when Jesus Freaks, Vineyard congregations, etc. were becoming Orthodox en masse? Ancient Faith is run by the Antiochian Orthodox Church which was flexible enough in their requirements to make such whole congregation conversions practical. See Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America

I wasn't "around" (not born or too young) but I did know that Ancient Faith Radio had its roots in Evangelical converts to Orthodox Christianity. For some reason I thought Ancient Faith Radio was connected to the OCA, maybe that's because I used to listen to the late Fr. Thomas Hopko a lot. I stand corrected.

Kiyah

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208688#Comment_1208688

Ancient Faith is run by the Antiochian Orthodox Church which was flexible enough in their requirements to make such whole congregation conversions practical. See Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America

fyi... the Orthodox Intro website I linked to is run by priests from the Antiochian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and OCA churches so at least they have some representation.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208601#Comment_1208601

Or did religious law change when Christ died, was resurrected and ascended to heaven?

I was examining the greek behind Mat 28:17 (unrelated to DAL's question). But then I noticed v20. I'd suspect that puts a spanner in DAL's spinning analysis.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208734#Comment_1208734

Or did religious law change when Christ died, was resurrected and ascended to heaven?

I was examining the greek behind Mat 28:17 (unrelated to DAL's question). But then I noticed v20. I'd suspect that puts a spanner in DAL's spinning analysis.

I'm a thinking.... I no understand.... could you explain further?

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208689#Comment_1208689

I even read quite a few eye opening comments on Logos Tips and Tricks on Facebook. How the majority of the early church fathers taught baptism was essential to salvation and how it wasn’t until Zwingly started teaching otherwise that many followed along during the early stages of the reformation. There’s another topic to research and keep me busy.

Here are some readings from resources sold by Faithlife that may be helpful for you in your research:

https://ref.ly/logosres/tchngschrchfthr?ref=Page.p+392&off=265

https://ref.ly/logosres/cathency?art=b.02258.9

https://ref.ly/logosres/hpslvtnbngbptsd?art=ch1.2.2

https://ref.ly/logosres/webelievechurch?ref=Page.p+112

https://ref.ly/logosres/thefaithofcatholics?ref=VolumePage.V+2%2c+p+110

https://ref.ly/logosres/fathknowbest?ref=Page.p+268&off=724

https://ref.ly/logosres/sacmundi?ref=VolumePage.V+1%2c+p+139&off=2419

https://ref.ly/logosres/ncyncntchrstnty?ref=VolumePage.V+3%2c+p+596&off=3209

https://ref.ly/logosres/crossingthetiber?ref=Page.p+131

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208759#Comment_1208759

Here are some readings from resources sold by Faithlife that may be helpful for you in your research:

Also, from Chrysostom:

https://ref.ly/logosres/stjhnbptnstrctn?ref=Chrysostom.Bap.+2.22

https://ref.ly/logosres/stjhnbptnstrctn?ref=Chrysostom.Bap.+3.5

https://ref.ly/logosres/stjhnbptnstrctn?ref=Chrysostom.Bap.+9.16

https://ref.ly/logosres/stjhnbptnstrctn?ref=Chrysostom.Bap.+9.21

Greg Dement

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208760#Comment_1208760

Just skimmed the thread. Regarding the rationale that the thief on the cross is an example that negates the possibility of baptism being essential. Whether baptism is essential or not a couple of thoughts:

-is there a difference in baptism as it existed before Christ died and rose from the dead and after the fact?

-in that thought process, if there is a difference, how would the following verse be applied to the thief on the cross being relevant to the discussion of it being essential or not?

“having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭2:12‬

1Cor10 31

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1208773#Comment_1208773

No amount of Bible verses will ever resolve doctrinal differences. Why? Because each denomination is going to interpret the Bible differently. Why? Because the Bible was never meant to be black and white. If it were meant to be black and white, God would dropped a set of PowerPoint slides. Hence, doctrinal differences across denominations will persist.

So where can we start to resolve differences? As G.K. Chesterton says, "All good argument consists in beginning with the indisputable thing and then disputing everything else in the light of it." What is "the indisputable thing"? In my mind, the only common fact that ALL Christians can agree upon are the attributes of God. Having settled on this “indisputable thing”––the attributes of God––then, you have to ask yourself: what attribute(s) of God would require God to ask us to perform a ritual (like baptism) in order to enter into a relationship with Him? In my mind, NOTHING. There is no attribute of God that would suggest He would require a ritual. [So why did God command baptism? I have a neat answer. But this is not the place.]

Then you can take it a step back and ask yourself (philosophically): Why does God even want to have a relationship with human beings? Clearly, it is not because something was lacking in Him. Thus, the reason He wants to have a relationship with us has to do something with us. What is this something? In my mind, it is because He wants to show us how to live because He takes responsibility for creating us. Patiently walk with me as I work through this logically. He chose to endow us with free will and He chose to endow us with what economists term "self-interested" nature (not the same as selfish nature) in order to exercise the free will He has given us. Isn’t it great that He didn’t leave us hanging with free will alone but He also endowed us with self-interested nature to help us make good decisions. Good decision-making requires forecasting the future consequences of our decision, but because we are creations (and not the Creator), we don't have perfect forecasting ability. Thus, human beings will always make some amount of bad decisions. But God cannot endow us with PERFECT forecasting ability (a.k.a. foreknowledge) because that is an attribute that only God possesses. Since we are created in His image, we have forecasting ability (like God), but it is IMPERFECT, by definition. So God is effectively saying, "Come, let me show you how to make good decisions that maximize your Welfare." And that is why He wants to have a relationship with us. He takes it a step further and says how we should live our lives. It is summed up in 1 Corinthians 10:31, which says “whatever you do, do it all to the glory of God.” The word, “whatever” is an all-encompassing word that includes all activities we do in a 24-hour window. There are several ways to glorify God. Each is wired differently by God and placed in different circumstances. So the way I glorify God will be different from the way you glorify God. Maximize glorifying God is the same path as Maximizing our Welfare. Christianity isn’t that complicated, my friends.