Would Heaven really be that great?

tdv123

Strange question but 100% serious.


If heaven actually dose exist dose the thought of spending eternity in a place no matter how great it is not scare the crap out of people?

Most people dont want to live forever as humans, I know I want to die at some stage when I'm good & ready so why would anybody want to spend eternity in a place?

I'm sure it would be great fun & crack the first few years but I think it would get rather repetitive & mind numbingly boring after the first million or so years have passed.

Then a billion years goes by then a trillion & so on, I mean wheres the end to it? What would you do everyday? I think its a pretty scary thought.

I don't want to hear what people think heavens like when & if we do go there. More curious on the time span of the place.

Thanks.

Kazuma

Know exactly what you mean on this, I asked several friends and was shocked by their answers...

To me, the idea of eternal life is complete hell :pac:

PDN

tdv123 wrote: »

Strange question but 100% serious.


If heaven actually dose exist dose the thought of spending eternity in a place no matter how great it is not scare the crap out of people?

Nope. Sounds fine to me.

(Btw, the teaching of the Bible, and historically of the churches, isn't actually that we spend eternity in heaven. We will be resurrected into new bodies and there will be a new heavens and a new earth).

Splendour

tdv123 wrote: »

If heaven actually dose exist dose the thought of spending eternity in a place no matter how great it is not scare the crap out of people?

Not half as much as spending eternity in Hell...

JimiTime

tdv123 wrote: »

Strange question but 100% serious.


If heaven actually dose exist dose the thought of spending eternity in a place no matter how great it is not scare the crap out of people?

Most people dont want to live forever as humans, I know I want to die at some stage when I'm good & ready so why would anybody want to spend eternity in a place?

I'm sure it would be great fun & crack the first few years but I think it would get rather repetitive & mind numbingly boring after the first million or so years have passed.

Then a billion years goes by then a trillion & so on, I mean wheres the end to it? What would you do everyday? I think its a pretty scary thought.

I don't want to hear what people think heavens like when & if we do go there. More curious on the time span of the place.

Thanks.

That would be the faithless position. Faith in God is believing and trusting him. Notice I didn't say believing IN God, but rather just BELIEVING him. Belief IN God is obviously a pre-requisite for faith i.e. believing and trusting him.

Anyway, I believe the being who created us knows how to keep us busy and joyful. Can I tell you what we'll be doing? No. I can tell you what we wont be though, and thats bored and unhappy.

Soul Winner

tdv123 wrote: »

Strange question but 100% serious.


If heaven actually dose exist dose the thought of spending eternity in a place no matter how great it is not scare the crap out of people?

Most people dont want to live forever as humans, I know I want to die at some stage when I'm good & ready so why would anybody want to spend eternity in a place?

I'm sure it would be great fun & crack the first few years but I think it would get rather repetitive & mind numbingly boring after the first million or so years have passed.

Then a billion years goes by then a trillion & so on, I mean wheres the end to it? What would you do everyday? I think its a pretty scary thought.

I don't want to hear what people think heavens like when & if we do go there. More curious on the time span of the place.

Thanks.

The mistake people make when thinking about eternity is that it is a really long time, but its nothing like that at all. Eternity truly defined is a timeless existence, in other words you are always in the now. Think about it for a second, it is always now, it is never yesterday or tomorrow, we are always living in a day that is called today. That's why the scripture exhorts us to grab a promise of God while it is called today.


"Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it." Hebrew 4:1

"But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end; While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation." Hebrews 3:13-15

Einstein discovered that time is relative but with God there is no time even though He can enter into what we perceive to be time and make His Word come to pass.

But getting back to heaven. What if you fell asleep tonight and God gave you a vision of what heaven was actually like and lets say it was somehting like this.

You were given a totally new existence i.e. you were not made of the stuff that you are made of now. You did not need air, food, or water and were not constrained by any force in the universe including gravity. You did not age or decay. You did not know any pain or suffering. You had total understanding of the workings of all reality. You had clarity of mind and no confusion beset you. You could be anywhere in the universe simply by willing it in your new mind. You had the ability to speak and create something from nothing as long as it did not contravene God's will. You were free to descend into any realm in the universe in any form you liked. You could visit loved ones and tell them what heaven is really like and that death is not the last word on the matter, that there is life always in the now what we call eternal life. Or you could got to another galaxy and look at the biggest stars there and take in their awesomeness and size. But for me the the best part about heaven is that Paul, Moses, Elijah and all the great Prophets of the Old Testament and the Apostles of the New and all the faithful ones throughout history including family loved one who had passed on before are all in awe at the wondrous majesty and power of God the Father and the Glory of His majesty Jesus our LORD and Saviour and friend.

Anyway that is still an idea from my mortal mind of what heaven could possibly be like and for me that would be pretty cool to say the least, but the scripture does state that "No eye has seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man the things which God had prepared for those who love Him." So as cool as what I perceive heaven to be it obviously cannot hold a candle to what it is actually like, and to me anyone who would not want to have that is simply not seeing the full picture.

Piano man

I think if you're considering heaven, if you replace our concept of 'time' with 'love' that would give a framework.
If God has been looking after humans and loving us for the eternity He's been in heaven, why do you think that we'll be bored with heaven?

God bless:)

strobe

PDN wrote: »

(Btw, the teaching of the Bible, and historically of the churches, isn't actually that we spend eternity in heaven. We will be resurrected into new bodies and there will be a new heavens and a new earth).

Is that only supposed to happen the once PDN or is it a recurring thing. You die and go to the new Earth, then after you die there, another Earth etc?

PDN

strobe wrote: »

Is that only supposed to happen the once PDN or is it a recurring thing. You die and go to the new Earth, then after you die there, another Earth etc?

"And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27)

One death, then a resurrection body that is immortal and incorruptible.

vodafoneproblem

Eternal happiness? How could you get bored of that? By definition, if you're happy you're not bored. I don't think you can consider the idea of eternal happiness by reference to any temporary Earthly experience. On the other hand, the concept of eternal unhappiness is pretty miserable, because, by definition, you're eternally unhappy. I know it can be trendy for atheists and the like to say they want to go to hell because it'll have the best parties but they don't really understand the concept of what hell is. I know which one I'd prefer out of eternal happiness and eternal unhappiness.

strobe

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

Eternal happiness? How could you get bored of that? By definition, if you're happy you're not bored. I don't think you can consider the idea of eternal happiness by reference to any temporary Earthly experience. On the other hand, the concept of eternal unhappiness is pretty miserable, because, by definition, you're eternally unhappy. I know it can be trendy for atheists and the like to say they want to go to hell because it'll have the best parties but they don't really understand the concept of what hell is. I know which one I'd prefer out of eternal happiness and eternal unhappiness.

Dos it actuall mention eternal happiness anywhere? I'm sure it does, but could you post the quote?

I found this:

"They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. 17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes" (Revelation 7:16, 17)."

But that reads more as a kind of numb lack of feeling, like a hgh dose of morphine or heroin, than happiness.

vodafoneproblem

Some reading for you, strobe.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm#1024

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatific_vision

Fanny Cradock

strobe wrote: »

Is that only supposed to happen the once PDN or is it a recurring thing. You die and go to the new Earth, then after you die there, another Earth etc?

A one time event. You seem to be straying into some type of cyclical birth and death of the universe.

As for what happens to the individual, Paul deals with the resurrection body in the theologically dense passage of 1 Cor 15:35-58. It needs a fair bit of unpacking, but clues to this body can be found in the Gospel description of the resurrection body of Jesus.

I think that it is important to point out that the notion of a disembodied spirit floating on a cloud is not what the bible teaches. Such a notion has a lot more to do with Platonic beliefs that have unduly influenced areas of Christian thought. What we see in the bible is the acknowledgement that creation was deemed to be good by God (Genesis 1), and an essential property of this creation is physicality. So while other contemporary religious belief systems sought to escape the corruptible and decaying flesh for some spiritual existence, Christianity (and Judaism) actually celebrated physical existence as a part of God's good creation. Moreover, they looked forward to a final resurrection of all people.

The whole point of God's long and complicated interaction with Israel and the rest of humanity is that it lead up to the cross and the resurrection - the point where God's plans for creation were put back on track.

Tom Wright says it better here (about 5 minutes in)

Onesimus

tdv123 wrote: »

Strange question but 100% serious.


If heaven actually dose exist dose the thought of spending eternity in a place no matter how great it is not scare the crap out of people?

Most people dont want to live forever as humans, I know I want to die at some stage when I'm good & ready so why would anybody want to spend eternity in a place?

I'm sure it would be great fun & crack the first few years but I think it would get rather repetitive & mind numbingly boring after the first million or so years have passed.

Then a billion years goes by then a trillion & so on, I mean wheres the end to it? What would you do everyday? I think its a pretty scary thought.

I don't want to hear what people think heavens like when & if we do go there. More curious on the time span of the place.

Thanks.

What strikes me as rather strange is how like the Apostles of old, you have a complete human view of things, you think that in heaven there is boredom and feelings of anxiety and choice, but because it is a joy that exceeds the human scope of Heart and mind, only when we get there, will we understand why we would want to spend an eternity there.

smurfhousing

The beatific vision of God in heaven will be unimaginable. I couldn't begin to explain it, but this audio sermon does a good job of trying: http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20041101-The-Importance-of-a-Good-and-Happy-Death.html

TravelJunkie

tdv123 wrote: »

Strange question but 100% serious.


If heaven actually dose exist dose the thought of spending eternity in a place no matter how great it is not scare the crap out of people?

Most people dont want to live forever as humans, I know I want to die at some stage when I'm good & ready so why would anybody want to spend eternity in a place?

I'm sure it would be great fun & crack the first few years but I think it would get rather repetitive & mind numbingly boring after the first million or so years have passed.

Then a billion years goes by then a trillion & so on, I mean wheres the end to it? What would you do everyday? I think its a pretty scary thought.

I don't want to hear what people think heavens like when & if we do go there. More curious on the time span of the place.

Thanks.

Well, we won't be limited by your physical body, senses or brain.

So.... we might have surpassed any feelings of happiness or unhappiness or any other emotion or intellect.

Whatever the case, we will never know, nor can imagine, in the here and now, what that will be like. So you won't be able to get a straight answer to your question.

Agent Smith

This Might Answer your Question

dlofnep

PDN wrote: »

Nope. Sounds fine to me.

(Btw, the teaching of the Bible, and historically of the churches, isn't actually that we spend eternity in heaven. We will be resurrected into new bodies and there will be a new heavens and a new earth).

So like, an alternative universe if you will?

i.need.a.job

I think Heaven is different for everyone. It is what you believe. Its hard to explain. Other people have different beliefs of the afterlife to me.. that is their heaven. Or something. I don't know how to explain it.....!!!

yosemitesam

To me, the idea of spending eternity on this world with it's trouble would be scary..also the thought of my awareness or consciousness with it's equal capacity to know misery or joy being snuffed out would frighten me...but if I believe what is said in God's word to be true in what unimaginable place and state awaits us if we desire and live to that expectation then I would welcome such a never ending existence..

gigabit

PDN wrote: »

Nope. Sounds fine to me.

(Btw, the teaching of the Bible, and historically of the churches, isn't actually that we spend eternity in heaven. We will be resurrected into new bodies and there will be a new heavens and a new earth).

In what type of physical existance?

Onesimus wrote: »

What strikes me as rather strange is how like the Apostles of old, you have a complete human view of things, you think that in heaven there is boredom and feelings of anxiety and choice, but because it is a joy that exceeds the human scope of Heart and mind, only when we get there, will we understand why we would want to spend an eternity there.

I do not understand this, surely your current physical presence has a massive effect on your personality?

the_dark_side

who has been there? who can really tell us what Heaven is really like? unless they have died, visited Heaven, and came back from the dead to tell us all what its like.

Uriel.

I'm not sure what I'd like heaven to be. I guess I'd like it to be everything I'd like my life on earth to be, or not be, as the case may be, if that was heaven, then everyones heaven would be different

PDN

the_dark_side wrote: »

who has been there? who can really tell us what Heaven is really like? unless they have died, visited Heaven, and came back from the dead to tell us all what its like.

Jesus.

UB Dude

John Milton said, 'The mind is a thing unto itself and of itself can make a heaven of hell or a hell of heaven.' This insights reflects a key teaching of Jesus namely, 'the kingdom is within'. One cannot assume an eternity of endless idleness, there is no reason to believe that life on the worlds 'above' will be any easier than this one. Death in-itself will not suddenly transform us into perfect beings and as such, the so called 'fruits of the spirit' {patience, forgiveness, kindness, etc.} will be required as much in the next life as they are in this. The 'Lord Prayer' says that in 'Heaven' people are 'doing God's will', and that is not easy, especially when we are confronted by the reality of our own finite nature in contrast with the limitless and indivisible nature of Deity. Eternal Life grants us two things: Infinite Potential and the Potential to Experience the Infinite. The Universe journey toward the realisation of the Infinite and Eternal, not only requires eternal life but insures that the pursuit of same will be marked ever and anon by unimaginable glories and wonders. However, our beginning is not like our end. A spirit seed planted into a vessal of clay, bringing forth the fruits of the spirit in the social experience of imperfect beings, eternity being that schooling of experience wherein we learn to more effectively realise, actualise, and factualise the spirit self - our greatest potential, our potential for experiencing the Greatest Reality.

God Bless

Barry

gigabit

PDN wrote: »

Jesus.

Is that supposed to be funny?

What about when the universe ends, will this heaven still exist?

Also if no one created this god and he just is, why can't the creation of the universe be the same, why would he put us through living and dying only to rhapsodise us later but not as ourselves. It makes no sense.

Canis Lupus

faceman

Imagine being able to communicate with a fish that lives deep in the ocean, hundreds of miles from the shore, and telling him all about what it is like to live and breathe on land. He'd think you were bonkers because he couldnt grasp the concept.

OP, Apeirophobia- Fear of infinity is a common enough phobia that people get. Its important to distingush the difference between infinity and eternity though.

tdv123

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

Eternal happiness? How could you get bored of that? By definition, if you're happy you're not bored. I don't think you can consider the idea of eternal happiness by reference to any temporary Earthly experience. On the other hand, the concept of eternal unhappiness is pretty miserable, because, by definition, you're eternally unhappy. I know it can be trendy for atheists and the like to say they want to go to hell because it'll have the best parties but they don't really understand the concept of what hell is. I know which one I'd prefer out of eternal happiness and eternal unhappiness.

Very, very easily. It's eternal. I think most people get bored of anything after a certain period of time.

Whats going to make me so happy when I get there? I gather by most peoples responses here that we will have no choice in the matter & just be happy whether we want to or not like robots. Which I think sounds a bit dull.

Yes I agree hell sounds even worse than heaven but I don't want to go there either. Why do I have to go anyhwere? I just want a end to it.

I want my whole existence to come to a end at some stage. Just like before I was born before basically.

antiskeptic

tdv123 wrote: »

Very, very easily. It's eternal. I think most people get bored of anything after a certain period of time.

That's worshipping false gods for you.

The reason God's prime commandment to mankind took the form it did wasn't just because God is entitled to occupy prime importance in our lives. It's also because we aren't designed to be satisfied in any ultimate sense by anything other than him.

Whats going to make me so happy when I get there? I gather by most peoples responses here that we will have no choice in the matter & just be happy whether we want to or not like robots. Which I think sounds a bit dull.

From what I can gather, there will be things to choose from, things to learn, things to accomplish. It's just that the range of things available to us won't include that which is sinful (from whence: unhappiness, pain, suffering)

Yes I agree hell sounds even worse than heaven but I don't want to go there either. Why do I have to go anyhwere? I just want a end to it.

What God wants (and offers) trump what you want. You're subject to his will for you. Not the other way around. Part of mans problem is demonstrated in the fact that he has such a problem accepting that.

God only knows why - you'd wonder how man could figure to be king of his own castle. Yet that is what he invariably thinks.

I want my whole existence to come to a end at some stage. Just like before I was born before basically.

See it here: primacy of own want set above what God wants. I'm not condemning here - I do it too. It's just that it's so ... so irrational

The Rook

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's worshipping false gods for you.

What God wants (and offers) trump what you want. You're subject to his will for you. Not the other way around. Part of mans problem is demonstrated in the fact that he has such a problem accepting that.

I have a problem with this concept of what God wants trumping what you want. Take different religions, or atheists for example.... members of non Christian religions don't believe in (and don't want to go to) a Heaven that has our God in it. But you're saying that our God won't take their religion into account and judge who goes to Heaven, but will take them in anyway?!!

Am I getting your point right or have I missed something?

antiskeptic

The Rook wrote: »

I have a problem with this concept of what God wants trumping what you want.

Could you be more specific as to the nature of the problem? Let's assume perhaps that you accept that God creates everyone and that God hasn't stated that we're entitled to do our own thing. If so, as his possession can't he do with us what he wills?

Take different religions, or atheists for example.... members of non Christian religions don't believe in (and don't want to go to) a Heaven that has our God in it.

Since when did not believing in something mean the something goes away? Does an atheist not believing in God mean God has less call on the atheist to conform to God's wishes regarding him?

But you're saying that our God won't take their religion into account and judge who goes to Heaven, but will take them in anyway?!!

Am I getting your point right or have I missed something?

The way I see it is that all who fulfill God's criterion for Heaven-boundedness will go to heaven and all that don't, won't. They'll go to Hell instead. I see no particular reason why God should be obliged to supply eternal destinations to suit our individual specifications. If it's the case that this is what's on offer then there's little point in complaining about it.

It's a case of off-the-peg eternal destinations - not made-to-measure ones.

smurfhousing

Anyone curious about heaven might read this from Peter Kreeft:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Heaven-Hearts-Deepest-Longing-Kreeft/dp/0898702283/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275436153&sr=1-2

The Rook

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could you be more specific as to the nature of the problem? Let's assume perhaps that you accept that God creates everyone and that God hasn't stated that we're entitled to do our own thing. If so, as his possession can't he do with us what he wills?




Since when did not believing in something mean the something goes away? Does an atheist not believing in God mean God has less call on the atheist to conform to God's wishes regarding him?





The way I see it is that all who fulfill God's criterion for Heaven-boundedness will go to heaven and all that don't, won't. They'll go to Hell instead. I see no particular reason why God should be obliged to supply eternal destinations to suit our individual specifications. If it's the case that this is what's on offer then there's little point in complaining about it.

It's a case of off-the-peg eternal destinations - not made-to-measure ones.

I think my problem stems from how we've been told that only Christians (those who are baptised etc) will go to Heaven. And we're told this from God's representative on Earth; Papa Razzi, and it's also in the Bible so we as believers are to take that as fact.

But when you say that God can do with us what he likes as he's the one that made us kind of (in my opinion) then makes the whole concept of an organised religion a moot point as all you would have to do to enter Heaven would be to live a good life and not be baptised, and you wouldn't even have to believe in God?!!

antiskeptic

The Rook wrote: »

I think my problem stems from how we've been told that only Christians (those who are baptised etc) will go to Heaven. And we're told this from God's representative on Earth; Papa Razzi,

Then your problem sounds like it's more with the Catholic church than with God.

Me? Whilst I believe that only those that are "baptised into Christ" will go to heaven I don't believe that that baptism is the one practiced and preached by the Catholic church. Rather than being an outward adornment (water poured over the head of an infant), it's an inward occurance - something wrought by the Holy Spirit directly.

No priests required.

and it's also in the Bible so we as believers are to take that as fact.

Catholic church style baptism unto salvation isn't in the Bible. The doctrine is read into, rather than extracted from, the Bible.

But when you say that God can do with us what he likes as he's the one that made us kind of (in my opinion) then makes the whole concept of an organised religion a moot point as all you would have to do to enter Heaven would be to live a good life and not be baptised, and you wouldn't even have to believe in God?!!

If God said that living a good life gets you to heaven then you'd have a strong point. As it happens, he doesn't say that. What he says is that no one can live a life good enough to get to heaven.

Which is why you need a saviour. And why he provided you with one.

smurfhousing

The Rook wrote: »

I think my problem stems from how we've been told that only Christians (those who are baptised etc) will go to Heaven. And we're told this from God's representative on Earth; Papa Razzi, and it's also in the Bible so we as believers are to take that as fact.

But when you say that God can do with us what he likes as he's the one that made us kind of (in my opinion) then makes the whole concept of an organised religion a moot point as all you would have to do to enter Heaven would be to live a good life and not be baptised, and you wouldn't even have to believe in God?!!

Read Lumen Gentium and you will find that the teaching of the Church is that non-Christians can be saved.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Papa Razzi was a perditi (expert theological advisor to bishops) at the Second Vatican Council. He helped put together some of the documents.

There's also some information on baptism here: http://www.catholic.com/library/sacraments.asp

antiskeptic

smurfhousing wrote: »

Read Lumen Gentium and you will find that the teaching of the Church is that non-Christians can be saved.

I'd be interested in seeing how the mechanics of this work. Could you snip out the relevant piece - it's rather a long document.

Ta..

The Rook

Good points well made people, thanks for that !

smurfhousing

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'd be interested in seeing how the mechanics of this work. Could you snip out the relevant piece - it's rather a long document.

Ta..

I'll post these sections from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which quotes from Lumen Gentium:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

Sections 839-848 of the Catechism deal with this particular issue:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#839

antiskeptic

smurfhousing wrote: »

I'll post these sections from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which quotes from Lumen Gentium:

Thanks for that - it was helpful. It appears to firmly establish that primary element in a mans salvation according to Roman Catholicism .. is his 'work'.

smurfhousing

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thanks for that - it was helpful. It appears to firmly establish that primary element in a mans salvation according to Roman Catholicism .. is his 'work'.

St Paul tells us to work out our salvation in fear and trembling. What does this mean in plain English? This helps to explain:

http://www.chastitysf.com/q_just.htm

Saint Paul says it quite clearly: “. . . a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ . . .” (Galatians 2:16). And yet Saint James says, “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” (James 2:14). Confused? Well, I don’t blame you. Let’s see, then, what all this means in plain English.

antiskeptic

smurfhousing wrote: »

St Paul tells us to work out our salvation in fear and trembling. What does this mean in plain English? This helps to explain:

http://www.chastitysf.com/q_just.htm

If he had said "work for your salvation in fear and trembling" it would have been both plain English and plainly rational. I mean, if you had to rely on your work for your salvation, then you'd have no way of knowing whether you'd be finally saved or not ("is my work going to be enough?") - in which case fear and trembling would be the proper emotional states to occupy.

The term however is work out. For which there are a couple of plain English possibilities:

The first that springs to mind runs along the lines of figuring out, or puzzling out - as you would a maths problem. We work out things in that way. But that doesn't make sense in the context of a works-for-your-salvation scenario so we can dismiss that out of hand. At least I'm not supposing this would be your reading.

Another possibility for work out involves the sense of working something to shape it into something else. A blacksmith works metal and a potter works the clay. The particular form here - working out gives the sense of extrusion (by which eg: copper is worked out through a forming die to become copper wire).

What are we to work out in this case? Well, it's not metal, it's our salvation. Which would mean we have to have it in order to work it outwards. Which would fit the salvation by faith scenario: Paul addressing the saved telling them what is expected they do with their salvation. This view is supported by the second half of the verse: God works in, we are to work out.

Work out(wards) your salvation. Don't hide your light under a bushel. A reason to evangelize for example.

Saint Paul says it quite clearly: “. . . a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ . . .” (Galatians 2:16).

Indeed

And yet Saint James says, “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” (James 2:14). Confused? Well, I don’t blame you. Let’s see, then, what all this means in plain English.

That faith. Which faith? The faith which produces no works. Which kind of works? It's not stated.

The saved-by-faith view holds that a saved man will produce works as a result of his having the Holy Spirit within. The works are a consequence of his having saving faith, a consequence of his status as a saved man. Conversely, the man who isn't saved, doesn't have the Holy Spirit within and as a result, cannot produce works pleasing to God (however good they might appear, they remain but filthy rags).

We've just read a verse, the second half of which says that it is "God who works in us to will and to act according to his good purpose". If you have God working in you works the works that follow follow as a consequence of Gods action. If God is not working in you then the faith you have, "that faith", won't save you.

Thus are Paul and James reconciled. At present you have Paul and James saying apparently contradictory things.

smurfhousing

antiskeptic wrote: »

If he had said "work for your salvation in fear and trembling" it would have been both plain English and plainly rational. I mean, if you had to rely on your work for your salvation, then you'd have no way of knowing whether you'd be finally saved or not ("is my work going to be enough?") - in which case fear and trembling would be the proper emotional states to occupy.

The term however is work out. For which there are a couple of plain English possibilities:

The first that springs to mind runs along the lines of figuring out, or puzzling out - as you would a maths problem. We work out things in that way. But that doesn't make sense in the context of a works-for-your-salvation scenario so we can dismiss that out of hand. At least I'm not supposing this would be your reading.

Another possibility for work out involves the sense of working something to shape it into something else. A blacksmith works metal and a potter works the clay. The particular form here - working out gives the sense of extrusion (by which eg: copper is worked out through a forming die to become copper wire).

What are we to work out in this case? Well, it's not metal, it's our salvation. Which would mean we have to have it in order to work it outwards. Which would fit the salvation by faith scenario: Paul addressing the saved telling them what is expected they do with their salvation. This view is supported by the second half of the verse: God works in, we are to work out.

Work out(wards) your salvation. Don't hide your light under a bushel. A reason to evangelize for example.





Indeed




That faith. Which faith? The faith which produces no works. Which kind of works? It's not stated.

The saved-by-faith view holds that a saved man will produce works as a result of his having the Holy Spirit within. The works are a consequence of his having saving faith, a consequence of his status as a saved man. Conversely, the man who isn't saved, doesn't have the Holy Spirit within and as a result, cannot produce works pleasing to God (however good they might appear, they remain but filthy rags).

We've just read a verse, the second half of which says that it is "God who works in us to will and to act according to his good purpose". If you have God working in you works the works that follow follow as a consequence of Gods action. If God is not working in you then the faith you have, "that faith", won't save you.

Thus are Paul and James reconciled. At present you have Paul and James saying apparently contradictory things.

The link I provided sought to explain it. Did you read it?

antiskeptic

smurfhousing wrote: »

The link I provided sought to explain it. Did you read it?

My apologies. I went off on standard response to a standard "works for salvation" verse. However..

your link wrote:

Paul is speaking about justification (which is also called redemption). And in plain English, it amounts to saying that no one can get into heaven through his or her own effort. God is offering us a great gift of everlasting life, and only through faith in Christ can we receive that gift.

The word justification on it's own doesn't imply that and so Paul talks about justification by faith. That specific kind of justification means that no one can get to heaven through own effort - given that faith would have to be fueled by God. Only in that case is all the effort God, in which case it is truly a gift

But notice that we are still creatures of free will. Even with faith in Christ we can still commit sin if we will it. Saint James, then, speaks about the matter of our salvation. This amounts to saying that even though we can’t get into heaven by our own efforts, we can easily enough, through our own actions, send ourselves right to Hell. And that’s why Saint Paul tells us to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12b).

The author of this article hasn't given any rational whatsoever for concluding James as speaking so. For instance, James is talking about faith that doesn't demonstrate works - but doesn't say whether it is saving faith he is speaking of. In other words, the author is reading his doctrine into the text - rather than extracting his doctrine from the text. As it is, at least two doctrines can be safely read into the text: works a consequence of salvation & works a cause of salvation. The text doesn't give us enough to establish which of the two it is.

Then there is this device of "losing-my-salvation-by-works" which differs materially not one iota from any other version of salvation by work. Whether I work to be given a wage I can spend or have a wage dangled in from of me that I'll lose if I don't work to retain it - are the exact same thing materially.

That’s why Saint Paul, right as he speaks about justification by faith, in the very same paragraph, emphasizes this point: “I have been crucified with Christ” (Galatians 2:19). In plain English, this means that unless your life ends in crucifixion—at least, psychological crucifixion, the death of ego and pride—you’re putting your salvation into your own hands, not God’s. But if you accept your crucifixion, freely and willingly, with chaste purity of heart and with ardent desire for God’s love, you have all the hope and all the mercy in the whole universe available to you in the battle against evil

This really won't do. There is nothing at all given to support these notions in the text. For instance, there is no conditionality (unless your life, if you accept) in the verse yet the conclusions major in it. How was that leap made?

The author doesn't say.

I'm not saying that what I've done in my last post can't be challenged but I was always taught to "show your work". Wrapping up your ideas in verses which don't themselves show what you're trying to suggest shouldn't be taken as having taken wings.