Eternal Life : a Harvest Reaped by Doers of Good

Manfred

Well-known member
So you came here to express your Calvinism, not to address the OP. All right, knock yourself out. Your spouting of Calvinism is irrelevant of course.
Thank you for affirming your character. I will leave you at that.

The spouting you refer to was of course not spouting any thing nasty, but rather truths that do not interest you.

I shall leave you to your ego.
 

Johan

Well-known member
Eternal life will ultimately be repaid only to the doers of good.

Matthew 16
27For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.
Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." (John 6:28–29)
Romans 2
6God “will repay each one according to his deeds.”
7To those who by perseverance in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, He will give eternal life.
8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow wickedness, there will be wrath and anger.
9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil, first for the Jew, then for the Greek;
10but glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, first for the Jew, then for the Greek.
11For God does not show favoritism.
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.
13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but it is the doers of the law who will be declared righteous.
14Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
...
26If a man who is not circumcised [v14's "Gentile"] keeps the requirements of the law [God's Spirit writes the Law on hearts under the New Covenant Jer 31:31-34], will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
27The one who is physically uncircumcised yet keeps the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
28A man is not a Jew because he is one outwardly, nor is circumcision only outward and physical.
29No, a man is a Jew because he is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise does not come from men, but from God.
This chapter is commonly used as a prooftext among Catholics and other works-mongers. Suffice to say, the Epistle to the Romans does not end there. Paul goes on to say that Jews and Gentiles alike are under the power of sin, that there is no one who is inherently righteous (Rom. 3:10), and that no one will be justified before God by the works of the Law (Rom. 3:20). That is why we need the Gospel and the promise of salvation entailed in that message.
Galatians 6
6Nevertheless, the one who receives instruction in the word must share in all good things with his instructor.
7Do not be deceived: God is not to be mocked. Whatever a man sows, he will reap in return.
8The one who sows to please his flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; but the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
9Let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.
10Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to the family of faith.
Sowing and reaping is a figure of speech that elsewhere refers to evangelism, for instance here:

"Even now the one who reaps draws a wage and harvests a crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together. Thus the saying 'One sows and another reaps' is true. I sent you to reap what you have not worked for. Others have done the hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labor." (John 4:36–38)

What makes you think that Galatians 6 is an exception to this rule?
Revelation 22
12“Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done.
This is a Johannine text, so I will refer to John 6:28–29 here as well.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Regarding Romans 2:

This chapter is commonly used as a prooftext among Catholics and other works-mongers. Suffice to say, the Epistle to the Romans does not end there. Paul goes on to say that Jews and Gentiles alike are under the power of sin, that there is no one who is inherently righteous (Rom. 3:10), and that no one will be justified before God by the works of the Law (Rom. 3:20). That is why we need the Gospel and the promise of salvation entailed in that message.

Exactly...
You will ALWAYS get a wrong interpretation if you don't continue reading and if you ignore Paul's argument and presentation.

Two important points about Romans 2:

1) It is not talking about man's alleged "ability" to keep the law, but rather asserting that God is JUST, in treating people as they deserve.

2) It doesn't say HOW many people are in each group ("evil-doers", or "good-doers"), and leaves open the possibility that one could be the "empty set", which he then confirms in Rom. 3:19-20, which is the REASON for man's need of God's grace in Rom. 4-5.
 

Daniel.

Member
Thank you for affirming your character. I will leave you at that.

The spouting you refer to was of course not spouting any thing nasty, but rather truths that do not interest you.

I shall leave you to your ego.
You will not control this thread.

Answer the OP.

Either give the answer to the OP or don't reply at all.
Why pretend to have answers?
 

Daniel.

Member
You claim they are saved, and then say the indwelling Spirit is not a consequence of one's salvation.

Wow
This is not the thread about John 8, this is the thread about eternal life being a harvest.

I know it isn't your fashion to be on topic and answer the OP but you need to actually read the OP before you can make a response to it.

Proverbs 18:13
If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.
 

Daniel.

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

This chapter is commonly used as a prooftext among Catholics and other works-mongers. Suffice to say, the Epistle to the Romans does not end there. Paul goes on to say that Jews and Gentiles alike are under the power of sin, that there is no one who is inherently righteous (Rom. 3:10), and that no one will be justified before God by the works of the Law (Rom. 3:20). That is why we need the Gospel and the promise of salvation entailed in that message.

Sowing and reaping is a figure of speech that elsewhere refers to evangelism, for instance here:

"Even now the one who reaps draws a wage and harvests a crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together. Thus the saying 'One sows and another reaps' is true. I sent you to reap what you have not worked for. Others have done the hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labor." (John 4:36–38)

What makes you think that Galatians 6 is an exception to this rule?

This is a Johannine text, so I will refer to John 6:28–29 here as well.
1. Yes, once they believe in the One God sent they will work the works of God--as Paul says, "I was abundant in labors above them all yet not I but the grace with me."

2. Sorry, that doesn't work : Paul cites the believing Gentiles as men who do the works of the Law (vv14, 26, 27), who thus qualify as "doers of the Law" who will be "justified" (v13) and be repaid with eternal life (vv6,7).

3. Sowing in the context refers to good deeds and reaping in the context refers to eternal life.
Show from the context of the passage cited that I am misinterpreting.
You can't.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
You will not control this thread.

Answer the OP.

Either give the answer to the OP or don't reply at all.
Why pretend to have answers?
Gave it, you reject God. You just cannot help yourself.
37 I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. 38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.
39 They answered him, Abraham is our father. Jesus said to them, If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41 You are doing the works your father did. They said to him, We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God. 42 Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?

These are the same Jews you claim to say were saved for a second and then fell away.

Just as relevant here as in your falling away OP.
 

Daniel.

Member
Gave it, you reject God. You just cannot help yourself.
37 I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. 38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.
39 They answered him, Abraham is our father. Jesus said to them, If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41 You are doing the works your father did. They said to him, We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God. 42 Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?

These are the same Jews you claim to say were saved for a second and then fell away.

Just as relevant here as in your falling away OP.
That is not the topic here.

Answer the OP.
 

Daniel.

Member
3. Sowing in the context refers to good deeds and reaping in the context refers to eternal life.
Show from the context of the passage cited that I am misinterpreting.
You can't.
Just as relevant here as in your falling away OP.

No, what is relevant is that stuff up there--good deeds are the seed you need to sow to reap the harvest of eternal life at the coming Day of Judgment ("we will reap in due time if we do not grow weary in doing good").
 

Manfred

Well-known member
Gave it, you reject God. You just cannot help yourself.
37 I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. 38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.
39 They answered him, Abraham is our father. Jesus said to them, If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41 You are doing the works your father did. They said to him, We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God. 42 Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?

These are the same Jews you claim to say were saved for a second and then fell away.

No, what is relevant is that stuff up there--good deeds are the seed you need to sow to reap the harvest of eternal life at the coming Day of Judgment ("we will reap in due time if we do not grow weary in doing good").
Lets see what God says:

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Good deeds that God prepared for us to walk in. The result of our salvation through the indwelling Spirit
You say good deeds that benefit the doer in obtaining salvation.

Who reaps the harvest of the seed sown by you? You seem to think you reap eternal life by sowing seed.
The ones that God save when you sow seeds, are the ones who He reaps.
You are expecting a good reward for good works. There is no hope, nor assurance in your false message.
 

Daniel.

Member
Lets see what God says:

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Good deeds that God prepared for us to walk in. The result of our salvation through the indwelling Spirit
You say good deeds that benefit the doer in obtaining salvation.

Who reaps the harvest of the seed sown by you? You seem to think you reap eternal life by sowing seed.
The ones that God save when you sow seeds, are the ones who He reaps.
You are expecting a good reward for good works. There is no hope, nor assurance in your false message.
Deal with the text I cited--God speaks there, too, and it's actually on topic unlike this prooftext you brought up.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
Deal with the text I cited--God speaks there, too, and it's actually on topic unlike this prooftext you brought up.
You cannot use a good hermeneutic and pit scripture against scripture.
All cults do that.

Take another sip of wine while trying to prove you are good enough to earn salvation.

I did in fact deal with that scripture through greater context and you could not respond. Perhaps you need to go a bit slower on the wine.
 

Daniel.

Member
You cannot use a good hermeneutic and pit scripture against scripture.
All cults do that.

Take another sip of wine while trying to prove you are good enough to earn salvation.

I did in fact deal with that scripture through greater context and you could not respond. Perhaps you need to go a bit slower on the wine.
Still not dealing with the text.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
Still not dealing with the text.

Hermeneutics​

First published Wed Dec 9, 2020

[Editor’s Note: The following new entry by Theodore George replaces the former entry on this topic by the previous author.]
Hermeneutics is the study of interpretation. Hermeneutics plays a role in a number of disciplines whose subject matter demands interpretative approaches, characteristically, because the disciplinary subject matter concerns the meaning of human intentions, beliefs, and actions, or the meaning of human experience as it is preserved in the arts and literature, historical testimony, and other artifacts. Traditionally, disciplines that rely on hermeneutics include theology, especially Biblical studies, jurisprudence, and medicine, as well as some of the human sciences, social sciences, and humanities. In such contexts, hermeneutics is sometimes described as an “auxiliary” study of the arts, methods, and foundations of research appropriate to a respective disciplinary subject matter (Grondin 1994, 1). For example, in theology, Biblical hermeneutics concerns the general principles for the proper interpretation of the Bible. More recently, applied hermeneutics has been further developed as a research method for a number of disciplines (see, for example, Moules inter alia 2015).
Within philosophy, however, hermeneutics typically signifies, first, a disciplinary area and, second, the historical movement in which this area has been developed. As a disciplinary area, and on analogy with the designations of other disciplinary areas (such as ‘the philosophy of mind’ or ‘the philosophy of art’), hermeneutics might have been named ‘the philosophy of interpretation.’ Hermeneutics thus treats interpretation itself as its subject matter and not as an auxiliary to the study of something else. Philosophically, hermeneutics therefore concerns the meaning of interpretation—its basic nature, scope and validity, as well as its place within and implications for human existence; and it treats interpretation in the context of fundamental philosophical questions about being and knowing, language and history, art and aesthetic experience, and practical life.


Clearly you have no interest in discussion but only in tooting your own horn.
My guess would be because you are totally unable and unequiped to properly discuss these matters.
 

Daniel.

Member

Hermeneutics​

First published Wed Dec 9, 2020

[Editor’s Note: The following new entry by Theodore George replaces the former entry on this topic by the previous author.]
Hermeneutics is the study of interpretation. Hermeneutics plays a role in a number of disciplines whose subject matter demands interpretative approaches, characteristically, because the disciplinary subject matter concerns the meaning of human intentions, beliefs, and actions, or the meaning of human experience as it is preserved in the arts and literature, historical testimony, and other artifacts. Traditionally, disciplines that rely on hermeneutics include theology, especially Biblical studies, jurisprudence, and medicine, as well as some of the human sciences, social sciences, and humanities. In such contexts, hermeneutics is sometimes described as an “auxiliary” study of the arts, methods, and foundations of research appropriate to a respective disciplinary subject matter (Grondin 1994, 1). For example, in theology, Biblical hermeneutics concerns the general principles for the proper interpretation of the Bible. More recently, applied hermeneutics has been further developed as a research method for a number of disciplines (see, for example, Moules inter alia 2015).
Within philosophy, however, hermeneutics typically signifies, first, a disciplinary area and, second, the historical movement in which this area has been developed. As a disciplinary area, and on analogy with the designations of other disciplinary areas (such as ‘the philosophy of mind’ or ‘the philosophy of art’), hermeneutics might have been named ‘the philosophy of interpretation.’ Hermeneutics thus treats interpretation itself as its subject matter and not as an auxiliary to the study of something else. Philosophically, hermeneutics therefore concerns the meaning of interpretation—its basic nature, scope and validity, as well as its place within and implications for human existence; and it treats interpretation in the context of fundamental philosophical questions about being and knowing, language and history, art and aesthetic experience, and practical life.


Clearly you have no interest in discussion but only in tooting your own horn.
My guess would be because you are totally unable and unequiped to properly discuss these matters.
So, it sounds like you want to deny my purport.

Which part?

1. That they believed? On what grounds? The text affirms they believed.
2. That they later rejected Jesus? On what grounds? The text affirms they rejected Him.
3. That they were "of the truth", "the Father's"? On what grounds? In order to "believe" (they did--you haven't disproven that) they had to be "of the truth" or "belong to the Father". You say you love consistent hermeneutics. Would you like to deny that they were "of the truth"? Then how did they "believe"?

Answer the relevant questions.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
So, it sounds like you want to deny my purport.

Which part?

1. That they believed? On what grounds? The text affirms they believed.
Addressed. Now answer what they believed?
2. That they later rejected Jesus? On what grounds? The text affirms they rejected Him.
When later? Please affirm that those who believed, rejected Him a minute later. What belief did they hold that they rejected?
3. That they were "of the truth", "the Father's"? On what grounds? In order to "believe" (they did--you haven't disproven that) they had to be "of the truth" or "belong to the Father". You say you love consistent hermeneutics. Would you like to deny that they were "of the truth"? Then how did they "believe"?
To which Father did Jesus say they belonged?
Be consistent.
Answer the relevant questions.
Answered.
Can you rebut or only claim, "another one bites the dust"
 
Top