Especially when so few people had a copy of the book.
I do thank blue falcon for doing the legwork.
Actually, I do not see a big difference in the red parts.21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.
John 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
There is not much difference here. There is somewhat of a difference here. Basically the same. This is where i find the major problem in this verst, there is a big difference in the meaning of these two phrases.
But even setting that notion aside, every natural "law" seems to have exceptions.
Mammals have live births. Except for the ones that don't.
Birds fly. Except for the ones that don't.
Newton's laws are universal. Except where they aren't.
Relativity scales up and down. Except where it doesn't.
He also went on the give the sermon at the mount which makes a mockery of our laws. "Oh, you think you keep the law? Well I say that..." His point was to illustration how utterly feeble and pathetic our attempts at earning salvation are. No matter how much good deeds we do, no matter how many laws we keep, our sinful nature will betray us and reveal the true pieces of worthless pond scum that we are.From Jesus' own lips, the law is simple, broad, and non-binary. First, love God with all your heart. Second, love your neighbor as your self. (Matt 22:36-40 since citations are so important now.) The former is purely internal - only God can know what is in someone's heart. The latter is external and can be observed to occur.
Anything more complicated than that is contrary to Jesus' teachings.
Where there are laws, it follows that there is judgment. And the corollary is true, too: where there is judgment there must be laws (or rules, or regulations, or ordinances, or some form of expressed order of things). That's the whole point. One cannot be judged without something to judge against. And, there's not point in having rules, if there is no judgment.
Jesus explained the primary laws. Those laws are what we will be judged by.
See, this is where tone is important.Say it with me, everyone, "There's no amount of good deeds or works that I can do to earn my salvation. Likewise, there's no sin so vile that can't be washed clean by the blood of Christ."
See, this is where tone is important.
...I think I got lost.
I always saw the 1st and 2nd law (your terms) to be complimentary (and somewhat pedantic). Are you saying there's a possibility of conflict?
Ah. Right.
Now I understand where I was easily misunderstood.
The first part of my post - which you quoted - was trying to establish that or human constructs are not absolute. Within that framework of "human constructs" is probably a whole lot of religious dogma. (Which is probably heresy on my part.)
My point about Jesus' 2-laws formulation is that the ultimate truth is pretty simple, but we complicate it. God is not interested in our technicalities. He is interested in our adherence to Jesus' teachings.
There is a primacy to the 2-laws. Love God is first. Can't get to salvation without that. I don't think there's room for controversy on that. (Of course, ATM is here, so who knows.)
But, that primacy does not make irrelevant the secondary law. Love of others.
Judgment (first/second/other) will be based on the faithfulness to those laws. Not on technicalities that may or may not have been created by men in a desire to support of those laws.
That's what I was getting at.
Well, ok.
More, "OK - I'm trying to sort out some software on one screen, monitor INGO on the other, and recover from five days of tax law study, and I'm tired of debating salvation by works."Is it? Is it really ok?
I mean (and this is where my own rebellious leanings kick in), if it is that simple, why is it so complicated?
I'll be quiet now. It isn't a good day to be excommunicated.
2 Theological Approaches.
A Catholic, a Protestant, and an Orthodox walk into a bar.
The Bartender takes out a hand sized stone and sets it in front of them.
After a few moments, the Bartender says to the three of them:
"Describe this rock!"
After several hours of trying to reach consensus, The Protestant and the Catholic finally agree to:
The Dogma of the Rock is: The rock is solid, motionless, impermeable and lifeless, and composed of a solid, continuous single material. It is hard but may be carved or dressed for utilization. There is no motion within the stone, and if thrown, it will fall downward because the earth is its home, and all things tend toward their natural homes. Aristotle would say that it falls faster as it nears the surface of the earth, because as objects near their natural home, they move with more exuberance, being nearer home.
The Orthodox just looks at them sadly as he puts forward
The Dogma of the Rock is: The rock is a microcosm of the universe.
...There is a primacy to the 2-laws. Love God is first. Can't get to salvation without that. I don't think there's room for controversy on that. (Of course, ATM is here, so who knows.)