The Reason for God

Mu!

Who else would rather read Nomad's book?

KingGorilla wrote:

Who else would rather read Nomad's book?

I haven't even referenced any of the books I have written...

Well, there was that one you wrote at Hogwarts, but it broke.

KingGorilla wrote:

Well, there was that one you wrote at Hogwarts, but it broke.

Well if SOMEONE, not naming names, hadn't stabbed it with a giant reptile tooth it might be available for all of us to read.

Paleocon wrote:

This argument that all viewpoints rely on "faith" is oddly postmodernist. It seems to insist that there is no reality outside of one's mind, but takes it one step further by insisting that the only mind that matters is that of the believer in Christianity·

I think this is a great place to dive into chapter 3. Keller in his book disagrees with this post-modernistic idea of "absolute relativity", and in fact much of the 3rd chapter Christianity is a Straitjacket, discusses why.

Here are some of the things that stood out to me in chapter 3(it's important to read the whole chapter for context ):

Keller page37 wrote:

However, the objection that all truth is a power play falls prey to
the same problem as the objection that all truth is culturally conditioned.
If you try to explain away all assertions of truth as one or the
other or something else you End yourself in an untenable position.
C. S. Lewis writes in The Abolition of Man:
But you can not go on “explaining away” for ever: you will find
that you have explained explanation itself away. You can not go
on ‘seeing through” things for ever. The whole point of seeing
through something it to see something through it. It is good that
the window should be transparent, because the street or garden
beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? ... a
wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To “see through”
all things is the same as not to see.”

Keller page 38 wrote:

Foucault was pressing the truth of his analysis on others even as
he denied the very category of truth. Some kind of truth-claim,
then, seems unavoidable. The inconsistency of working against
oppression when you refuse to admit there is such a thing as truth is
the reason that postmodern “theory” and “deconstruction” is perhaps
on the wane.” G. K. Chesterton made this very same point
nearly a hundred years ago:
The new rebel is a skeptic, and will not trust anything ... [but]
therefore he can never be really a revolutionary. For all denunciation
implies a moral doctrine of some kind .... Therefore the
modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes
of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his
right to rebel against anything .... There is a thought that stops
thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped.”

Keller page 39 wrote:

Consider an illustration. Imagine that one of the board
members of the local Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Community Center
announces, “I’ve had a religious experience and now I believe
homosexuality is a sin.” As the weeks go by, he persists in making
that assertion. Imagine that a board member of the Alliance Against
Same-Sex Marriage announces, “I discovered that my son is gay
and I think he has the right to marry his partner.” No matter how
personally gracious and flexible the members of each group are, the
day will come when each group will have to say, “You must step off
the board because you don’t share a common commitment with
us.” The first of these communities has the reputation for being
inclusive and the second for being exclusive, but, in practice, both
of them operate in almost the very same way. Each is based on common
beliefs that act as boundaries, including some and excluding others.

The Sagan quote about love on page 48 was very interesting as well, and the last page of the chapter is a great depiction of the relationship of a believer in Christ. Any thoughts on chapter 3?

I read it a few weeks ago. One of the problems I have with it is that the use of Foucault to argue against recent thought is like citing Jim Jones as a good example of Christianity. Foucault is fringe, not mainstream. (If this were the 70's or 80's, it'd be different in academia, at least in some schools, but today? And Foucault did identify his own thinking as not post-modernist, but rather drawing directly from Nietzsche.)

But further, the idea he put forth in chapter one was that every position of thought is based on the same kind of belief as religion. Isn't that in itself post-modern, and in conflict with the idea that there is such a thing as truth (which, presumably, does not require belief)? How can religion promise us "truth" when it's dependent on the very same belief that puts skepticism on unstable ground?

Anyone else still reading?

I'm reading the thread, if not the book.

Moving on to chapter 4 then?

I returned it to the library. I skimmed though a whole bunch. Lot of arguments close to 200 years old thoroughly debunked by smarter men and women than I. I wonder if the guy ever read anything from Darwin, Michael Shermer, Dawkins, Jung, Mill, Kante, Satre, Cartwright, or Jefferson.

I said this earlier. This book gave me a vastly greater view of these people for being learned in the field of philosophy, metaphysics, theology, so they are not constantly shooting from the hip.

KingGorilla wrote:

I returned it to the library. I skimmed though a whole bunch. Lot of arguments close to 200 years old thoroughly debunked by smarter men and women than I. I wonder if the guy ever read anything from Darwin, Michael Shermer, Dawkins, Jung, Mill, Kante, Satre, Cartwright, or Jefferson.

I said this earlier. This book gave me a vastly greater view of these people for being learned in the field of philosophy, metaphysics, theology, so they are not constantly shooting from the hip.

You must have done some really filthy skimming then, because there are quotes from some of these authors you mention right in the book itself.

I have little doubt he may have read an occasional quote, an entire book? I am skeptical.
I have little doubt he is capable of cribbing quotes from other authors, without going to the source. In an effort to cherry pick whatever suits his myopic goal.

In a similar thread I wonder if Kirk Camron, prior to helping create that new forward to Origin of the Species, ever went cover to cover on it prior. Or if any fundamentalist have ever, actually, read the bible with any sort of literary or rational eye, looking for the subtext.

And the answer is either obviously not, or yes but he chose not to pay attention.

KingGorilla wrote:

I have little doubt he may have read an occasional quote, an entire book? I am skeptical.
I have little doubt he is capable of cribbing quotes from other authors, without going to the source. In an effort to cherry pick whatever suits his myopic goal.

In a similar thread I wonder if Kirk Camron, prior to helping create that new forward to Origin of the Species, ever went cover to cover on it prior. Or if any fundamentalist have ever, actually, read the bible with any sort of literary or rational eye, looking for the subtext.

And the answer is either obviously not, or yes but he chose not to pay attention.

Do you say "obviously not" because after reading those authors he still did not choose to believe what they were promoting?

...

Just finished reading chapter 4 entitled The Church is Responsible for so Much Injustice. Here are a few things that stood out to me.

Keller's response to Christopher Hitchens (author of God is Not Great:How Religion Poisons Everything) was interesting. Keller says that "religion" was just the available tool used to manipulate the masses, and when religion isn't present, something else will be used instead. (ie. Russian Chinese and Cambodian regimes where race or the State were made absolutes)

Keller's insight into fanaticism was also interesting on page 56-57.

IMAGE(http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/4803/fan1z.jpg)
IMAGE(http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/4310/fan2z.jpg)
IMAGE(http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/2337/fan3f.jpg)
(sorry about the shoddy paste job, I'm not on my usual computer)

He also has much to say about slavery.

A brief aside to this post, Nomad. Part of my frustration with the churches I attended (particularly the last one I was a committed member to) is this belief that to be a good Christian you have to be a conservative/Republican. I found it ironic because, for the most part, the platforms of the Republican party (obviously not the abortion platform) seem to me to be based on greed and authoritarianism, neither of which I feel characterizes the outpouring of love for our neighbor that Jesus taught so stridently. Instead, I felt that the left side of the political spectrum actually espoused behaviors more in line with that of Jesus.

I viewed it as a moral compulsion to support the socially conscientious platforms of the politically liberal side of things (though I refuse to claim membership to any political party).

I was mocked for it. I was treated as somehow betraying my fellow Christians to be this way. I finally had enough of that treatment, and left the church. It angered and hurt me so much that I honestly have no interest in joining any churches again. I can have my personal relationship with God without a church.

I think this would be another topic for an interesting discussion. Separate from "A Reason for God", I could see an interesting discussion arising from the topic "A Reason for Church".

Jesus, as described in the Bible, is practically the archetype for liberals and liberalism.

If people are fanatics because they are not Christian enough, but they are taking the tenets incorrectly, then Christianity is still responsible for their errors. Also, who judges? By your standards I was not raised Christian, because Methodists don't take the Bible as inerrant. Should I judge you, or you judge me?

Nomad wrote:

Keller's response to Christopher Hitchens (author of God is Not Great:How Religion Poisons Everything) was interesting. Keller says that "religion" was just the available tool used to manipulate the masses, and when religion isn't present, something else will be used instead. (ie. Russian Chinese and Cambodian regimes where race or the State were made absolutes)

I've thought about this a lot. One of the hardest things in any society is getting people to agree on rules of behaviour and to 'tow the line.' For me, as Keller says, religion is the answer to that problem. I hadn't thought that communism (and I guess fascism) are also attempts to solve the same problem.

Nomad wrote:

Keller's insight into fanaticism was also interesting on page 56-57.

Fanaticism is as much a danger for non-believers as believers. Christopher Hitchens could be considered to be a fanatic. Many atheists don't agree with his hard line stances.

Higgledy wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Keller's response to Christopher Hitchens (author of God is Not Great:How Religion Poisons Everything) was interesting. Keller says that "religion" was just the available tool used to manipulate the masses, and when religion isn't present, something else will be used instead. (ie. Russian Chinese and Cambodian regimes where race or the State were made absolutes)

I've thought about this a lot. One of the hardest things in any society is getting people to agree on rules of behaviour and to 'tow the line.' For me, as Keller says, religion is the answer to that problem. I hadn't thought that communism (and I guess fascism) are also attempts to solve the same problem.

I think religion served its purpose in getting an uncivilized world to this point. But that doesn't mean it is the best tool available for society moving forward. The problem is that religions all have pretty much the same message, but the in-fighting between them leads to corrupt versions of those messages.

The rhetorical devices that are needed to day should be centered around science and knowledge. Religion can serve an important support role, but its influence on government leads to negative consequences. Society would do better to weed religion out, in favor is philosophical study. Religion would still be a source of study and learning, but it shouldn't be the primary source of values any longer.

I don't know, Jay. I think a lot of people have a strong desire for some kind of certainty that specifically addresses uncertain things. I don't see science providing that. Wonder, yes, but science is in many ways about uncertainty and facing it, not plastering it over with comforting avoidance.

I think religion will always have a place in society. I just don't think it should be political, and when it contradicts what we know of the world, it's going to hurt itself rather than change science.

Robear wrote:

If people are fanatics because they are not Christian enough, but they are taking the tenets incorrectly, then Christianity is still responsible for their errors. Also, who judges? By your standards I was not raised Christian, because Methodists don't take the Bible as inerrant. Should I judge you, or you judge me?

When are people responsible for their own actions?

In the end, God judges.

Higg wrote:

For me, as Keller says, religion is the answer to that problem.

I think you might be surprised. Keller would say that "religion" is part of the problem. As we move through the book, it becomes cleared that Keller is trying to put some distance between religion, or man's attempts toward enlightenment or reconciliation with the Divine, and the gospel, the finished work of Christ that makes our reconciliation possible. Even in this section on Fanaticism we see that intense morality leads to almost as many problems (if not more) as immorality.

I think you might be surprised. Keller would say that "religion" is part of the problem. As we move through the book, it becomes cleared that Keller is trying to put some distance between religion, or man's attempts toward enlightenment or reconciliation with the Divine, and the gospel, the finished work of Christ that makes our reconciliation possible. Even in this section on Fanaticism we see that intense morality leads to almost as many problems (if not more) as immorality.

This raises a corollary question. You've used Stalinism and the Khmer Rouge and the like to argue that religion is better than non-religion. But now you say that extreme morality AND extreme immorality are similar in their results. Will you refrain from the comparisons in the future, or include the disclaimer? Because if it's *extremes* that create problems, both religion and irreligion have them, and the usual assertions that atheism leads to horrors but religion doesn't are false.

Robear wrote:
If people are fanatics because they are not Christian enough, but they are taking the tenets incorrectly, then Christianity is still responsible for their errors. Also, who judges? By your standards I was not raised Christian, because Methodists don't take the Bible as inerrant. Should I judge you, or you judge me?

Nomad wrote:
When are people responsible for their own actions?

Another way to put my question is "Here on Earth, who decides what is extreme?" Surely it's not based on actions; that would come into conflict with the doctrine of Grace (meaning that a murderer who accepts God will not attain heaven.) But if it's not based on actions, why would responsibility matter?

It seems to me that once we get away from works (actions) as a basis for moral judgements, things get difficult. Grace would seem to be a notion that encourages abuse, and indeed we've seen that at times in religious history.

Are you extreme because you believe in Biblical infallibility? Am I extreme because I don't believe in God? Neither? Both? And if our actions don't matter for salvation, what does "responsibility" mean?

Robear wrote:
I think you might be surprised. Keller would say that "religion" is part of the problem. As we move through the book, it becomes cleared that Keller is trying to put some distance between religion, or man's attempts toward enlightenment or reconciliation with the Divine, and the gospel, the finished work of Christ that makes our reconciliation possible. Even in this section on Fanaticism we see that intense morality leads to almost as many problems (if not more) as immorality.

This raises a corollary question. You've used Stalinism and the Khmer Rouge and the like to argue that religion is better than non-religion. But now you say that extreme morality AND extreme immorality are similar in their results. Will you refrain from the comparisons in the future, or include the disclaimer? Because if it's *extremes* that create problems, both religion and irreligion have them, and the usual assertions that atheism leads to horrors but religion doesn't are false.

Take a look back at what was written. It's pretty clear to me that they are both flawed. I think you are automatically assuming I take the side of religion from the start. Keller was pretty clear that religion can lead to horrors, which I think is the title to the chapter we are discussing.

Robear wrote:
Robear wrote:
If people are fanatics because they are not Christian enough, but they are taking the tenets incorrectly, then Christianity is still responsible for their errors. Also, who judges? By your standards I was not raised Christian, because Methodists don't take the Bible as inerrant. Should I judge you, or you judge me?

Nomad wrote:
When are people responsible for their own actions?

Another way to put my question is "Here on Earth, who decides what is extreme?" Surely it's not based on actions; that would come into conflict with the doctrine of Grace (meaning that a murderer who accepts God will not attain heaven.) But if it's not based on actions, why would responsibility matter?

It seems to me that once we get away from works (actions) as a basis for moral judgements, things get difficult. Grace would seem to be a notion that encourages abuse, and indeed we've seen that at times in religious history.

Are you extreme because you believe in Biblical infallibility? Am I extreme because I don't believe in God? Neither? Both? And if our actions don't matter for salvation, what does "responsibility" mean?

I think you may misunderstand the concept of grace. In order for the murderer you reference to receive grace, he/she must first take responsibility for his/her own actions. Grace has indeed been at the brunt of much abuse, because men seek to bottle and sell what is freely given.

What is meant by the term extreme? Outside the cultural norm? Does it really matter in the final scope of things who is extreme and who isn't, or is it just important that truth is discovered and applied?

Responsibility then is taking ownership for what I have done. If I come to you after throwing a rock through your front picture window and say something like;
"I see that someone broke your window and I would like to ask your forgiveness for doing it although I am not admitting I am at fault."
Would that not seem strange, if not insulting?

I think you may misunderstand the concept of grace. In order for the murderer you reference to receive grace, he/she must first take responsibility for his/her own actions. Grace has indeed been at the brunt of much abuse, because men seek to bottle and sell what is freely given.

I understood that all that is required is simply to accept Jesus as one's personal savior. By adding "taking responsibility", aren't you sneaking works in via the back door?

What is meant by the term extreme? Outside the cultural norm? Does it really matter in the final scope of things who is extreme and who isn't, or is it just important that truth is discovered and applied?

I'll go back and reread, because this is the kind of question set I'd like to see answered. For me, in this context, it's following a "truth" which leads one to hurt others. I would argue that effects on others always matter, but then you know I favor works as a measure of goodness (don't take that to extremes lol). The question I raised matters because without actually defining extreme beliefs, one can place the center where one stands and point to others as extremists. Some external measuring stick is needed, and I fall back on my usual scale of helping/harming others as the measure. (I specifically don't intend to address trick questions on the subject, like killing one to save five; the point here is, how is the extreme defined in your system?)

I think it does matter in the end, because truth in religion is subjective, not objective. Not everyone will agree on it, unlike an observation in science. And that matters a great deal when it comes to actions (or works). (And I'm not sure you'd argue that discovering and applying truth is a good measure in the case of non-Christians, would you? Because their truth would be different from yours.)

Responsibility then is taking ownership for what I have done. If I come to you after throwing a rock through your front picture window and say something like;
"I see that someone broke your window and I would like to ask your forgiveness for doing it although I am not admitting I am at fault."
Would that not seem strange, if not insulting?

Yes, but I'm not sure how the latter part applies. I'm thinking more in terms of "Yes, I murdered your son, but now I'm saved. I ask your forgiveness." Are there no actions which cannot be wiped away by grace? In the strict version - no works - it appears to me there are none.

Which is another reason why many Christian sects include works in their definition of salvation. (And I think you'll find that taken separately, grace and works are both cited in the NT.)

Robear wrote:
I think you may misunderstand the concept of grace. In order for the murderer you reference to receive grace, he/she must first take responsibility for his/her own actions. Grace has indeed been at the brunt of much abuse, because men seek to bottle and sell what is freely given.

I understood that all that is required is simply to accept Jesus as one's personal savior. By adding "taking responsibility", aren't you sneaking works in via the back door?

What is meant by the term extreme? Outside the cultural norm? Does it really matter in the final scope of things who is extreme and who isn't, or is it just important that truth is discovered and applied?

I'll go back and reread, because this is the kind of question set I'd like to see answered. For me, in this context, it's following a "truth" which leads one to hurt others. I would argue that effects on others always matter, but then you know I favor works as a measure of goodness (don't take that to extremes lol). The question I raised matters because without actually defining extreme beliefs, one can place the center where one stands and point to others as extremists. Some external measuring stick is needed, and I fall back on my usual scale of helping/harming others as the measure. (I specifically don't intend to address trick questions on the subject, like killing one to save five; the point here is, how is the extreme defined in your system?)

I think it does matter in the end, because truth in religion is subjective, not objective. Not everyone will agree on it, unlike an observation in science. And that matters a great deal when it comes to actions (or works). (And I'm not sure you'd argue that discovering and applying truth is a good measure in the case of non-Christians, would you? Because their truth would be different from yours.)

Responsibility then is taking ownership for what I have done. If I come to you after throwing a rock through your front picture window and say something like;
"I see that someone broke your window and I would like to ask your forgiveness for doing it although I am not admitting I am at fault."
Would that not seem strange, if not insulting?

Yes, but I'm not sure how the latter part applies. I'm thinking more in terms of "Yes, I murdered your son, but now I'm saved. I ask your forgiveness." Are there no actions which cannot be wiped away by grace? In the strict version - no works - it appears to me there are none.

Which is another reason why many Christian sects include works in their definition of salvation. (And I think you'll find that taken separately, grace and works are both cited in the NT.)

Technically, I think blaspheming the Holy Ghost is the only unforgivable. Genocide is not on the "no save" list, but making fun of the HG is right out.

Robear wrote:
I think you may misunderstand the concept of grace. In order for the murderer you reference to receive grace, he/she must first take responsibility for his/her own actions. Grace has indeed been at the brunt of much abuse, because men seek to bottle and sell what is freely given.

I understood that all that is required is simply to accept Jesus as one's personal savior. By adding "taking responsibility", aren't you sneaking works in via the back door?

What is meant by the term extreme? Outside the cultural norm? Does it really matter in the final scope of things who is extreme and who isn't, or is it just important that truth is discovered and applied?

I'll go back and reread, because this is the kind of question set I'd like to see answered. For me, in this context, it's following a "truth" which leads one to hurt others. I would argue that effects on others always matter, but then you know I favor works as a measure of goodness (don't take that to extremes lol). The question I raised matters because without actually defining extreme beliefs, one can place the center where one stands and point to others as extremists. Some external measuring stick is needed, and I fall back on my usual scale of helping/harming others as the measure. (I specifically don't intend to address trick questions on the subject, like killing one to save five; the point here is, how is the extreme defined in your system?)

I think it does matter in the end, because truth in religion is subjective, not objective. Not everyone will agree on it, unlike an observation in science. And that matters a great deal when it comes to actions (or works). (And I'm not sure you'd argue that discovering and applying truth is a good measure in the case of non-Christians, would you? Because their truth would be different from yours.)

Responsibility then is taking ownership for what I have done. If I come to you after throwing a rock through your front picture window and say something like;
"I see that someone broke your window and I would like to ask your forgiveness for doing it although I am not admitting I am at fault."
Would that not seem strange, if not insulting?

Yes, but I'm not sure how the latter part applies. I'm thinking more in terms of "Yes, I murdered your son, but now I'm saved. I ask your forgiveness." Are there no actions which cannot be wiped away by grace? In the strict version - no works - it appears to me there are none.

Which is another reason why many Christian sects include works in their definition of salvation. (And I think you'll find that taken separately, grace and works are both cited in the NT.)

I'm not sure I follow how taking responsibility for your actions is tagged as works. As far as your murdered son illustration, just because ones "sins are wiped away" does not mean that person no longer has to suffer the consequences of their actions.

Salvation is by grace through faith, by Christ's finished work on the cross through our acceptance of our own failure and His perfect sacrifice. Works are the fruit of this salvation. It is the works that showcase the authenticity of the change, hence the passage, "Faith without works is dead."

Technically, I think blaspheming the Holy Ghost is the only unforgivable. Genocide is not on the "no save" list, but making fun of the HG is right out.

I believe you are referring to Matt. 12:22-32. It reveals a heart-attitude of unbelief and unrepentance. Deliberate, ongoing rejection of the work of the Holy Spirit is blasphemy because it is rejection of God himself. The only thing that can keep a person from God is their own intentional rejection of the gift of His grace.

I'm not sure I follow how taking responsibility for your actions is tagged as works.

Because if you are not responsible for your actions, why would they matter to you? Good, bad, what's the difference? But if you are responsible for them, then the distinction can be drawn, and the intent and effects of your actions matter. Saying that you have to suffer the consequences of your actions after being saved is a bit strange to me, since the whole point of being saved is to go to heaven, correct? If you know that is your end state, what does what you do and what happens to you on Earth really matter? (Isn't the is the argument that was used to strengthen the martyrs?)

I note that you cite James saying that "Faith without works is dead".

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[e] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

Note the last thing he says - "...a person is justified by what he does, and not by faith alone." And yet the doctrine of Grace is that faith *alone* is how one becomes saved. Romans tells us that Christians no longer are judged by their adherence to the Law (ie, works), but by their faith. Ephesians states that grace saves through faith in God. So there is a split here - in fact, the Catholic Church states that faith AND works are required for salvation, as against the Protestant ideal of faith only.

By insisting on the need to take responsibility for actions, deeds become important in salvation. But if deeds are *not* an integral part of the path to salvation, then responsibility goes out the window. We go back to the arrogance and selfishness Keller cites as problematic.

Nomad wrote:
Technically, I think blaspheming the Holy Ghost is the only unforgivable. Genocide is not on the "no save" list, but making fun of the HG is right out.

I believe you are referring to Matt. 12:22-32. It reveals a heart-attitude of unbelief and unrepentance. Deliberate, ongoing rejection of the work of the Holy Spirit is blasphemy because it is rejection of God himself. The only thing that can keep a person from God is their own intentional rejection of the gift of His grace.

12:31-32 in particular

MAT 12:31 This is why I say to you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

MAT 12:32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of man it shall be forgiven him. But whoever speaks against (falsely accuses) the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world and neither in the world to come.

The bit about it being a heart-attitude of unbelief and unrepentance isn't supported by the text. In point of fact, belief itself is entirely insufficient as demonstrated by James 2:19:

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
Robear wrote:
I'm not sure I follow how taking responsibility for your actions is tagged as works.

Because if you are not responsible for your actions, why would they matter to you? Good, bad, what's the difference? But if you are responsible for them, then the distinction can be drawn, and the intent and effects of your actions matter. Saying that you have to suffer the consequences of your actions after being saved is a bit strange to me, since the whole point of being saved is to go to heaven, correct? If you know that is your end state, what does what you do and what happens to you on Earth really matter? (Isn't the is the argument that was used to strengthen the martyrs?)

I note that you cite James saying that "Faith without works is dead".

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[e] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

Note the last thing he says - "...a person is justified by what he does, and not by faith alone." And yet the doctrine of Grace is that faith *alone* is how one becomes saved. Romans tells us that Christians no longer are judged by their adherence to the Law (ie, works), but by their faith. Ephesians states that grace saves through faith in God. So there is a split here - in fact, the Catholic Church states that faith AND works are required for salvation, as against the Protestant ideal of faith only.

By insisting on the need to take responsibility for actions, deeds become important in salvation. But if deeds are *not* an integral part of the path to salvation, then responsibility goes out the window. We go back to the arrogance and selfishness Keller cites as problematic.

Let me see if I can put it a bit more clearly. We are responsible for our own actions. Part of repentance is the acceptance of our failure. Salvation is by faith, accepting Christ's work as payment for our debt. Real faith then is exemplified by works as James points out. Those works are not the reason we are accepted by God, it is only because of our acceptance of the sacrifice of Christ.

Paleocon wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Technically, I think blaspheming the Holy Ghost is the only unforgivable. Genocide is not on the "no save" list, but making fun of the HG is right out.

I believe you are referring to Matt. 12:22-32. It reveals a heart-attitude of unbelief and unrepentance. Deliberate, ongoing rejection of the work of the Holy Spirit is blasphemy because it is rejection of God himself. The only thing that can keep a person from God is their own intentional rejection of the gift of His grace.

12:31-32 in particular

MAT 12:31 This is why I say to you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

MAT 12:32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of man it shall be forgiven him. But whoever speaks against (falsely accuses) the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world and neither in the world to come.

The bit about it being a heart-attitude of unbelief and unrepentance isn't supported by the text. In point of fact, belief itself is entirely insufficient as demonstrated by James 2:19:

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

What is your connection between James 2:19 and Matt. 12 not being about unbelief and unrepentance?

If you seperate Mat. 12:31-32 from the rest of chapter 12, you rip those 2 verses from the context. The whole subject of Matt. 12:22-32 is the unbelief and unrepentance of the Pharisees.

22 Then a demon-possessed man, who was blind and couldn’t speak, was brought to Jesus. He healed the man so that he could both speak and see. 23 The crowd was amazed and asked, “Could it be that Jesus is the Son of David, the Messiah?”

24 But when the Pharisees heard about the miracle, they said, “No wonder he can cast out demons. He gets his power from Satan,[d] the prince of demons.”

25 Jesus knew their thoughts and replied, “Any kingdom divided by civil war is doomed. A town or family splintered by feuding will fall apart. 26 And if Satan is casting out Satan, he is divided and fighting against himself. His own kingdom will not survive. 27 And if I am empowered by Satan, what about your own exorcists? They cast out demons, too, so they will condemn you for what you have said. 28 But if I am casting out demons by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has arrived among you. 29 For who is powerful enough to enter the house of a strong man like Satan and plunder his goods? Only someone even stronger—someone who could tie him up and then plunder his house.

30 “Anyone who isn’t with me opposes me, and anyone who isn’t working with me is actually working against me.

31 “So I tell you, every sin and blasphemy can be forgiven—except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will never be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come.

33 “A tree is identified by its fruit. If a tree is good, its fruit will be good. If a tree is bad, its fruit will be bad. 34 You brood of snakes! How could evil men like you speak what is good and right? For whatever is in your heart determines what you say. 35 A good person produces good things from the treasury of a good heart, and an evil person produces evil things from the treasury of an evil heart. 36 And I tell you this, you must give an account on judgment day for every idle word you speak. 37 The words you say will either acquit you or condemn you.”

That last section is applicable to both lines of thought we are discussing at the moment. Works don't save you, but they do show whether your faith is real or not. These religious leaders refused to accept the grace of Jesus, and it was that rejection that was the unpardonable sin that they would one day be judged for.