Has Eternal Life?

[mikeledes]

This is a quote from one of the articles I listed:

Now, in the evening of our life, we shall be judged according to our faith-informed-by-love (St. John of the Cross); so let us not fall from love (Rev 2:4-7) but live in accordance with the love God has lavished upon us (Rom 5:5), so that having been loved first (1 Jn 4:10), we also may abide in that love and so enjoy the constant indwelling of the Trinity (Jn 14:23; Jn 15:9-10; 1 Jn 4:12), for Wisdom departs a sinful man (Wis 1:4, 6), and sin is violation of the law, and the law is summed up in love (Rom 13:10). Amen.

God has made a promise:

James 2:5

**5Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? **

What is loving God? The Bible defines what the love of God is:

1 John 5:3
3This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,

Loving God is obeying his commandments. So if the heavenly kingdom is promised to those who love God, only those who obey God’s commandments will actually inherit the heavenly kingdom. That is why Jesus said:

Matthew 19:16-17

16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

Love is a fruit of the Holy Spirit that inspires us to obey the commandments. But activating the gift of love is a matter of choice, an act of the will:

**5For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. **

God has promised the kingdom to those who love him. But this love must persevere to the end. That is why Jesus Himself said that only those who persevere to the end will be saved. When a Christian choses to sin, it is a deliberate choice against love.

I think we’ve pretty much covered the relationship between motive and works and I think it is time to move on to the meaning of Romans 2:5-7. This discussion is getting repetative (i.e. saying the same thing using different words) and is dragging a bit. Soc, I think its time you reveal the conclusion of your well-thought out analysis so that we can compare notes. What do you believe Romans 2:5-7 mean?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I do think it, verily. And I have thought the same about you since I read you OP.

That’s kind of you to say so, Guano. Thank you.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The latter half of Romans 1 is speaking of people who exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator (Rom 1:25), people who are filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice (Rom 1:29). Then, at the beginning of Romans 2 (chapters and verses were distinctions made several centuries afterwards, of course), Paul continues speaking of these people: Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. (Rom 2:1)

In Romans 1, Paul is describing people who have distanced themselves from God by filling their lives with wickedness and evil.

Yes, i agree. At least some of the people he is addressing in chapter two are those who commit the same sins described in chapter one.

The causes of these behaviors, i believe we agree, are rebellion, faithlessness, and lack of love. One might say that the ultimate consequences of these same causes are that “there will be wrath and anger … trouble and distress” for these people from God. Perhaps this means eternal punishment or hell.

One might say then that their motives caused their eternal punishment. That is, the eternal result of a life of rebellion, faithlessness and loathing (or hatred of God and others) is hell.

Does this seem reasonable?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… What is loving God? The Bible defines what the love of God is:

1 John 5:3
3This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,

Loving God is obeying his commandments. So if the heavenly kingdom is promised to those who love God, only those who obey God’s commandments will actually inherit the heavenly kingdom. …

Michael:

If you recall, earlier in this discussion we (i and others, and perhaps you, as well) agreed that the cause of something can never be the same as its result. Since this is true, the good things you and i do can never be the same as that which causes us to do those good things. That is, it is logically impossible for acts of love to be love. Love is the motive that causes us to obey God. Love is not obeying God.

Do you think you should reword your statement, then? Instead of saying
Loving God is obeying his commandments.
you should say
Loving God causes us to obey his commandments.
because loving God can never be the same as obeying God. Love is the cause, obedience is the effect. Don’t you agree?

 

[japhy]

Do you think you should reword your statement, then? Instead of saying
Loving God is obeying his commandments.
you should say
Loving God causes us to obey his commandments.
because loving God can never be the same as obeying God. Love is the cause, obedience is the effect. Don’t you agree?

Then what is loving God? Or, what is “love of God” or “love for God”? If obedience is its result (or manifestation), what is the love itself?

 

[japhy]

The causes of these behaviors, i believe we agree, are rebellion, faithlessness, and lack of love. One might say that the ultimate consequences of these same causes are that “there will be wrath and anger … trouble and distress” for these people from God. Perhaps this means eternal punishment or hell.

One might say then that their motives caused their eternal punishment. That is, the eternal result of a life of rebellion, faithlessness and loathing (or hatred of God and others) is hell.

That the eternal result of their life of rebellion is hell sounds right to me. Their motives led to their actions, the whole of which is their life.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… I think we’ve pretty much covered the relationship between motive and works and I think it is time to move on to the meaning of Romans 2:5-7. This discussion is getting repetative (i.e. saying the same thing using different words) and is dragging a bit. Soc, I think its time you reveal the conclusion of your well-thought out analysis so that we can compare notes. What do you believe Romans 2:5-7 mean?

God Bless,
Michael

Michael:

What you are asking me to do is to jump to a conclusion. Do you think this is wise? The conclusion i accept as true, if it is actually false, will no doubt have eternal consequences for me.

This reminds me of a typical episode of CSI. You are the good cop who has his suspect in custody and believe the evidence points to him. The investigation is dragging on and you have become impatient and now are asking me, “Why look at any other evidence? We have our perp. Lets close this investigation and put him away!”

Me, i’m the crime scene investigator. I still have more evidence before me that has not been thoroughly examined. Some of this evidence appears to show that your suspect is not guilty of the truth. If the evidence demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that your conclusion is innocent of being true, then we will have no case against him. He will have been found to be false and we will have to let him go and begin looking for another suspect.

Now, perhaps we should determine for certain if the evidence we have gathered thus far points to your suspect as the actual perpetrator of truth. I believe the conclusion you have in custody is this:

The good things God helps us say and do are the cause of God giving us eternal life. Do i have the correct suspect, or are you accusing a different conclusion of being guilty of the truth?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Then what is loving God? Or, what is “love of God” or “love for God”? If obedience is its result (or manifestation), what is the love itself?

When my good friend St. John writes:

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world. (1 John 5:1-3)he is not giving a definition of love, he is explaining how we can know a person is motivated by love. “This is how we know … by loving God and carrying out his commands.” Those who love God demonstrate they have this love in their minds by saying and doing loving things. St. John is not saying what love is, he is saying what love does.

Even with God, His love for us is not the same thing as His acts of love for us. St. Paul writes

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.(Romans 5:8)Sending His One and Only Son to pay the ultimate price for you and me, japhy, was not God’s love. It was the demonstration of His love. Love was His motivation. Christ suffering for you and me was His action. The former is the cause of the latter. His love for us caused Him to demonstrate that love by what He did for us.

The same is true for you and me: Love is our motivation. Our suffering for God and others is our action. The former is the cause of the latter. Our love for Him causes us to demonstrate that love by what we do for Him and others.

Do you think this is true, japhy?

 

[guanophore]

The good things God helps us say and do are the cause of God giving us eternal life.

Gracious Mercy!

Do i have the correct suspect, or are you accusing a different conclusion of being guilty of the truth?

I think this one is missing the mark.

 

[japhy]

The same is true for you and me: Love is our motivation. Our suffering for God and others is our action. The former is the cause of the latter. Our love for Him causes us to demonstrate that love by what we do for Him and others.

Ok, I think I agree with this; let’s move on. I think I side-tracked the flow with that interjection.

 

[mikeledes]

Michael:

If you recall, earlier in this discussion we (i and others, and perhaps you, as well) agreed that the cause of something can never be the same as its result. Since this is true, the good things you and i do can never be the same as that which causes us to do those good things. That is, it is logically impossible for acts of love to be love. Love is the motive that causes us to obey God. Love is not obeying God.

Do you think you should reword your statement, then? Instead of saying
Loving God is obeying his commandments.
you should say
Loving God causes us to obey his commandments.
because loving God can never be the same as obeying God. Love is the cause, obedience is the effect. Don’t you agree?

I beg to differ. In the Bible, the word “love” is used to cover both cause and effect. The Bible itself gives the very definition of love:

2 John 6

**6And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it. **

Loving God is obeying His commadments. Sin is a violation of the moral law of God. A Christian is completely capable of sinning because he still has concupiscence, or what some Protestants call the “sin nature.” When we chose to sin, we chose against God. We chose rebellion over obedience. If a Christian commits adultery, he is an adulterer. If a Christian commits a fornication, he is a fornicator. What instruction and warning does Hebrews 13:4 regarding these sins:

4Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

And Galatians 5:19 - 21 states:

**19Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are:immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
21envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. **

There is no need of a warning if there is no threat of danger. A warning, by its very nature, means that one is potentially in danger. Dictionary.com defines the word “warn” as follows:

**1. to give notice, advice, or intimation to (a person, group, etc.) of danger, impending evil, possible harm, or anything else unfavorable **

The Bible urges us to pursue holiness, to pursue sanctification. Why?

Hebrews 12:14

**14Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord. **

Without sanctification, we will not see the Lord. We will not be saved. What does pursuing sanctification mean?

1 Thessalonians 4:3-7

**3For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality;
4that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor,
5not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God;
6and that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter because the Lord is the avenger in all these things, just as we also old you before and solemnly warned you. 7For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification. **

2 Peter 1:15-17

15but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior;
16because it is written, “YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.”
17If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth.

Loving God is pursuing sanctification by obeying His commandments. Those who fail to do so, Christians included, will not inherit the kingdom of God.

God Bless,
Michael
.

 

[mikeledes]

Michael:

What you are asking me to do is to jump to a conclusion. Do you think this is wise? The conclusion i accept as true, if it is actually false, will no doubt have eternal consequences for me.

This reminds me of a typical episode of CSI. You are the good cop who has his suspect in custody and believe the evidence points to him. The investigation is dragging on and you have become impatient and now are asking me, “Why look at any other evidence? We have our perp. Lets close this investigation and put him away!”

Me, i’m the crime scene investigator. I still have more evidence before me that has not been thoroughly examined. Some of this evidence appears to show that your suspect is not guilty of the truth. If the evidence demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that your conclusion is innocent of being true, then we will have no case against him. He will have been found to be false and we will have to let him go and begin looking for another suspect.

Now, perhaps we should determine for certain if the evidence we have gathered thus far points to your suspect as the actual perpetrator of truth. I believe the conclusion you have in custody is this:

The good things God helps us say and do are the cause of God giving us eternal life. Do i have the correct suspect, or are you accusing a different conclusion of being guilty of the truth?

I believe we have established the fact that the good things that a Christian does is a result of God’s grace. I also believe that we have spent too much time analyzing a fact that has already been established.

I’ve read enough to know that you have a conclusion regarding Romans 2:5-10 and I believe that this prolonged analysis is unncessary to lead us to that conclusion. Please state your conclusion first and then give us your line of reasoning. I apologize if I come off a bit impatient, but tomorrow is not promised to anyone and, God willing, I would like to see the final conclusion of your analysis before I meet my Maker.

God bless,
Michael

 

[japhy]

Yes, i agree. At least some of the people he is addressing in chapter two are those who commit the same sins described in chapter one.

I think I see a possible destination (or at least resting point) of this discussion. Since the latter half of Romans 1 and the beginning of Romans 2 are not directed at Christians (even fallen away Christians) but rather those who have forsaken God from the start, is it your belief that Romans 2:4-8 is simply dividing the world into Christians and non-Christians? That is, it does not leave room for the possibility of “fallen away” or “bad” Christians? To be even more blunt, that no actual Christian would ever need to be told that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance (Romans 2:4), so the idea of a Christian “slacking off” is illogical?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Do i have the correct suspect, or are you accusing a different conclusion of being guilty of the truth?

… I think this one is missing the mark.

It appears i have misunderstood what you believe Romans, chapter 2 teaches is the way to receive eternal life. I apologize.

Will you please tell me what your opinion is, Guano?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Ok, I think I agree with this; let’s move on. I think I side-tracked the flow with that interjection.

I would like to do as you request, japhy, but Michael appears to disagree with us. Perhaps you and i can help him see the truth that we found during our discussion that escaped his sight? I trust you agree that it would be rude to ignore his objection and carry on the conversation without him.

It might also be foolish to ignore his objection, for he might see some truth we both have failed to see, and you and i, like the blind following the blind, might stumble into a pit and suffer great harm that would have been avoided if only we had listened to Michael when he tried to warn us.

Either way, we will find patience a virtue, and she will bless us no matter what the outcome. If we can endure her, she will either help us save our brother Mike, or help him save us. Good can only result.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I beg to differ. In the Bible, the word “love” is used to cover both cause and effect. The Bible itself gives the very definition of love:

2 John 6

6And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.

Loving God is obeying His commadments. Sin is a violation of the moral law of God. …

Michael:

It appears japhy and i disagree with you, perhaps for different reasons. I cannot speak for him, but only for myself. I am confident he will give you his opinion, if he believes it good to do so.

Now as i understand, the points of our disagreement about the meaning of love are two: (1) we disagree on what St. John means by writing, “this is love” and (2) we disagree regarding whether a cause can be the same thing as its effect.

Regarding our first disagreement (1), i have proposed that St. John’s style of writing is such that it is ambiguous (or can be taken two different ways). When he writes

And this is love …
i can understand how you can be mislead into thinking he is saying, “this is how to define the essence of love”. However, what i believe he is actually saying is: “this is how we know that a person has love as his motivation”.

Regarding our second disagreement (2), japhy and i discussed earlier in this same discussion thread how the cause of something cannot be the same as its effect. Love, therefore, cannot be both the cause of the good things we do and also the good things we do. This is logically impossible.

So, i will leave it up to you, Michael, as to how to resolve our disagreement. Would you like to discuss (1) the meaning of St. John’s words in his first epistle, or (2) whether love is a cause of our actions or the effect of our attitudes?

I will wait for you to decide.

 

[mikeledes]

I think I see a possible destination (or at least resting point) of this discussion. Since the latter half of Romans 1 and the beginning of Romans 2 are not directed at Christians (even fallen away Christians) but rather those who have forsaken God from the start, is it your belief that Romans 2:4-8 is simply dividing the world into Christians and non-Christians? That is, it does not leave room for the possibility of “fallen away” or “bad” Christians? To be even more blunt, that no actual Christian would ever need to be told that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance (Romans 2:4), so the idea of a Christian “slacking off” is illogical?

Finally! :extrahappy: That is precisely where I predicted this discussion would end. Romans 2:5-8 establishes a general principle reaffirmed throughout the Bible. It is not merely the unique element of a well-crafted arguement.

Galatians 6:7-9

7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
9Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap IF we do not grow weary.

There is no “if”, Soc, when something is guaranteed. And even if Romans 2 were a simple division between Christian and non-Christian, its still saying that eternal life is given after one has been judged. Moreover, a person “righteous before God” can turn away from righteousness:

Ezekiel 33:13,18

**13"When I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die.
18"When the righteous turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, then he shall die in it. **

Note, God does not say the “so-called righteous”, the “righteous in their own estimation”, nor the “externally reighteous.” God is talking about those who are righteous in His sight.

Only those who persevere to the end will be saved. Hence, Saint Paul himself says:

1 Corinthians 9:24-27
24Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
25Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
26Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;
27but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

Romans 11:20-22

20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

Only those who persevere to the end will be saved.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Michael:

It appears japhy and i disagree with you, perhaps for different reasons. I cannot speak for him, but only for myself. I am confident he will give you his opinion, if he believes it good to do so.

Now as i understand, the points of our disagreement about the meaning of love are two: (1) we disagree on what St. John means by writing, “this is love” and (2) we disagree regarding whether a cause can be the same thing as its effect.

Regarding our first disagreement (1), i have proposed that St. John’s style of writing is such that it is ambiguous (or can be taken two different ways). When he writes

And this is love …
i can understand how you can be mislead into thinking he is saying, “this is how to define the essence of love”. However, what i believe he is actually saying is: “this is how we know that a person has love as his motivation”.

Regarding our second disagreement (2), japhy and i discussed earlier in this same discussion thread how the cause of something cannot be the same as its effect. Love, therefore, cannot be both the cause of the good things we do and also the good things we do. This is logically impossible.

So, i will leave it up to you, Michael, as to how to resolve our disagreement. Would you like to discuss (1) the meaning of St. John’s words in his first epistle, or (2) whether love is a cause of our actions or the effect of our attitudes?

I will wait for you to decide.

In the Bible, the word “love” is used both as a sentiment and as a verb (i.e. word of action).

Galatians 5:6 (NASB)

6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love (NIV).

Love springs forth from the regenerated heart and is made visible in our conduct. Loving God is not merely a warm feeling in one’s heart. It includes obeying His commandments. Keeping the commandments answers an important question; HOW do we love God?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[davidv]

Regarding our second disagreement (2), japhy and i discussed earlier in this same discussion thread how the cause of something cannot be the same as its effect. Love, therefore, cannot be both the cause of the good things we do and also the good things we do. This is logically impossible.

Not true. In the business world this happens often. The circumstances, where cause is also the effect, are often refered to as “vicious circles”.

 

[mikeledes]

Finally! :extrahappy: That is precisely where I predicted this discussion would end. Romans 2:5-8 establishes a general principle reaffirmed throughout the Bible. It is not merely the unique element of a well-crafted arguement.

Galatians 6:7-9

7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
9Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap IF we do not grow weary.

There is no “if”, Soc, when something is guaranteed. And even if Romans 2 were a simple division between Christian and non-Christian, its still saying that eternal life is given after one has been judged. Moreover, a person “righteous before God” can turn away from righteousness:

Ezekiel 33:13,18

13"When I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die.
18"When the righteous turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, then he shall die in it.

Note, God does not say the “so-called righteous”, the “righteous in their own estimation”, nor the “externally reighteous.” God is talking about those who are righteous in His sight.

Only those who persevere to the end will be saved. Hence, Saint Paul himself says:

1 Corinthians 9:24-27
24Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
25Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
26Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;
27but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

Romans 11:20-22

20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

Only those who persevere to the end will be saved.

God Bless,
Michael

Let me make a correction. I accidenttly clicked on japhy’s post when I meant to quote Soc’s. Also, I confused the two. This discussion is making me lose my mind! :whacky: I should have read more carefully. Sorry!

God Bless,
Michael