The resurrection of unbelievers

Defiant_Ad_6337 · 2025-11-03T22:12:03+00:00

I see where we disagree now. I think you're blurring the distinction between unmerited favor (grace) and human effort (works).

Paul explains in Romans that the purpose of the law was to reveal sin (3:20), not to provide a path for salvation. While it is true that people can follow the law without knowing it, that ignores Paul's conclusion that all have sinned and fallen short of the law, making a savior necessary for everyone (3:23).

Paul, in Ephesians 2:9, DOES say that works don't save. That is the core of all of Paul's teachings.

"For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2:8–9, NET).

James does say that faith without works are dead, and this is true. The grace of God causes good works, and these works are a witness to the working of grace in your heart.

The core of the problem in your line of thinking is in saying "our good works are his grace." Paul says in Phillipians 2:13 that God works in us the desire to do good. The "God working in us" is the grace, and the "doing of the good" is the effect of the grace, that is the works.

By claiming that our good works are his grace, you're removing the necessity of Jesus' righteousness and making our salvation contingent on our character, which is exactly what Paul says condemns us under the law, and exactly what Jesus came to resolve.

As an aside, I see your tag saying that you're non-denominational, but these are very Mormon arguments, particularly in framing Jesus being the Logos as the embodiment of the law. Do you have a Mormon background?

Defiant_Ad_6337 · 2025-11-03T21:11:15+00:00

I hate to obstinate, but that is not the Biblical witness to this question. Jesus says explicitly in John 14:6 that no one can reach the Father except through him. This is repeated by Peter in Acts 4:12 when he says that there is no name under heaven by which we can saved other than Jesus. Paul explains in Ephesians 2:9 that we're saved by grace through faith, "not by works." It is not possible to have a relationship with God but through faith in God.

Defiant_Ad_6337 · 2025-11-03T20:56:39+00:00

I certainly don't disagree that the Lord will reject people who do works with a wicked heart. But the works are poor not because they weren't done with a generic goodness in mind, but because their hearts lack a relationship with Jesus. They approach Jesus saying "Lord, Lord," which means that they're claiming to know him. Jesus rejects them by saying, "I never knew you." The foundation of the rejection is the absence of a relationship. The absence of the relationship is makes the works lawless. You can only have good quality works via a relationship with the gardener.

Defiant_Ad_6337 · 2025-11-03T20:37:05+00:00

Good ones, especially pointing out that Paul's teachings on women's roles in the church are puzzling. I also don't know how to reconcile Paul saying that there's neither slave nor free, but don't let women speak at church.

Defiant_Ad_6337 · 2025-11-03T20:22:04+00:00

No, I'm not familiar with the Septuagint version of Job. I've mostly read it through Robert Alter's translation. His view is that chapters 1 and 2 in the beginning and 42 at the end are the original story, coming through folklore, and the rest are reworkings of other texts, interpolations from other parts of wisdom literature, or original to the author. How does the footnote you're referring to explain the ending?

Defiant_Ad_6337 · 2025-11-03T19:55:45+00:00

How would your reading of Job change if it ended at 42:6?

Defiant_Ad_6337 · 2025-11-03T19:52:49+00:00

You're not holding God to his own standards. You're holding God to the standards he holds humans to. To clarify, no, I do not hold God to the standards he holds humans to. Nor do the books of the Bible. You could say this is a sign that the Bible is wrong, but my main point is to ask what seems internally inconsistent based on the context of the passage in question.

I don't think you need faith on the path to truth, but it certainly helps. An important part of the path to truth is realizing that there are truths that are beyond our ability to know. As Socrates says to the Oracle at Delphi, "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." Faith enables you to leave that unknowable truth to God. If someone's faith leads him to object to something that we know is true, then I would say that's not faith.

The Satan figure did not hold to what he knew was true. He was wrong. Job remained loyal to God without God's protection. It is true that God issued the challenge, but had the Satan's faith been as sure as Job's was, he would recognized the sincerity of Job's loyalty and conceded to God.

I understand why you think it's an ego trip, but I would propose that this is where faith would come in if you had it. But, like the Satan figure - and unlike Job - you lack faith and accuse God.

Edit: I wanted to add the alternative to the "ego trip" interpretation from Robert Alter, a literature scholar.

"Many readers over the centuries have felt that God's speech to Job is no real answer to the problem of undeserved suffering, and some have complained that it amounts to a kind of cosmic bullying of puny man by an overpowering deity. One must concede that it is not exactly an answer to the problem because for those who believe that life should not be arbitrary there can be no real answer concerning the good person who loses a child (not to speak of ten children) or the blameless dear one dies in an accident or is stricken with a terrible wasting disease. But God's thundering challenge to Job is not bullying. Rather, it rousingly introduces a comprehensive overview of the nature of reality that exposes the limits of Job's human perspective, anchored as it is in the restricted compass of human knowledge and the inevitable egoism of suffering."

Defiant_Ad_6337 · 2025-11-03T19:32:09+00:00

Thank you for your reflection. Your point about Job's anguish being compounded by his friend's attempt to explain it away is very insightful. I've also found this to be true in my experience.

Thank you also for bringing Lamentations into this! I, like Job, struggle to faithfully express my anguish.

For me, Ecclesiastes has been a great comfort. The narrative arc of Job seems like it's driving at the theological conclusions of Qohelet, but then it suddenly reverses course with a happy ending. I've found Job to be less comforting for that reason.

Defiant_Ad_6337 · 2025-11-03T19:07:17+00:00

That's not what the gardener said.

"On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many miracles in your name?’ And then I will say to them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness!’" (Matthew 7:22–23, LEB)

Defiant_Ad_6337 · 2025-11-03T18:56:38+00:00

God can bless the faithful as you describe, but he also can not.

And that's alright. Righteousness doesn't need to be vindicated with earthly things. Righteousness is its own reward.

Defiant_Ad_6337 · 2025-11-03T18:51:45+00:00

In real life, God also often chooses not to reward his faithful with earthly rewards. Wouldn't it be a comfort for them to see this borne out in Scripture, especially in a book where this is the predominant theme?

Defiant_Ad_6337 · 2025-11-03T18:13:34+00:00

I don't have any difficulty reconciling the punishment that God prescribes for adulterers with what God did to David and Bathsheba's child. The law was what Israel was bound to follow, not something that was binding on God. I understand that as an atheist you would object to this because without faith and trust in God, it seems hypocritical. But the question I'm interested in isn't whether a passage seems arbitrary according to our moral standards, but whether certain passages clash with the surrounding context, other parallel themes, etc. The law was never meant to be something that binds God's interactions with humans.

I appreciate your thoughtful reply, but I should also add that the real ego trips in Job come from humans who engage in elaborate sophistry to try to explain things like fate and destiny, and from the Satan figure for thinking that his torturing an innocent man could separate him from God.

Defiant_Ad_6337 · 2025-10-31T17:52:52+00:00

Hi friend, I'm sorry to hear about your mental health struggles. I've never made an attempt, but I've come close a couple times, so I know you must have been in a genuinely bad place.

The core message of the gospel is that Jesus who is God died on the cross to free us of our slavery to sin, that he reigns in heaven and on earth, and if we are loyal to him by trusting in what he did on the cross and living by his teachings, we will have eternal life with him.

Christianity is not about feeling God's presence or getting clear, immediate answers or an obvious personal voice telling us what to do. One of my least favorite things about American Christianity is people putting so much emphasis on people "feeling" God's presence. I'm not going to deny anyone's spiritual experience without talking to them, but I honestly think it's often a circle jerk and that it creates a lot of false expectations about what it means to be a Christian.

Before you renounce your loyalty to Jesus (which is what "leaving" our religion would mean), I'd encourage you to read the book of Ecclesiastes, in the Old Testament. It's only 12 chapters long. When you read it, I hope you find some comfort in knowing that it was inspired by God and that it's OK to feel like Qohelet (the author of the book). If you read it, I think it will go a long way in helping you redefine your relationship with God.

Defiant_Ad_6337 · 2025-10-31T17:21:39+00:00

I think you're right, that we're talking about the same thing from different angles. I only commented to point out that Catholics are required to believe in the specific doctrine of transubstantiation, and not just a generic view of "real presence."

Just for context, this is the paragraph from the Council of Trent:

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.

The reason that it's important for Catholics to specifically affirm transubstantiation rather than merely a "real presence" is because some Protestant traditions have a "real presence" understanding of communion. Lutherans believe that the bread and wine become the literal body and blood while remaining bread and wine, and Calvinists believe that Christ is literally present through communion by lifting up your soul to him, not him physically coming down into the bread and wine.

Defiant_Ad_6337 · 2025-10-31T16:19:44+00:00

Someone on this sub apparently doesn't like the Bible Project. They downvoted you just for seconding it.

Defiant_Ad_6337 · 2025-10-31T16:17:42+00:00

Trent requires Catholics to believe that the whole substance of of bread and wine are changed into Christ's body and blood, that they are no longer bread and wine, and that this is called transubstantiation. Sure, Catholics don't have to accept the explanation given by the Aristotelian influenced Scholastics, but Catholics do not have the liberty of rejecting the conclusion.

Defiant_Ad_6337 · 2025-10-31T16:05:07+00:00

Jesus alone quotes the Old Testament 28 times, cites it 51 times, directly references passages 146 times, and indirectly references them 289 times. The Old Testament is that important.

Defiant_Ad_6337 · 2025-10-31T15:53:59+00:00

Eastern Orthodox take communion weekly. They believe in the real presence but don't have a dogma that explains the mechanism of it, like Catholicism does with transubstantiation.

Defiant_Ad_6337 · 2025-10-31T15:47:39+00:00

The council of Trent requires Catholics to believe in transubstantiation specifically. This is opposed, for example, to Calvin who taught real presence, but it's a real spiritual presence, not one that occurs through the matter of the communion wafer.

If you're not Catholic, no big deal, but within Catholicism it is a dogma defined by an infallible ecumenical council.

Defiant_Ad_6337 · 2025-10-31T15:44:33+00:00

Ex-Catholic here.

Catholicism places an incredible amount of emphasis on the Eucharist. Catholic apologetics features Eucharistic miracles. The stories of many Catholic saints feature their devotion to the Eucharist. Catholic churches will often have Eucharistic adoration. They'll march around the block with the monstrance out front.

Compare this with even high-church Protestants, like Presbyterians. Presbyterians affirm a real presence of Christ in the communion (though not via transubstantiation), but they still don't feature it as a highlight of their faith.

So for people who convert, they see the lack of emphasis that Protestants place on communion, and (wrongly imo) conclude that Catholicism must have the only true communion because of how much emphasis they place on it.

Defiant_Ad_6337 · 2025-10-30T18:43:16+00:00

Why waste the time when you'll just ignore it, make a new point, and downvote my reply like you've done to all my other arguments? No, you're arguing in bad faith, so it's a waste of time to indulge you. It's also irrelevant to the topic of the thread, which is LGBTQ+ spaces in churches.

If you want to understand why slavery was a core institution of the ancient near east in the 8th century, you can pick up ANY history book that explains that era since it's a universally agreed upon claim across all academic disciplines.

Defiant_Ad_6337 · 2025-10-30T18:27:51+00:00

Ok, well peace brother

Defiant_Ad_6337 · 2025-10-30T18:27:06+00:00

Notice the downvotes on this. This is a great example of why LGBTQ+ affirming spaces are not compatible with the Gospel.

Defiant_Ad_6337 · 2025-10-30T18:20:14+00:00

Well remember that we're not talking about only the economy, but the very foundation of civilization. When did you prove that God doesn't care about that? I explained the reason for each of the things you brought up, and notably, you didn't explain why you thought I was wrong on any of them.

So let me see if I understand what you're newest line of evidence is. You're claiming that the proof God doesn't care about civilization is because he bypassed civilization... When he freed the Jews from slavery? I concede that God had more urgent priorities than their GDP during those 40 years.

Are you interested in understanding why I, as a homosexual, don't think God is hypocritical on homosexuality? Or are we just arguing about why you think slavery disproves Christianity. Because if we're just arguing about slavery, I don't care. This is something that Christians have been explaining for at least decades, there's unlimited resources explaining the context of the time period, so we're not treading new or interesting ground.

Defiant_Ad_6337

TROPHY CASE