Trespasses, sins, guilt, debts, shoulds?
Palladian's version of the Lord's Prayer (evolved from a machine) struck me because of how the words "trespasses" and "trespassed" survived wholly intact:
Or father
court in heaven
shall be dining biking them,
but I will be done
on corporate as it is in heaven
give us this day ordeal the bride
and for guests are trespasses
as a brief for give those who trespassed against its
and leave us not into temptation
to deliver us from evil
for design to step forward
and glory forever,
on and.
The Lord's Prayer has appeared in English since the earliest recorded times and the word "trespass" did not appear until the 16th century. Originally, we used the word gyltas which is cognate with modern English word "guilt":
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum
si þin nama gehalgod
tobecume þin rice
gewurþe þin willa
on eorðan swa swa on heofonum
urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us to dæg
and forgyf us ure gyltas
swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum
and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge
ac alys us of yfele soþlice.
By the 14th century, the word had evolved to a combination of dettis and synnys, which are cognate with modern English words "debts" and "sins;" Middle English had clearly felt the influence of the Norman Conquest (1066):
Oure fadir þat art in heuenes halwid be þi name;
þi reume or kyngdom come to be.
Be þi wille don in herþe as it is doun in heuene.
yeue to us today oure eche dayes bred.
And foryeue to us oure dettis þat is oure synnys
As we foryeuen to oure dettouris þat is to men þat han synned in us.
As we foryeuen to oure dettouris þat is to men þat han synned in us.
And lede us not into temptacion but delyuere us from euyl.
By the 16th century, "trespasses" had supplanted guilt, sin, and debt to give the verses we know by heart:
Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil.
Amen.
"Trespass" has an archaic meaning of sin or transgression but the word today largely means to stray into another's territory--like being "offsides" -- 5 yard penalty. The OED instructs on the origin of trespass; it is French in origin, meaning to transgress or literally to go beyond. It's odd that we use a word of French origin when the French themselves use the word debit or debt and apparently always have done so: link
The Italians use debito and the Latin Mass uses the identical concept: link
I once wrote a blog post on this topic (which originated in an Althouse comment). There is a curious convolution of monetary debt and sin in the German language (Nietzsche is involved) and I wrote about it here.
What I'm still curious about is what did the concept originally correspond to and what word(s) were used? Perhaps someone can use this resource (the Lord's Prayer in all languages) to resolve this question.
66 comments:
"Calling Father Fox..Father Martin Fox."
I see it is a religious themed Sunday. The antithesis to the Bloody Sundays we all have experienced elsewhere. God bless you. I just heard you sneeze.
Old spaghetti Western:
God Forgives, I Don't.
Pretty much how it works.
Oddly enough I'm leading a discussion on this in a couple of hours.
Debts, sins, violations against us. John Wesley points out a couple of different parts of that line: "If" and "as".
This suggests God forgives us, if we forgive others, and as we forgive others. Quantity and quality. In case people missed it the first time around, Jesus finishes the passage (in Matthew at least) reiterating that bit.
The Greek has: ὀφείλημα (opheilēma), debt.
Which comes from the root ὀφειλή (opheilē), obligation; duty.
The same word is used in Romans 4:4: "Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due."
Which connects to the idea that if someone does something wrong to us, in whatever way, they owe us. Forgiveness is an erasing of that debt, saying they don't owe us anything.
"Trespasses" is likely used to imply it's not only about monetary debt, but ways in which we have been offended or violated. But, it has taken on a more specific meaning in our era, so probably debt is again the better translation.
Yes, edutcher, but don't forget that it clearly recites "as we forgive those who trespass against us" putting the onus on mankind as well.
Basically, it orients forgiveness in light of the summation of the law: love God, love others.
We are forgiven by God, we forgive others. The vertical dimension resonates into the horizontal. And, more scarily, vice versa.
The Greek has: ὀφείλημα (opheilēma), debt.
Which comes from the root ὀφειλή (opheilē), obligation; duty.
Thanks, Paddy O. If you follow the link I put at the end, you see how the Germans use the word Schuld which is closely related to our modal verb "should." "Should" meaning obligation.
ndspinelli said...
I see it is a religious themed Sunday. The antithesis to the Bloody Sundays we all have experienced elsewhere. God bless you. I just heard you sneeze.
After a raucous Saturday Night Boogie, it's redemption time. Johnny Cash would approve this message.
What I'm still curious about is what did the concept originally correspond to and what word(s) were used?
The Lord's Prayer, called such because it is given us by Jesus Himself and is included in the Bible, is best interpreted as is any other biblical passage, or as any contractual, statutory, or literary passage -- by reading it in the context of the surrounding text and in the context of the whole.
With respect to the Bible, the context of the whole is, of course the "Word" -- Jesus Himself. Everything needs to be interpreted through the lens of who and what He is, i.e. Love and Truth. On a more positivist level, the whole is the entire Bible, but especially the Gospels, since again Jesus, as God, is the culmination of divine revelation.
With respect to the Lord's Prayer specifically, the narrower context is the Sermon on the Mount, see Matthew chapters 5-7. In chapter 6 we find, by one translation,
12 and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us; 13 and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen. 14 Your heavenly Father will forgive you your transgressions, if you forgive your fellow men theirs; 15 if you do not forgive them, your heavenly Father will not forgive your transgressions either.
Here, Jesus Himself gives us a kind of interpretation. Trespasses means transgressions.
In the Latin, it is
12 et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. 13 Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen. 14 Si enim dimiseritis hominibus peccata eorum: dimittet et vobis Pater vester cælestis delicta vestra. 15 Si autem non dimiseritis hominibus: nec Pater vester dimittet vobis peccata vestra.
The corresponding words are "debita," "debitoribus," and "peccata."
"Peccata" means "sins." So, debts equates to sins.
But what does "sin" mean?
El Pollo Raylan said...
Yes, edutcher, but don't forget that it clearly recites "as we forgive those who trespass against us" putting the onus on mankind as well.
I realize that, but, many times, it's the way things work out.
Until we learn better.
Darn Good post chip. But the use of the OED, which i can not link to from here, is unforgivable ;)
Top notch otherwise.
The English word "sin" comes to us from German, "sunde," and is also related to the English word "sunder" - to tear apart, to separate something. And that, at its root, is what sin is - an act that is contrary to and separates us from God. Whereas reconciliation is the reuniting of God and man.
Going further though, what separates us from God? More specifically, does sin only concern relations with us and God? Again, Jesus Himself provides the answer (as does any proper reading of the Old Testament) - the whole of the Law and Prophets is to love God and love one another. Hence, to fail to love other humans is to fail in this commandment, it is to sin against God. So, yes, sin includes acting against other people.
So, what does this mean for the Lord's Prayer? A proper interpretation of "trespasses" does not limit itself to constricted, much less legalistic, definitions of the word itself, but encompasses the entire teaching of Jesus. So, getting into arguments over what is the right translation -- trespasses, debts, sins, etc. -- really misses the point.
Writ of Trespass. Tort. Twist. Wrong.
Taking no revenge is something that must be done by the weak, when exercising due caution. Make a virtue out of necessity, says the church.
God wants to take away our guns!!! Submit to the government!!!
It's best to forgive and forget, social cohesiveness, and all that. But if you can do only one, then it's better to forget.
That becomes easier and easier as we get older, forgetful, and weaker. That's chiefly what made Hyman Roth so interesting a character they could get Lee Strasberg to play him.
If you want GOD to forgive you your 'trespasses' or guilty deeds or moral wrongdoings or the debts that burden your soul, then you should also forgive those who have "done you dirty" as well and hope that those that you have harmed will also forgive your guilts/debt/trespasses. I think that would be the gist of it.
Which connects to the idea that if someone does something wrong to us, in whatever way, they owe us. Forgiveness is an erasing of that debt, saying they don't owe us anything.
I guess I'm doomed then, since there are some people and things that some people do that I will NEVER forgive.
We had the discussion at T.O.P. about being sorry. I will not and cannot forgive if there is no repentance. Sorry cannot be forced. It has to be real. I believe that is also a part of my early Catechism lessons. Going to confession and merely rattling off your sins and saying a few Hail Marys or even a whole Rosary, doesn't get you a ticket to Heaven. You must be truly repentant
Lem said...
Darn Good post chip. But the use of the OED, which i can not link to from here, is unforgivable ;)
Top notch otherwise.
LOLZER!
Wow, a Sunday post on the Lord's prayer! Impressive.
Slightly off topic, as a kid hearing the Lord's prayer recited I couldn't help but hear:
"Our Father who farts in heaven.."
Forgive and forget?
Well, Newsweek attempted to do it. Turns out Major Hasan was never in combat. No matter, Newsweek and other pro-dem media just make stuff up to sell the agenda.
Know Thine Enemy
So, getting into arguments over what is the right translation -- trespasses, debts, sins, etc. -- really misses the point.
Yes, but must we be like Eskimos, having multiple words for one thing?
I suppose we bless with nuance what we have so much of.
In my tradition we have to forgive everyone, right now.
I forgive you for everything, phx, except that damn screen name which you told me the origin of once.
Best trip to UD i can remember having, thanks pollo. My phone no Park Good here, i use sister iPad.
except that damn screen name which you told me the origin of once.
?
"What should be forgiven?"
Let's turn that around and see if it helps us --
What doesn't need to be forgiven?
What are we not required to forgive?
What hurts and resentments and injuries are we allowed to hold on to?
We had to get off the bus and check in Nike we are coming in to another country. Ok, bad ex amplíe. Sister says it's the thread level is higher than usual. The embassy clásico.
Sister has auto thingy turnes on.
Gird your loins and light your lamps
and be like servants who await their master’s return from a wedding,
ready to open immediately when he comes and knocks.
The question really answers itself. There are no qualifiers as to what must be and what is not required to be forgiven.
This should be especially clear when it comes to the "forgive us" part.
Do we really mean to say to God "forgive us X, but it's OK if you do not forgive us Y"??
Of course not. What we mean to say - or should mean to say and want to say - is "Forgive us EVERYTHING that even remotely might be subject to being forgiven. Be infinite in your mercies, overlook even the slightest of our imperfections and impurities, so that we might enter into that which is perfect and pure, i.e. your presence in heaven."
If You zoom in to my comment @11:36 You will disco ver i said dar n not da m.
Just sahino
Lem, Meade took over the blog in your absence.
Looks Meade is pulling an Al Haig ;)
All comments will be meadiated.
It's my fault. I signaled the dog whistle. T.O.P.
Sorry. I and I do mean it.
:-P
To know what the original word was, we would of course, need to look at what Jesus said, and He said it, not in English, not in Latin or Greek, not even in Hebrew, but in Aramaic. So, to know the precise translation and, therefore meaning of what was said and meant, we would have to go back to Aramaic.
But that raises the question -- Wouldn't Jesus have known (being eternal) that Aramaic was a dying language and was not even the universal/international language of the day? Wouldn't He have known that 99.999999 percent of His followers would never know Aramaic? Wouldn't He have foreseen it being translated into many different languages and, hence, the potential for ambiguous meaning through the translation/interpretation process?
Of course. And from that it is clear that He never intended that there be a narrow understanding that hinges on the meaning of a single word. It is meant to be much broader and understandable to all.
Bender asks: What doesn't need to be forgiven?
What are we not required to forgive?
What hurts and resentments and injuries are we allowed to hold on to?
Speculative mortgage debt? School loan debt? The National debt, inter alia.
If we stick to "trespasses," that raises another interesting question -- How would it be possible for us to trespass upon God or His domain? He is omnipotent and we cannot trod upon heaven unless He gives us entry. So how can we trespass upon Him?
Well, one way is the original way. We trespass upon His prerogatives. We intrude upon His area of competence and authority.
And how do we do that? By making ourselves -- or more precisely, pretending to make ourselves -- gods, by saying to ourselves that we have the power to create right and wrong, good and evil. That is the Original Sin and is really the foundation of every other sin we might commit.
Let go and let Lem.
I axed me fader
Could I jimmy the hard candy machine
In the corna staw.
Wham! A good frosk he give me hard
And these words I have lived and thrived by
Ever since --
"You wanna trespass, punk, foist get yourself a degree,
Then you can trespass big."
Yours insincerely,
Ben "The Goniff" Bernanke
Live and let Lem.
Moré roasting less toasting.
I am glad to see that people are not returning to T.O.P.
It is interesting to see that now without the comments how banal and boring T.O.P. was/is.
I want to see Lem posting photos of the Canada side of the falls and their overly restrictive casinos!
I had not been to T.O.P. in about ten days before this afternoon. I did scroll through. I did not see any of the obnoxious Amazon carney posts. I guess they found out that you can not insult your guest and then expect them to give you free money.
Lem, if I send you an idea for a post (from the left perspective) would you consider publishing it?
I wouldn't hold my breath Jay Retread, but good luck.
I have never had any problems with the conservative commentators from T.O.P. (besides that I disagree with them 80% of the time politically.)
Ingra, I know you are an acolyte of the twit that runs the other place but she will turn on you when she is done playing with you. That is how she rolls. She is the queen of bad faith.
Now that I have retired "Althouse Hillbilly" I am going to coin the term "Althouse Hippy" for you.
Actually I am not. Now that she dropped her mask, T.O.P. is a bore for me.
Jay, that you state you never had a problem with the conservative commenters there, makes me wonder what you stand for. Were you there merely to bash Althouse or to stand on your principles as a liberal? I think that perhaps some here are trying very hard to get in the good graces of the conservatives and have forgotten that much of the poo flinging over there was in reaction to a liberal voicing their opinion and sticking with their principles.
Jay, as I said, good luck. I hope they allow you to post a blog post, should be interesting.
Evi L. Bloggerlady said...
I want to see Lem posting photos of the Canada side of the falls and their overly restrictive casinos!
I want to see you posting photos of Luisa Zissman in gold bikinis.
Watching Carell and Hathaway Get Smart (great dialogue, repays rewatching)
Carell: Until we understand our enemies, we will never defeat them. Yes, they are bad guys, but that's what they do, not who they are.
Carell is the guy in touch and Hathaway the proficient feminist as long as she can keep it up.
I would like a post from Jay. It is good to have different points of view and discussions----not yelling arguments, but intelligent debate. Who knows. Jay may just change some minds.
Seriously. I believe that most everyone is able to be persuaded on some topics. Other topics...maybe not so much. Personally, most of my views are not necessarily carved in stone. And many of us are not completely "right" or "left". I consider myself a libertarian on many things social and conservative on fiscal issues.
I also think it would be great to hear from Jay. Especially if he picked an offbeat topic that would be interesting but not what we would expect. Like the saga of
A-Rod or his thoughts on home schooling or maybe what he thought about Anthony Weiner and Spitzer running for office. That would be very interesting.
Just no math. Thanks.
Inga wrote "a liberal voicing their opinion and sticking with their principles."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
That's some funny shit right there.
Dear Ingra wrote
"Jay, that you state you never had a problem with the conservative commenters there, makes me wonder what you stand for. Were you there merely to bash Althouse or to stand on your principles as a liberal? I think that perhaps some here are trying very hard to get in the good graces of the conservatives and have forgotten that much of the poo flinging over there was in reaction to a liberal voicing their opinion and sticking with their principles."
Me being a principle liberal has nothing to do with it. Ann is an insufferable phony and I got my kicks calling her out on it.
She cultivated her conservative base and encouraged them to often turn ugly. (Hence "Althouse Hillbillies".) She created a cockfight atmosphere at the expense of liberals like me.
Cant wait to read your blog post Jay. Let's see if the good conservatives here will treat it and you with more respect than they did at Althouse. Of course now that I've said that they will make an attempt, for a short while. However I doubt they could keep up the pretense for long.
Good luck, here to you getting to post here! How about addressing Obamacare? Or perhaps Benghazi?
Oh, one last thought Jay, how much encouragement do you think the cocks needed to fight?
Presbyterians routinely say 'debts' instead of 'trespasses'. I was told the 'trespasses' usage comes from Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer, which the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) never bought into. Presbyterians are also likely to add the phrase 'He descended into hell' to the Apostle's Creed.
Thank you for getting the comments back on track, Ken.
My life is quite busy right now but I will try to work something out with Lem.
"Wouldn't He have foreseen it being translated into many different languages and, hence, the potential for ambiguous meaning through the translation/interpretation process?"
Of course He did.
And that explains why He always kept a scribe on hand to take dictation.
Hi Pollo,
Wow, you had a great posting day yesterday; sorry I missed it (live, anyway).
Awesome topic & question. I love this stuff. Not sure your question has been fully answered yet (though some great & key points were made, especially by Paddy O & Bender).
I'm not going to get close to a complete answer, but here's some stuff that I don't think was mentioned (and some possible corrections to your exposition of the problem). Warning: several loooong comments ahead-- which I only allow myself because it's the day after, and this thread is mostly dead.
The first two comprehensive English translations of the Bible are the Wycliffe (1395) translation and the Tyndale (1526) translation. What's at issue here is one line of the Lord's Prayer ("and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us"), corresponding to Matthew 6.12. (NB There's a different version of this prayer in Luke-- we'll get to that later.)
The Wycliffe uses "debts" (dettis) in the prayer; the Tyndale uses "trespass," and it's the Tyndale that cements this use henceforth. Tyndale is the first to use the printing press to disseminate his translation, and in 1549 the first Book of Common Prayer in English follows Tyndale in using "trespasses"; this becomes the official Anglican version.
Some churches (and future translations) will follow Wycliffe; some (most?) will follow Tynsdale.
The Wycliffe translation is from the Latin; the Tynsdale is the first to translate from Greek & Hebrew as well. In what follows, I used this great reference (found through google): the Greek and the Latin and an English translation of Biblical passages, side by side by side. (See, this is why I love the internet.)
In both cases-- the Greek and the Latin-- the words correspond more closely to "debt" that "trespass." As Paddy O pointed out, the Greek term is ὀφείλημα (opheilēma), that which is owed, debt; as Bender points out, the Latin terms used are debita, debitoribus (debts, debtors; what is owed, those who owe).
(NB in each case these words derive from the verbs opheilo, debeo, which not only mean "I owe," but also to be bound or obliged, i.e. "I ought, I must, I should.")
So at this point it would seem that, as you say, the word "trespass" doesn't appear in the Lord's Prayer until the 16th century (with Tyndale), and that there's been an evolution toward it (supplanting guilt, sin, debt). But this isn't quite the case-- or at least it's not so simple. The multiplicity/ variation isn't one that develops over time, as a series of substitutions; it's a multiplicity and complication that's there from the beginning (at least, going back to the Greek).
For if you go back to our trusty OED, you'll note that "trespass" appears in Wycliffe too, and just 2 lines from the prayer (Matt. 6.14): "Ȝif ȝee shulen forȝeue to men her synnys, and ȝoure heuenly fadir shal forȝeue to ȝou ȝoure trespassis" (or, in modern English, " For if ye forgive to men their sins, [and] your heavenly Father shall forgive to you your trespasses."
So: in Matthew there is the prayer, but then immediately afterward there are lines which appear to be paraphrases, glosses, interpretations or explanations of the prayer. In Greek and Latin both, there are additional words/ concepts, immediately after the prayer, to complicate/ supplement the word/ concept at issue in the prayer (opheilema/ debitum/ debt). So, from the beginning (at least in the texts/ translations that I know of), we're not just dealing with one word.
Wycliffe uses 2 words here-- "sins" and "trespasses"-- to translate 2 Latin words-- "peccata" and "delicta"-- in two contexts (what Paddy O called the horizontal vs. vertical relations, among men vs. God --> us). So Wycliffe is relatively faithful to the Latin ("trespasses" translates delicta, from delinquere, from which we get "delinquent"; delictum = fault, offence, trespass, crime, transgression, wrong, defect).
But in Greek, the line only uses one word for both cases: παραπτώματα (paraptomata); my rough translation: "For if you forgive human beings their transgressions/ trespasses (paraptomata); your heavenly father will forgive yours." Paraptoma means "false step, slip, blunder," but also "transgression, trespass."
So, so far we're dealing with 3 English words (debt, sin, trespass), 3 Latin words (debitum, peccatum, delictum), and 2 Greek words (opheilema, paraptoma)-- but a 3rd Greek word is easy to find: hamartia (corresponding to "sin"). It's to be found e.g. in the version of the prayer found in Luke 11:4: "and forgive us our sins (hamartia); for [or, as, as long as] we ourselves forgive all those who owe/ trespass against (opheilonti) us…"
Way too complicated to get into the semantic thicket of "hamartia" (one of the big words of Greek tragedy); suffice to say it can mean "failure, fault, error, guilt, sin."
So Luke 11:14 posits an analogy and/or if-then relation between God forgiving us our "hamartia" (sins) and we forgiving our fellow men who "opheilonti" (owe, are in debt to) us. As we saw, in Matt. 6.12 (the prayer) we find an analogy ("just as", and using the same word for the vertical and horizontal "debt"); in Matt. 6:14 (the gloss on the prayer) we find the if-then relation, and the same word in Greek for horizontal & vertical "trespass" (but different words in Latin).
Oddly, though, the Latin Mark 6: 14 uses "peccata" for the horizontal relation; whereas the Latin Luke 11:14 uses "peccata" for the vertical relation. There are no simple correspondences or clear distinctions between words/ usages here.
OK, whew! So where are we now? (I'm getting lost.)
I gather (from something I read on the internet, for whatever it's worth) that the Aramaic word for debt and sin is the same.
I also gather (from something I read on the internet, for whatever it's worth) that in Second Temple Jewish thought, there is a close connection between debt and sin, e.g. a midrash linking the Year of Jubilee with the coming of the Messiah: the day of atonement of sins is also the day of the proclamation of freedom from financial debts (among all men).
So it would seem that, historically and literally (closest to the original Aramaic), "debt" would be a better word to use than "trespass."
But then, "Luke" found it necessary to make at once an analogy and a distinction (God forgiving us "hamartia"/ we forgiving fellow human beings who "opheilonti/ owe" us), and "Mark" found it necessary to follow the prayer with a gloss on the prayer, interpreted/ supplemented with a different word (paraptoma).
Perhaps Tyndale chose to forgo the most literal translation of the word in the prayer ("debt"), and went for a word closer to the gloss (a translation for "paraptoma"), because he feared "debt" might be taken too literally/ narrowly; perhaps by his time "debt" in English had acquired too narrow a meaning. E.g. Augustine, in his commentary on the Sermon of the Mount, takes this notion of the forgiveness of debts, qua financial debts among men, quite literally; such a literal reading might be threatening or destabilizing in post-Reformation England. Who knows?
So maybe it's understandable why he chose not to go with "debt." But why "trespass"? Is that the best translation for "paraptoma"?
Going into a closer examination of the Greek terms would lead me down several rabbit holes or into dark dense scary thickets, so this is not an answer, but something to note in this connection: in its own way, "trespass" is as primordial an ethical/ moral / religious concept as "debt," especially in the Greek tradition. To respect & keep within one's proper limits, boundaries, the place/ role/ part apportioned to one, is a fundamental notion in Greek religion, cosmology, philosophy, law, ethics. It's a fundamental concept not only to the order of the universe, but also to the order/ disorder of the city, justice/ injustice among men. Cf. hubris. And, cf. what Bender said about Original Sin as the foundation of every other sin, thinking ourselves (like) gods. In the story of Adam and Eve and the fruit, what is at issue if not a question of trespassing?
To be continued, maybe (or maybe not), heh. I better stop now before I start up with Heidegger.
Please continue when you have time, yashu. I'm reading every word.
SAVING FAITH COMES FROM HEARING GOD'S WORD
Do men receive faith, that saves, because God arbitrarily bestows them with faith? Does God predetermined who will be saved and them cause them to have faith so they can be saved? No and No.
Faith comes from hearing God's word preached.
Romans 10:17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.(NKJV)
Romans 10:14 How they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?(NKJV)
Faith comes when men believe the gospel. Faith is not forced on men by God.
MISUNDERSTOOD PROOF-TEXT EPHESIANS 2:8
Ephesians 2:8 is used to prove that faith is a gift from God, however, that is not what is says.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is a gift of God,(NKJV)
Salvation is the gift from God. Faith is not the gift.
Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
Why would Jesus condemn men who do not believe if God is the one who arbitrarily bestows faith on men so they can be saved?
To have faith that Jesus is the Son of God is a choice. To trust in God is a choice. To believe that God resurrected Jesus from the grave is a choice. To believe that Jesus is both Lord and Christ is a choice. God does not force men to have faith. Saving faith is the not a gift from God. Salvation is the gift from God.
WHAT MUST MEN DO TO BE SAVED?
1. Hear the gospel. Romans 10:17
2. Believe. John 3:16
3. Confess. Romans 10:9
4. Repent. Acts 3:19
5. Be baptized in water. Acts 2:38
YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY CHRISTIAN BLOG. Google search>>>steve finnell a christian view
Please continue when you have time, yashu. I'm reading every word.
Might take you up on that over the next couple days.
This topic intersects, overlaps with stuff I've long been very interested in. Learned a lot from trying to answer your question; sparked all sorts of connections for me.
So this might be good incentive to trace some links, jot some bits and pieces down. (Though I'm likely to delete not long afterward.)
But I might be too lazy. Anyway, thanks for the great post!
So this might be good incentive to trace some links, jot some bits and pieces down. (Though I'm likely to delete not long afterward.)
That wold be deleterious! Please don't!
Post a Comment