Why being "Good" doesn't get you into Heaven

[jiggyfly]

I think this is a dangerous and false doctrine that being good doesn't get you into Heaven. I agree that the only way to Heaven is through Jesus. But, if you're not doing good, you're not following Jesus. If you don't desire righteousnesses, you don't desire Christ.

For God in all His fullness was pleased to live in Christ, and by Him God reconciled everything to Himself. He made peace with everything in heaven and on earth by means of His blood on the cross. This includes you who were once so far away from God. You were His enemies, separated from Him by your evil thoughts and actions, yet now He has brought you back as His friends. He has done this through His death on the cross in His own human body. As a result, He has brought you into the very presence of God, and you are holy and blameless as you stand before Him without a single fault. Col.1:19-22

Sounds to me like the "doing good" is on His part not ours.:wink:

 

[allforihs]

For God in all His fullness was pleased to live in Christ, and by Him God reconciled everything to Himself. He made peace with everything in heaven and on earth by means of His blood on the cross. This includes you who were once so far away from God. You were His enemies, separated from Him by your evil thoughts and actions, yet now He has brought you back as His friends. He has done this through His death on the cross in His own human body. As a result, He has brought you into the very presence of God, and you are holy and blameless as you stand before Him without a single fault. Col.1:19-22

Sounds to me like the "doing good" is on His part not ours.:wink:

I'm Calvinistic, so I have no objection to your "he has" argument. But, by your fruit you will know them. Faith without works is dead. "We, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness." "Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Etc.

Someone who does not strive to do good is not a friend of Jesus. Jesus has not saved that person. Someone who teaches that it doesn't matter if you're good is in danger of Hell fire.

 

[RJ]

For God in all His fullness was pleased to live in Christ, and by Him God reconciled everything to Himself. He made peace with everything in heaven and on earth by means of His blood on the cross. This includes you who were once so far away from God. You were His enemies, separated from Him by your evil thoughts and actions, yet now He has brought you back as His friends. He has done this through His death on the cross in His own human body. As a result, He has brought you into the very presence of God, and you are holy and blameless as you stand before Him without a single fault. Col.1:19-22

Sounds to me like the "doing good" is on His part not ours.:wink:

I agree! Faith without works is dead!

Jesus is the vine and we are the branches, if we are in him and he in us, we will bear much fruit, with out him we can do nothing!

He's the vine, it his his fruit (works, deeds), we only bear his fruit for him.

We are saved through our Faith in Grace, it is free and not of our own works or then we could boast.

There are plenty of Orthodox Jews that do very good deeds or work but, unfortunately, they are not in faith and they are dead to their sins.

2 COR 13 : 5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?

 

[RJ]

I'm Calvinistic, so I have no objection to your "he has" argument. But, by your fruit you will know them. Faith without works is dead. "We, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness." "Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Etc.

Someone who does not strive to do good is not a friend of Jesus. Jesus has not saved that person. Someone who teaches that it doesn't matter if you're good is in danger of Hell fire.

Again, allforihs, open up to the one who is inside you and let him do his works through you, it should never be about you and your works. God has completely taken us out of the picture: forgiveness, salvation and works!

 

[jiggyfly]

Someone who does not strive to do good is not a friend of Jesus. Jesus has not saved that person. Someone who teaches that it doesn't matter if you're good is in danger of Hell fire.

Got some scripture to support your opinion?

 

[allforihs]

There are plenty of Orthodox Jews that do very good deeds or work but, unfortunately, they are not in faith and they are dead to their sins.

There's no question that salvation is by Jesus alone. But, good works follows those who belong to Christ. We obey our master, be it sin unto death or obedience unto righteousness.

Yet, I'm not so quick to condemn those outside of the Christian religion (again, Jesus is the only way to salvation). Those who seek righteousness without knowing Christ may be revealing that their master is Christ, but they're just wrong in the details.

 

[SpiritLedEd]

There's no question that salvation is by Jesus alone. But, good works follows those who belong to Christ.

"For it is by grace you hve been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works so no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works which God prepared in advance for us to do." (Eph 2:8-10 NIV)

Good works do not drive our salvation. Rather, it is relationship with Jesus and the empowering of the Holy Spirit that drives our good works.

SLE

 

[allforihs]

good works follows those who belong to Christ

Good works do not drive our salvation. Rather, it is relationship with Jesus and the empowering of the Holy Spirit that drives our good works.

In the future, Please read a little more carefully before responding.

 

[JHM]

I think this is a dangerous and false doctrine that being good doesn't get you into Heaven. I agree that the only way to Heaven is through Jesus. But, if you're not doing good, you're not following Jesus. If you don't desire righteousnesses, you don't desire Christ.

Finally !! Someone who GETS IT !!

 

[Tusk Barnes]

I think the question we should be asking is not, "How do I get into Heaven?" Or "How do I avoid Hell?"


The question should be, "Heaven?!" Or "Hell?!"

 

[RJ]

I think this is a dangerous and false doctrine that being good doesn't get you into Heaven. I agree that the only way to Heaven is through Jesus. But, if you're not doing good, you're not following Jesus. If you don't desire righteousnesses, you don't desire Christ.

I don't know about anyone else but I have felt that you originally were saying that a person has to do good to get to heaven, that any person that does good will get into heaven.

But know you agree that you have to go through Jesus to get to heaven. You are exactly right!

If you have or, are going through Jesus, then Jesus is in you and what He said is true:

" I am the vine and you are the branches, if you are in me and I in you , you will bear much fruit, without me you can do nothing".

Any works or good deeds done by a person , outside of Christ, and no matter how good, it gains you nothing in the Kingdom of God.

Think about it, if there was a system by where a person, outside of Jesus, could go to heaven for doing good deeds, then we are slap-dab right back into Law, the Law that God said he abolished for a better contract, that of love and grace.

Praise God, for he has told us there is therefore no condemnation for those in Jesus Christ!

 

[Tusk Barnes]

" I am the vine and you are the branches, if you are in me and I in you , you will bear much fruit, without me you can do nothing".

Any works or good deeds done by a person , outside of Christ, and no matter how good, it gains you nothing in the Kingdom of God.

Well said, RJ. But you must also realize that if your previous statement is true, than the opposite with regard to Christ is also true. Than any works or BAD deeds done by a person, inside of Christ, no matter how bad, it faults you nothing in the Kingdom of God. If one's relation to Christ is all that matters, than Christians should have no problem with other Christians drinking heavily on Saturday night. No problem with Christian divorce, no problem with Christian child molestation, no problem with Christian drug use.

You've opened up a can of worms here that begs the question, "If I'm forgiven by Christ, why shouldn't I sin?"

 

[RJ]

Well said, RJ. But you must also realize that if your previous statement is true, than the opposite with regard to Christ is also true. Than any works or BAD deeds done by a person, inside of Christ, no matter how bad, it faults you nothing in the Kingdom of God. If one's relation to Christ is all that matters, than Christians should have no problem with other Christians drinking heavily on Saturday night. No problem with Christian divorce, no problem with Christian child molestation, no problem with Christian drug use.

You've opened up a can of worms here that begs the question, "If I'm forgiven by Christ, why shouldn't I sin?"

Tusk, your unbelief is the only thing present here and it is your can of worms that are turning in your heart.

A true "Born Again" Christian, will continue to sin, to some degree, just by the mere fact that we are not perfect yet. A simple thing like doubt or being negative is a sin because you are still in a imperfect state. You will be in Christ and he in you and still sin while in this physical, fleshy world and you will not like those sins and you will continue to overcome the flesh by trying to allow Christ to work through you. But, as you intimate, to be a "Christian" and blatantly continue to sin as you wish, with no regard as you you consider, is no Christian at all and , in fact, it is leaning to Apostasy and no belief at all.

 

[Tusk Barnes]

Tusk, your unbelief is the only thing present here and it is your can of worms that are turning in your heart.

A true "Born Again" Christian, will continue to sin, to some degree, just by the mere fact that we are not perfect yet. A simple thing like doubt or being negative is a sin because you are still in a imperfect state. You will be in Christ and he in you and still sin while in this physical, fleshy world and you will not like those sins and you will continue to overcome the flesh by trying to allow Christ to work through you. But, as you intimate, to be a "Christian" and blatantly continue to sin as you wish, with no regard as you you consider, is no Christian at all and , in fact, it is leaning to Apostasy and no belief at all.

RJ, my unbelief has nothing to do with your can of worms. Attacking me personally is worthless in a discussion. I merely stated the contrapositive of your statement. If you know anything about logic, then you certainly are aware that a statement and its contrapositive are logically equivalent. Your new explanation, quoted above, lead me to believe that you think there is a certain upper echelon for how many sins a believer can commit before he can no longer be considered a true believer.

You say a true "born again" Christian will continue to sin to some degree. Ok, to what degree? And then you tell me that if someone blatantly continues to sin that he is no Christian at all. All sin is blatant, RJ. There's no accidental sinning. There's no, "Oops! I drank too much," "Oops, I accidentally had an affair," or "Oops, I lied." Sinning is not accidentally doing something wrong. It's doing something wrong.

You've just placed limits on the infinite sacrifice of Christ. You're saying, Christ will forgive you, but only if you stop sinning or you start sinning less. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you're wrong. Forgiveness doesn't come with conditions. Grace does not come with caveats. If Christ's sacrifice forgives you no matter what you do, then grace is given. If however, you have to act in a certain way in order to actually, really, truly receive this forgiveness, then there IS no forgiveness...it instead becomes a quid pro quo relationship. Christ scratches my back, so I have to scratch His, or else He'll stop scratching.

I'm not sure what doctrine you follow, but I certainly don't think you are a true "born again" Christian.

 

[Hekuran]

On Contraposition.

My logic is not great, but I believe that for the logical statement

If a deed is outside of Christ then it gains you nothing in the Kingdom of God​

the contrapositive is

If a deed gains you something in the Kingdom of God, then it is in Christ.​

RJ's comments are consistent with the rest of the John 15. There is unconditional grace - "while we were still sinners Christ died for us", and there is conditional grace - "If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love". It is still grace because it is undeserved, but it is grace that is given with conditions.

I could promise to take my son to a football match, but insist he tidies his room before we go. That's a gift, given with a condition.

 

[Tusk Barnes]

My logic is not great, but I believe that for the logical statement

If a deed is outside of Christ then it gains you nothing in the Kingdom of God.​

the contra-positive is

If a deed gains you something in the Kingdom of God, then it is in Christ.​

RJ's comments are consistent with the rest of the John 15. There is unconditional grace - "while we were still sinners Christ died for us", and there is conditional grace - "If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love". It is still grace because it is undeserved, but it is grace that is given with conditions.

I could promise to take my son to a football match, but insist he tidies his room before we go. That's a gift, given with a condition.

You're definitely not too far off, Hek. But you're still just far off enough. Allow me to assist you, if it please. This was how I understood RJ's initial statement...

If a person is not in Christ AND if said person's deeds are good, than said person does not gain (or gains not, if you prefer) the Kingdom of God.​

A quick overview of Logic symbols...

^...................................................................AND
v...................................................................OR
~...................................................................NOT/Negation of
=>................................................................Implies/Then
P, R, Q...........................................................Variables used for premises and conclusions
P(t), R(t), Q(t)......................................Statements P, R, Q are True. Applies to ~P, ~R, ~Q, as well.
P(f), R(f), Q(f).......................................Statements P, R, Q are False. Applies to ~P, ~R, ~Q, as well.

I am not insulting your intelligence, as I am sure you have a greater understanding of logic than you would ever be willing to admit. I am just trying to make sure that anyone who reads this will be able to understand everything that follows.

According to RJ's statement we have two premises in the form of an "and" statement...(P and R), or rather (P ^ R). Here, RJ's premises are "person not in Christ (P)" and "person's deeds are good (R). The negation of this statement, which will end up being the conclusion of our contra-postitive, is NOT(P ^ R), or rather, ~(P ^ R)...Which is logically equivalent to (~P v ~R). I hope you don't think I just pulled that equivalence out of my nether region. I encourage you to check me, if you doubt. Doubt is how we arrive at truth, after all.

So we have...

P: Person not in Christ.

Hence, the negation would be...

~P: Person not not in Christ.

I'm fairly certain that you already understand how double negatives behave, so you'll understand how ~P becomes​

~P: Person is in Christ.

For our second premise, the second half of our "AND" statement...

R: Person's deeds are good.

So the negation of R would be...

~R: Person's deeds are not good...or rather...Person's deeds are evil.


Moving on, the conclusion, Q, is "Person gains not the Kingdom of God.

No need for explanation here, as Q is pretty straightforward. The negation of Q, that is ~Q, which will end up becoming the premise of our contra-positive is therefore, "Person does not gain not the Kingdom of God." Again, I'm sure you already understand how double negatives behave, so you'll understand why ~Q is easily translated into "Person gains the Kingdom of God."

Therefore, RJ's original statement is...

(P ^ R) => Q
If a person is not in Christ AND person's actions are good, then person gains not the Kingdom of God.

The Contra-positive and logically equivalent statement is, therefore,

~Q => (~P v ~R)
If a person gains the Kingdom of God, then said person is in Christ, or said person's actions are evil.

I know what you're thinking...surely my logic is messed up somewhere...but I assure you, my logic is flawless. If there's something you disagree with in the contra-positive, it is because the statement from whence I drew the contra-positive was flawed initially.

The beautiful thing about "OR" statements in logic is that they do not entail mutual exclusivity.




For example, [~P(t) v ~R(f)] is a true statement, because at least one is true.

Likewise, [~P(f) v ~R(t)] is a true statement, because, again, at least one condition is true.

Not only that, but [~P(t) v ~R(t)] is just as true as an "AND" statement would be in were the v flipped upside-down.

The only case in which an "OR" statement can be called false occurs when [~P(f) v ~R(f)]


So dislike it as you might, according to RJ's original statement, and the derivation of the contra-positive...

1.) If a person gains the Kingdom of God [~Q(t)], then said person IS in Christ (Where "In Christ" is true) OR said person's deeds are good (Where "deeds are evil" is false).

Or

2.) If a person gains the Kingdom of God [~Q(t)], then said person IS NOT in Christ (Where "In Christ" is False) OR said person's deeds are evil (Where "deeds are evil" is True).

Or

3.) If a person gains the Kingdom of God [~Q(t)], the said person IS in Christ (Where "In Christ" is True) OR said person's deeds are evil (Where "deeds are evil" is True).

Would all be factual, logically true, and valid statements.



Only...

If a person gains the Kingdom of God [~Q(t)], then said person IS NOT in Christ (Where "In Christ" is False) OR said person's deeds are good (Where "deeds are evil" is False).

Would be a contradictory and logically unsound, and thus, False statement.


I know this is long and arduous, but surely we must have an understanding of the implications of claims that certain people make.



This is why, according to what RJ claimed, I asked, "If I am in Christ, why should I bother not sinning?" According to his initial statement, and possible contra-positives thereof, it is possible to gain the Kingdom of God, while being "In Christ" and committing "Evil deeds" (3). In fact, according to the logic that follows RJ's statement, it's possible to be outside of Christ, and perform wicked deeds while still gaining the Kingdom of God (2). Tragic, I know. But this whole thing is really just an exercise to demonstrate how horrendously contradictory RJ's initial statement is. It is not my unbelief, but logic that my question was founded upon.

I believe the can of worms or witch's brew, if you prefer, that RJ has opened with his claim is still present.

 

[jiggyfly]

Tusk, your unbelief is the only thing present here and it is your can of worms that are turning in your heart.

A true "Born Again" Christian, will continue to sin, to some degree, just by the mere fact that we are not perfect yet. A simple thing like doubt or being negative is a sin because you are still in a imperfect state. You will be in Christ and he in you and still sin while in this physical, fleshy world and you will not like those sins and you will continue to overcome the flesh by trying to allow Christ to work through you. But, as you intimate, to be a "Christian" and blatantly continue to sin as you wish, with no regard as you you consider, is no Christian at all and , in fact, it is leaning to Apostasy and no belief at all.

RJ, my unbelief has nothing to do with your can of worms. Attacking me personally is worthless in a discussion. I merely stated the contrapositive of your statement. If you know anything about logic, then you certainly are aware that a statement and its contrapositive are logically equivalent. Your new explanation, quoted above, lead me to believe that you think there is a certain upper echelon for how many sins a believer can commit before he can no longer be considered a true believer.

You say a true "born again" Christian will continue to sin to some degree. Ok, to what degree? And then you tell me that if someone blatantly continues to sin that he is no Christian at all. All sin is blatant, RJ. There's no accidental sinning. There's no, "Oops! I drank too much," "Oops, I accidentally had an affair," or "Oops, I lied." Sinning is not accidentally doing something wrong. It's doing something wrong.

You've just placed limits on the infinite sacrifice of Christ. You're saying, Christ will forgive you, but only if you stop sinning or you start sinning less. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you're wrong. Forgiveness doesn't come with conditions. Grace does not come with caveats. If Christ's sacrifice forgives you no matter what you do, then grace is given. If however, you have to act in a certain way in order to actually, really, truly receive this forgiveness, then there IS no forgiveness...it instead becomes a quid pro quo relationship. Christ scratches my back, so I have to scratch His, or else He'll stop scratching.

I'm not sure what doctrine you follow, but I certainly don't think you are a true "born again" Christian.

Tusk where in RJ's post is there a personal attack?

 

[RJ]

Tusk where in RJ's post is there a personal attack?

That's OK. Tusk and I have some experience together. He has been hurt real bad somewhere along they way and is prepared to deny God in his life and blame Him for his unbelief. Anyone with an opposite view or belief in the saving Grace of God is a threat to Tusk and he is just reacting to the truth and the truth is troubling to him right now, it is definitely his "can of worms".

Tusk, I have asked you through a P.M., to tell me your story, how you feel you were a true believer and then denied God to the point of Apostasy, total rejection. I am really interested in how you feel that you were truly saved but don't believe now, what happened along the way, what happened in your life that made you turn course? PM me if you wish!

 

[Hekuran]

Thanks for the detailed reply. I've worked through it, and learned quite a bit about logic.

As far as I can determine, your logic is sound. I am not sure it helps us too much though. I could attempt to respond in kind, but I think it will probably end in a) me making a fool of myself b) not much else.

In fact, according to the logic that follows RJ's statement, it's possible to be outside of Christ, and perform wicked deeds while still gaining the Kingdom of God​

Yes it is logically consistent, but the rest of the passage excludes this possibility. I am sure you could construct an argument to prove that the existence of purple penguins is logically possible, and consistent with heavy rainfall in Toronto. But so what? purple penguins don't exist.

Normally when logical arguments take us to strange places, the cause is in the initial assumptions. I would suggest that your assumption that there cannot be conditional grace be reconsidered.

The John 15 passage is highly nuanced. Propositional logic here feels a bit like a lumphammer used to dissect a butterfly.

I, too, would like to hear your story.

Best

 

[Tusk Barnes]

Thanks for the detailed reply. I've worked through it, and learned quite a bit about logic.

As far as I can determine, your logic is sound. I am not sure it helps us too much though. I could attempt to respond in kind, but I think it will probably end in a) me making a fool of myself b) not much else.

Yes it is logically consistent, but the rest of the passage excludes this possibility. I am sure you could construct an argument to prove that the existence of purple penguins is logically possible, and consistent with heavy rainfall in Toronto. But so what? purple penguins don't exist.

Normally when logical arguments take us to strange places, the cause is in the initial assumptions. I would suggest that your assumption that there cannot be conditional grace be reconsidered.

You hit the nail right on the head here, man. But the initial assumptions were not mine. They were RJ's. I hadn't considered bringing condition grace into the picture, but neither had I considered universal grace. I had to assume RJ's premises were true in order to move forward. If I hadn't, if I had assumed they were false to begin with, then the argument would have just turned into a hypothetical "purple penguin" scenario, as you humorously put it. I did my part to avoid a hypothetical situation by assuming RJ's foundational assumptions were true


I'd be glad to share my story with the two of you, though it is not so riddled with pain as RJ guessed. PMs coming soon.