The New Testament: Orthodoxy and Heresy

[Cerin]

The next question, then, is why the Evangelical Protestant movement seems so dismissive of what Jesus actually says about salvation.

I don't think it's a question of putting the words of Paul above those of Jesus, but if you were taking the whole of scripture on faith as the inspired Word of God, then you wouldn't put the words ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels above other portions of scripture, either. You would take the whole, and reach an understanding based on your perceptions of the whole. You don't regard some of it as coming from Moses, and some from Jesus, and some from Paul and rank it accordingly; you regard it all, equally, as coming from God.

The ones with the clearest support for this view were all written by Paul – and Romans 3:28 and Galatians 2:16 go so far as to directly contradict what Jesus himself says in Matthew 19:21, Luke 18:22 and half a dozen other verses about the need to follow Mosaic Law. And even more oddly, Paul contradicts his own advice in Romans 2:6, where he says justification is through the law, or 2 Corinthians 11:15, where he says it through works.

The two Gospel verses you cited don't have strictly to do with Mosaic Law, because certainly it wasn't part of Mosaic Law to give all one's goods to the poor and follow Jesus. So it seems to me that Jesus was talking there about something beyond following Mosaic Law, which is, I believe, the essence of all His teaching -- leading us in the transition from Law to grace. We don't follow the law to gain eternal life, but we follow Jesus, the embodiment of the Law, in joy and gratitude because He has gained eternal life for us, who are unable to gain it for ourselves through works.

In the 2 Cor. verse you site, I believe Paul is saying that those who are not receiving righteousness through faith in Christ will be judged by their works, and I don't see a conflict there; those are the only two alternatives. We either accept Christ's sacrifice on our behalf and are judged according to His righteousness, or we reject the offer and are judged according to our own righteousness, i.e., works (everyone falls short in the latter case.) (I'm stating my understanding of Christian belief here, not declaring what is.)


There are two rather mysterious (imo) NT sections of scripture that touch on this faith v works issue. One is from the Gospels, and the other from the letters.

' "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

"Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'

"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' " (Matt. 7:21-23)


"And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing." (I Cor. 13:3)

In the first case, Jesus seems to be talking about people who believe they are serving him, but are actually not doing the will of God. In the second case, ostensibly charitable deeds are being done (of the very kind Jesus mentioned in the verses you cite), but Paul says they are useless absent the right motivation or attitude.

edit to clarify

[Cerin]

Okay, you believe in Jesus, and you show up in front of God. What happens? I'm pretty sure that would be...an intensely painful experience...if one were not righteous.

Unless I've misunderstood you, this represents a big difference between Catholic and what Lord_M is calling Evangelical thinking. Let me clarify one phrase from the 'Evangelical' perspective:

'Believe in Jesus': You recognize that your sin separates you from God, you repent of your sins, you believe that Jesus died and suffered the penalty for your sins, effectively removing them from you, and you accept this sacrifice on your behalf; this belief manifests in your life, in the decisions you make, the things you do, the way you act, etc. (we all do what we believe; that is what belief is).

If the above is the case, then doctrinally speaking, you are righteous by the blood of Christ. His blood has cleansed you of your sin. God reckons you as righteous, God sees you as righteous in Christ; your sin is no longer before Him. Therefore if you 'believe in Jesus', you cannot but be righteous when you show up in front of God. That is the effect of 'believing in Jesus'.

But I think you were talking about the righteousness that person would bring in front of God based on their works?

[Túrin Turambar]

Saying "Lord, lord" doesn't count as "believing in Jesus." You can still get stuck outside with the gnashing of teeth. When Jesus says things like, "If you love me, you will keep my commands," it makes it pretty clear that this relationship does not leave righteousness as an...optional thing. I realize some people put a lot of stock in saying a "Sinner's prayer" - acknowledging that one is in need of salvation and that Jesus is lord. While that (from a Christian perspective) is a good thing, I have not heard any mainstream Christian group suggest that it is 'the end of the story' - responding to an altar call or 'getting saved' is expected to be the first step in a journey - otherwise, why keep going back to church every week?

I understand that some Protestant Churches do take a ‘once saved, always saved’ position. As yovargas explained, doing good works and avoiding sin is a symptom of being in God’s Grace rather than a necessity to achieving it, and all sins of those who believe in Jesus are forgiven. There is no concept of Catholic ‘mortal sin’ among many Protestants.

The next question, then, is why the Evangelical Protestant movement seems so dismissive of what Jesus actually says about salvation.

I don't think it's a question of putting the words of Paul above those of Jesus, but if you were taking the whole of scripture on faith as the inspired Word of God, then you wouldn't put the words ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels above other portions of scripture, either. You would take the whole, and reach an understanding based on your perceptions of the whole. You don't regard some of it as coming from Moses, and some from Jesus, and some from Paul and rank it accordingly; you regard it all, equally, as coming from God.

But do you? I understand that biblical inerrancy is part of the belief systems of many Protestant Churches, but some books do seem to me to be a lot firmer than others. For example, the Book of Revelations was heavily challenged by early church councils, it’s rejected by most Eastern Churches and both Luther and Calvin had grave doubts about its value and came close to axing it. It is at the end of the NT not just because it’s eschatological but because it’s the most challenged (or to use the original term, antilegomena, or spoken against). It would seem odd, then, that it should be given equal weight to the Synoptic Gospels, which largely corroborate each other, are universally accepted in some form by every church and have been since the first century.

The ones with the clearest support for this view were all written by Paul – and Romans 3:28 and Galatians 2:16 go so far as to directly contradict what Jesus himself says in Matthew 19:21, Luke 18:22 and half a dozen other verses about the need to follow Mosaic Law. And even more oddly, Paul contradicts his own advice in Romans 2:6, where he says justification is through the law, or 2 Corinthians 11:15, where he says it through works.

The two Gospel verses you cited don't have strictly to do with Mosaic Law, because certainly it wasn't part of Mosaic Law to give all one's goods to the poor and follow Jesus. So it seems to me that Jesus was talking there about something beyond following Mosaic Law, which is, I believe, the essence of all His teaching -- leading us in the transition from Law to grace. We don't follow the law to gain eternal life, but we follow Jesus, the embodiment of the Law, in joy and gratitude because He has gained eternal life for us, who are unable to gain it for ourselves through works.

In the 2 Cor. verse you site, I believe Paul is saying that those who are not receiving righteousness through faith in Christ will be judged by their works, and I don't see a conflict there; those are the only two alternatives. We either accept Christ's sacrifice on our behalf and are judged according to His righteousness, or we reject the offer and are judged according to our own righteousness, i.e., works (everyone falls short in the latter case.) (I'm stating my understanding of Christian belief here, not declaring what is.)

That actually makes perfect sense, and it absolves Paul of any claims of inconsistency. It doesn’t change the fact, though, that the Synoptic Gospels all refer exclusively to works and righteousness. In Matthew 25 says that the damned shall be specifically condemned for their failure to do charitable works, while the saved shall be specifically praised for their works (I was hungry and you fed me, etc). Nowhere in Mark, Matthew or Luke, to my knowledge, is there a verse clearing supporting the idea of substitionary atonement and sola fidei.

There are two rather mysterious (imo) NT sections of scripture that touch on this faith v works issue. One is from the Gospels, and the other from the letters.

' "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

"Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'

"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' " (Matt. 7:21-23)


"And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing." (I Cor. 13:3)

In the first case, Jesus seems to be talking about people who believe they are serving him, but are actually not doing the will of God. In the second case, ostensibly charitable deeds are being done (of the very kind Jesus mentioned in the verses you cite), but Paul says they are useless absent the right motivation or attitude.

I agree with your assessment, and both seem to me to gel with those particular writers’ other verses on the subject.

[Cerin]

But do you?

I do, yes.

I understand that biblical inerrancy is part of the belief systems of many Protestant Churches, but some books do seem to me to be a lot firmer than others.

My acceptance of scripture as the Word of God isn't based on an assessment of its historical accuracy, or any other intellectual process. I do understand, though, how someone who is assessing it that way could regard some parts as less legitimate than others.

It doesn’t change the fact, though, that the Synoptic Gospels all refer exclusively to works and righteousness. In Matthew 25 says that the damned shall be specifically condemned for their failure to do charitable works, while the saved shall be specifically praised for their works (I was hungry and you fed me, etc).

I can see why that would be problematic for someone who is weighting various sections of scripture differently as to validity or importance, rather than taking it as a whole.

[MithLuin]

Cerin - I agree with you that 'believing in Jesus' is not really a 'faith alone' position, at least insomuch as saying that works are irrelevant - Protestants who say 'faith alone' mean 'faith that bears fruit' ie, naturally results in good works. I was pointing this out because Lord M was putting forward the ideas as a dichotomy, as if St. Paul and Jesus were saying radically different things.

I was just trying to demonstrate why that sort of dead or empty faith wouldn't work, under either system.

While it is true that people will say 'once saved, always saved,' falling away will demonstrate that one was never really saved in the first place. So, even in the construct that all one must do is accept Jesus Christ as his personal lord and saviour, there is the caveat that it must be done...sincerely. Sincerity does not imply a one-time event, but actually living a life where one behaves as if Jesus were Lord...ie, righteousness happens. Sins committed after the conversion experience still have to be repented of. It is the beginning of a relationship with Jesus, and relationships stagnate if they don't grow.

There are many explanations and analogies for how salvation and redemption actually work. I was just pointing out that (however it happened) it had to end up as holiness when you actually meet God face to face...or else your face gets burned off.


The Synoptic Gospels are hardly silent on the concept of substitutionary atonement...but they do not talk about it plainly, that is true. Jesus spoke almost exclusively in parables, so it is only the people who interpret what he said (John, Paul) who are going to speak in theological terms. Jesus says things like, "The Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed..." and his listeners have to figure out the relevance.

Matthew 13 is a good example of what I mean. It's a bunch of parables, some of which Jesus explains, and some of which he does not. But they are allegories, so they speak of other things. The Sower and the Seed is about hearing the Word of God, having it take root in our hearts, and result in abundant life. Simply getting the seed isn't good enough...it has to sink in. Merely hearing God's word isn't enough - action is required. But the starting point is listening to the word - without that, nothing happens. "Him who has ears to hear, let him hear."

In addition, every miracle of healing Jesus performs in the gospels is contingent upon the faith of the person asking for the healing - in the absense of faith, no miracles. In the Old Testament, faith is primarily spoken of in terms of faithfulness - keeping faith or breaking faith. It's integrity, upholding your half of the bargain, living according to the law. ["You will be called the City of Righteousness, the Faithful City." Isaiah 1:26b] So, even when faith is spoken of as faith, what is meant is trust, something that can be relied on or counted on, more so than a particular belief. (eg: As they set out, Jehoshaphat stood and said, "Listen to me, Judah and people of Jerusalem! Have faith in the LORD your God and you will be upheld; have faith in his prophets and you will be successful." 2 Chronicles 20:20) I am not saying the Old Testament doesn't speak of believing in God (it does), but that it speaks more of faithfulness than of belief. And even in the case of Abram believing the Lord's promise to him, that is counted as righteousness.

Whereas when Jesus speaks of faith, the opposite of it isn't lawlessness, but doubt. So he is not speaking strictly of being faithful to the covenant, but rather having trust in the one who made the covenant. And he does speak, quite frequently, of people having faith in Him (and faith in God) in the Synoptic gospels. There are several variations on "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." This is not to say he doesn't speak of faithfulness - several of the parables are aimed at that, as is "Well done, good and faithful servant."

It's all there, you just have to interpret it.

[Pearly Di]

While it is true that people will say 'once saved, always saved,' falling away will demonstrate that one was never really saved in the first place

.

Actually, that's the Calvinist position. (I'm not a Calvinist, btw.)

So, even in the construct that all one must do is accept Jesus Christ as his personal lord and saviour, there is the caveat that it must be done...sincerely. Sincerity does not imply a one-time event, but actually living a life where one behaves as if Jesus were Lord...ie, righteousness happens. Sins committed after the conversion experience still have to be repented of. It is the beginning of a relationship with Jesus, and relationships stagnate if they don't grow.

Once more, I agree completely, Mith.

[Cerin]

Cerin - I agree with you that 'believing in Jesus' is not really a 'faith alone' position, at least insomuch as saying that works are irrelevant - Protestants who say 'faith alone' mean 'faith that bears fruit' ie, naturally results in good works. I was pointing this out because Lord M was putting forward the ideas as a dichotomy, as if St. Paul and Jesus were saying radically different things.

I was just trying to demonstrate why that sort of dead or empty faith wouldn't work, under either system.

While it is true that people will say 'once saved, always saved,' falling away will demonstrate that one was never really saved in the first place. So, even in the construct that all one must do is accept Jesus Christ as his personal lord and saviour, there is the caveat that it must be done...sincerely. Sincerity does not imply a one-time event, but actually living a life where one behaves as if Jesus were Lord...ie, righteousness happens. Sins committed after the conversion experience still have to be repented of. It is the beginning of a relationship with Jesus, and relationships stagnate if they don't grow.

There are many explanations and analogies for how salvation and redemption actually work. I was just pointing out that (however it happened) it had to end up as holiness when you actually meet God face to face...or else your face gets burned off.

Thanks so much for your reply, Mith. I'm still not sure I'm understanding you correctly on one point.

Yes, sincere acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior will result in a changed life, a more righteous life. But no one, whether Christian, someone of another religion, or someone of no religion can lead a completely righteous life, i.e., a life without sin, a life that would allow one to stand before God with confidence. This means that no one can be considered righteous on the basis of what they've done -- whether or not what they've done has been inspired by faith in Jesus.

The way I interpreted your comments is, that trusting in Christ (sincerely believing, accepting Jesus' sacrifice on our behalf) enables us to stand before God as righteous because of the life we live (the good works we perform) as a result of becoming Christians. That's the idea I'm in disagreement with. My understanding is that the blood of Christ and only the blood of Christ (of which we avail ourselves through faith) allows us to stand before God as righteous. Any righteousness a person attains/demonstrates through good works -- whether by a life changed through faith in Christ or guided by some other moral imperative -- is as filthy rags* before the holiness of God.

* But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; - Isaiah 64:6

edit to add citation

[Primula Baggins]

This is a fascinating discussion to me as a Christian believer, but I think it's necessary to post a reminder to all that this conversation is also being read with interest by people who do not share Christian beliefs.

I don't think anyone has posted anything inappropriate. Before that happens I want to remind everyone posting that it's easy when speaking to fellow believers to adopt a fervent tone that could be hurtful or could look like proselytization, which we specifically can't allow in this forum.

I don't mean people should not say what they believe in a discussion of beliefs; that would be chilling and absurd. I just mean that maintaining a more even tone, and relating specific beliefs to specific faiths rather than speaking as if everyone knew they were absolute truth, helps keep the discussion open to contributions from all.

[Cerin]

I just mean that maintaining a more even tone, and relating specific beliefs to specific faiths rather than speaking as if everyone knew they were absolute truth

Could you please cite specific comments that you believe were not of even tone, or where you believe something more should have been done to relate specific beliefs to specific faiths? If you prefer not to be specific publicly, then could you please PM me? I have been taking care, so if you are not willing to be specific, then your warning is wasted, at least on me, as I do not know where I have gone wrong, or where I have veered close to a point that would have prompted your warning.

[Lalaith]

Yes, sincere acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior will result in a changed life, a more righteous life. But no one, whether Christian, someone of another religion, or someone of no religion can lead a completely righteous life, i.e., a life without sin, a life that would allow one to stand before God with confidence. This means that no one can be considered righteous on the basis of what they've done -- whether or not what they've done has been inspired by faith in Jesus.

The way I interpreted your comments is, that trusting in Christ (sincerely believing, accepting Jesus' sacrifice on our behalf) enables us to stand before God as righteous because of the life we live (the good works we perform) as a result of becoming Christians. That's the idea I'm in disagreement with. My understanding is that the blood of Christ and only the blood of Christ (of which we avail ourselves through faith) allows us to stand before God as righteous. Any righteousness a person attains/demonstrates through good works -- whether by a life changed through faith in Christ or guided by some other moral imperative -- is as filthy rags before the holiness of God.

I agree with you, Cerin. (And the "filthy rags" quote is direct from Scripture. Is this what would upset someone reading this? I'm a little unsure as to what might upset a non-Christian, but, obviously, I want to be considerate.)

Perhaps Mith is alluding to the concept of Purgatory, where believers are further purified before entering the presence of God? This is a concept I, personally, disagree with, though I do think we go through a final purification, where our whole lives and all we've done is put through the refining fire of God's holiness. Only that which is pure remains. I believe Scripture shows this happening in a one-time event, however, not in a place called Purgatory over the course of time that is variable to each individual.

(Of course, if I've misrepresented the concept of Purgatory, please correct me!)

"By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames" I Corinthians 3:10-15 (NIV).

ETA: If you PM Cerin, you'll need to PM me as well, since I'm not sure what crosses the line into offensive and what doesn't. Alternately, anyone offended can PM me to discuss it in private.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't think anyone has posted anything inappropriate.

I agree, and so I don't think that any PMs are necessary. But I also think that the reminder that this type of discussion among people of different believes is very sensitive, and that people should be careful of what they say, is a good thing. And that goes for people of all beliefs. People expressing what they believe is perfectly appropriate. People stating that others are wrong to not believe what they believe (or equally, stating that others are wrong to believe what they believe), would not be acceptable. Like Prim, I don't think that has happened here, and I don't think it will, but I'm glad that she posted the reminder.

Edit: I see that that is as clear as mud, so I'll try to give a couple of specifics. If someone were to come into this thread and say that anyone who believes that trusting in Christ is necessary for salvation is an idiot, that would be highly inappropriate and would be edited. Equally, it would be inappropriate to use this thread as an opportunity to warn someone of what would happen if they did not accept Christ. Those are pretty raw and extreme examples, and again I don't think anyone has done anything of the kind here, but just to give an idea of what would not be appropriate. I appreciate that people have been careful about what they say, and I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they could not honestly express what they believe.

I hope that helps.

[Primula Baggins]

Again, I don't think anyone crossed any lines. But the "filthy rags" quote was what made me decide to post—not because there is anything wrong with it as such, but because I suddenly realized how those words might sound to a person who did not know Cerin was quoting the Bible.

Because I have myself made the mistake of speaking too fervently about things that matter most to me, and forgetting that people who don't share my beliefs were reading what I wrote, I wanted to speak up—as Prim, not a moderator—and remind us to be careful. The only examples of such mistakes I had in my mind were the ones I made myself.

[Cerin]

Thanks for the clarifications, Voronwë and Prim. I've added a citation to my post to indicate that that phrase comes from the Old Testament.

[rwhen]

I have been following the thread as well. Thank you Voronwë and Prim for your words. It is, in fact, easy to read that rather than just putting one's opinion of a thing and that coming off as "this is how it is" (meaning as fact) can happen when reading and not hearing the words or seeing facial expressions.

Several times I have been tempted to post, but chose not to for that reason. It seems that the original question of "Kingdom of God: Fashionably Late" has morphed into understanding the word "Kingdom". That is something that even between Christian religions varies in definition. But for myself and others who are posting here, is very interesting to read about.

For my two cents...even in its most literal sense, as I was taught, it is not late. Biblical scholors have pretty much come to define the beginning of the end, as when the tribulations spoken of in Revelations come to be. Then not all "that generation" would pass before the end. I believe there is further documentation of this in Daniel, interpreting the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar. I do not have my bible at work (which is where I post from), so anyone who knows anything that can be added to this, I would welcome it.

Even with that said....all the things that have been given to me as "signs of the end" are things that have happened all through recorded history on much larger scales than are happening now. *shrugs*

For me personally, I stick with the scripture where Jesus says that no one knows when that will be. So I often wonder (not judge or critisize) then why organized religions would want to speculate, when there is no one who will know. "Like a thief in the night" I believe is also something that Jesus said regarding the "when" the Kingdom will come.

For the record, I consider myself a Christian who does not belong to any organized religious church, any longer.

Thanks for reading.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks for speaking up!

[MithLuin]

But clearly, everything I say is the truth, and everyone should agree with me

Kidding, kidding...

Thanks, Lalaith - what I said wasn't meant as an allusion to Purgatory, but that would be a possible illustration of it. What I was trying to say (and apparently not doing such a great job of) was that purification has to happen at some point. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God." The way that happens is, as Cerin points out, the blood of Jesus, which gets to one of my favorite images in Revelations: washing their robes to make them white...in the blood of the Lamb. For anyone who has ever had to scrub bloodstains out of white clothing, this is just a very backwards image, which I guess is why I like it so much. I'd love to see someone take a "filthy rag" and dip it in blood...and have it come out sparkly white like a detergent commercial!

I do not think anyone reaches that state in this life (or this side of heaven), but I do believe the process starts before we die. It's not a matter of doing good deeds to get your life cleaned up - it's that when your life gets cleaned up, your deeds get better, too. If there is no change in actions or behaviour...one would question if there were any genuine change of heart. And as Christianity keeps saying (over and over), yes, this is a God thing. As my friend's mom likes to put it, you get gazonked. Regardless of when or how it happens, it does happen - and is a prerequisite to seeing God face to face.

Paul explains purification in 1 Corinthians 3:

For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

In other words, the bad stuff gets burned away at some point. And there aren't any exceptions to the "tested in fire" bit - it's not like Christians are somehow exempt from judgement. So, everyone is tested, and certainly anyone whose works wouldn't fall under the category of "righteous" will have those burned away. Which just comes back to saying....Paul was not disagreeing with Jesus' description of sheep and goats, and Jesus did not discount what Paul said about atonement. It's the same thing, seen through different lenses.



Oh, and if anyone would find an online searchable Bible useful, I would recommend: http://www.biblegateway.com/

[Túrin Turambar]

Sorry to pick this up after a delay – I need to think a little about where to go from here. We’ve gone over salvation through faith and salvation through works, so by rights we should probably move next onto salvation by divine election (ie. Calvinism). I did promise yovargas a discussion on Trinitarianism and the Arian Heresy, and I also wanted to look in-depth at Gnosticism, specifically Catharism and the alternative Cathar model of salvation based on the Gospel of John.

The Synoptic Gospels are hardly silent on the concept of substitutionary atonement...but they do not talk about it plainly, that is true. Jesus spoke almost exclusively in parables, so it is only the people who interpret what he said (John, Paul) who are going to speak in theological terms. Jesus says things like, "The Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed..." and his listeners have to figure out the relevance.

It is true that Jesus speaks in parables (which leads nicely on to a discussion on salvation by election), but why do we need to try and deduce meaning from them with regards to salvation and damnation when he is extremely explicit on the subject?

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

It’s a feature of the Gospel of Mark, generally believed to be the oldest canonical gospel, that Jesus speaks to the public at large only in parables, the meaning of which he explains to his disciples later. They ask him to explain this approach, which he does at Mark 4:10-12:

And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Opponents of Christianity interpret this verse to mean ‘I speak in parables to confuse them so they will go to hell’. Certain schools of Gnosticism argue that only some people have souls, so that only they need to be preached to.

The Calvinist position, though, is that humans are so corrupted by original sin that they are incapable of doing anything towards their own salvation, and therefore salvation is entirely at God’s discretion. He would be just in damning everybody for their sins, but chooses to show mercy to some for his own reasons. This is based on the following theological arguments:

Due to original sin, humanity is so far fallen that they are incapable of saving themselves in any way, shape or form, either by works or by faith (doctrine of total depravity).

God is all-powerful. Therefore, if God wants somebody to be saved, they will be saved (doctrine of irresistible grace) and always saved (doctrine of perseverance of the saints).

If Jesus died for your sins, then it makes no sense that you could still be condemned to hell regardless of your own beliefs or actions. God, being omnipotent, knows in advance whose sins Jesus died in atonement for (doctrine of limited atonement and doctrine of unconditional election).

This seems to pop up in a few other verses:

He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned.

This plays some havoc with the idea of the omnibenevolence of God, although I think it makes sense if you start from the position that God is omnipotent.

On the other hand, the Calvinist argument can readily justify a universalist position – if Jesus’ sacrifice can atone all a person’s sins, and if salvation is irresistible because God is all-powerful, then God can save everybody:

God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved.

The Lord is ... not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Of course, this brings us back in a full circle – we’ve now reached a theological position in direct contradiction to Jesus’ own statements. It would depend, I think, on how much scriptural support there is for a) God being all-loving and b) God being all-powerful, and where those verses came from.

It’s also interesting that the salvation through election position seems to pop up in various books, unlike salvation through faith or works, which, as I argued upthread, seem to be preferred by specific authors.

BTW, to any Calvinists here, if I have made a hash of your theology please say so.

[Cerin]

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

Notice Jesus' tacit acceptance of the idea that there is still something lacking in the young man's condition (even if you accept as accurate the young man's optimistic self-assessment 'all these things have I kept from my youth'). He then explains: 'If thou wilt be perfect'. We must be perfect to enjoy eternal life with God, and the only way to be perfect is to follow Jesus (i.e., from a post-resurrection perspective, receive Him as Savior and Lord, when we are made perfect by His blood). What Jesus is essentially laying out here is that following the commandments isn't enough to gain us eternal life; we need Him. So I'd agree that this passage is explicit, but not in the way you were presenting it as being.

[Túrin Turambar]

Jesus says "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven" - it seems odd to me to ignore everything after the first comma. It's still quite explicit in my view - following the law is good, but 'perfection' only comes from selling all your things and giving the money to the poor.

[Frelga]

Notice also that all that Jesus originally says, "but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments". It is revealing that he is quoting the Noahide commandments, which do not include those of the Ten that are faith or ritual based (such as keeping the Shabbat).

If the young man wants to be "perfect", he can take the additional action of, basically, entering the priesthood.