(December 1, 2014 at 1:57 pm)Vicki Q Wrote: Interesting discussion so far. I do wonder if it might be helpful to look at the whole question from the C1 Jewish perspective within which it developed, because a key element is routinely left out.
God's covenant people had previously been defined with respect to their nationality and their praxis. Sanders oversimplified, but it'll do: a Jew got in because of their nationality, and stayed in by virtue of keeping within the boundary markers of Judaism (not eating pork etc).
One of the things that we Xians regularly fail to appreciate is the lengths and extent to which the NT- Jesus and Paul, redefine those definitions. The getting in part became a decision to follow Jesus as King, and the staying in became staying within the redefined boundary markers of Xianity. This is verified and supported by the Holy Spirit. The covenant people of God are redefined around the person of Jesus.
In terms of the OP, a one off decision won't cut the mustard. Covenant membership and covenant faithfulness are two sides of the same coin. The twin doctrines of salvation (Western Xianity) and transformation (Eastern) are two sides of the same coin.
In terms of the rich man refusing to give up his wonga. The question was “What must I do to have eternal life (AKA be part of God's covenant people in the new Kingdom)”? Jesus was saying in effect “Thou shalt have no Gods before me”. In this, personalised challenge, the refusal meant a refusal to follow Jesus.
Not if Jesus -in the story- was speaking from the point of view of the 'holy spirit' thingy which he understood himself to be following. Then, the example he was referring to might well be that of following the spirit directly. Doesn't he say somewhere else something about coming to destroy false idols? Maybe the xtian message, understood this way, is indeed much closer to the Eastern approach.
