Salvation by faith alone/only?

[Theodore A. Jones]

By the New Covenant, we are saved by faith alone. That is, we are saved by faith alone in accordance to the New Covenant. However, we also need to fulfill the covenant by delivering the correct kind of faith as required by God and is specified in the Covenant. Just as said in the Book of James, even the devil believe God's existence but that's not the correct kind of faith as required by the Covenant for one to be saved.

Now the key is how will humans identify such a "correct kind of faith". God doesn't have such a problem. That's why when He sits in the Judgment Throne, He just easily points out who shall be saved and who's not. Not all those with "O Lord O Lord" in their mouth will be saved. Because God judges hearts and knows who is who with ease. But men can't judge heart to say that "he's saved" or "she's saved". We can't know how to judge others as well as ourselves. That's why we are told not to judge.

But still we humans need a close reference to identify or to estimate what a "correct kind of faith" should be. We approach to identify this through one's WORK. Say, if you are a totally paralysed person incapable of doing any WORK. Then perhaps no human can remotely make a guess whether you posses the correct kind of faith to be saved. In this case, only God knows if you are a second born and saved person.

As for normal persons in majority, we can roughly tell by one's current (or pass) performance in WORK to say "this guy seems to be a second born Christian". That is without WORK and as a normal person, perhaps your faith is not the kind of faith as specified by the Covenant and required by God for you to be saved. Only with good work you and others can bear good witnessing to say that you are truly a second born Christian. It is thus said that faith without work is death.

One can be saved by faith alone. WORK, as an indicator, however tells if one possesses the correct kind of faith to be saved. If you can't be with good work, most likely your faith doesn't qualify. You could be in the category of those saying "O Lord, O Lord" but might not be saved.

There are many discussions of this topic between unlikeminded "Christians" posted on the various "Christian" forums. But there is never a resolution.
Paul and James are not in conflict.
"It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom 2:13

The fact that is not taught in contemporary "Christian" churches is that the law has had an addition made to it AFTER Jesus' crucifixion. Therefore salvation is predicated upon the Way this law must be obeyed. One of you has even mentioned that this law is a royal law. If salvation is predicated upon "faith alone" as the contemporary assumption is; then Paul and James are both wrong.

The error you all are attempting to discover is the false assumption that the sin of murder caused by bloodshed is a direct benefit, but no violation of the law is positive.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

Revelation through the Holy Spirit, just like the bible says.

The Scriptures say that revelation is given to us by men, not to us directly.

Thus, Jesus told the Apostles to preach to the world and Paul states the same thing - his ministry is to preach to the world. I find nowhere in Scriptures where the Spirit of God reveals doctrinal truth to individuals - esp. in direct contradiction to what the Spirit of God reveals to the "Church", the community of believers as a whole through the apostles, pastors, evangelists and prophets...

We are not "inerrant". How do you filter out what is "from the Spirit" and what is from yourself or the devil?

Regards

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

Bingo.

If I love my wife, I will follow her desire. It's not an order but an explanation of how my love will be manifest. If I truly love my wife in my heart, I will by nature follow what pleases her because that's the result of loving her.

Maybe there are some men or women that declare, "If you love me then do this and do that to prove it." But I hardly think that sort of relationship is going to last very long. That just doesn't seem like a good method to nurture a loving relationship. Quite frankly it would turn me off.

"If you love Me, KEEP My commandments." This isn't good enough?

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

The adm. of this forum have published that they believe that "justification by grace through faith, apart from works of the law" is a position that is not challenged by any statement in the Bible. The adm. also says that the Bible does not have any errors. But this statement is in the Bible and it is a direct challenge to what the adm's state:
"It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13

So it is the adm's idea to place these facts in this thread. If they are right then the Bible is in error. If they are wrong, and they are, will they correct their doctrine?

 

[felix]

The adm. of this forum have published that they believe that "justification by grace through faith, apart from works of the law" is a position that is not challenged by any statement in the Bible. The adm. also says that the Bible does not have any errors. But this statement is in the Bible and it is a direct challenge to what the adm's state:
"It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13

So it is the adm's idea to place these facts in this thread. If they are right then the Bible is in error. If they are wrong, and they are, will they correct their doctrine?

You took the verse completely out of context: Here is it what it says.

Rom 2:12-16 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law [are] just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves [their] thoughts accusing or else excusing [them)] in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

It was about the 'law' which was quoted. In the new covenant, we don't have the law anymore. 'justification by grace through faith, apart from works of the law' is according to the old covenant not the new covenant.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

"The law was added so that the trespass might increase." Rom 5;20
For the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change also of the law." Heb. 7:12
Doesn't your statement "we don't have law anymore" contridict this fact; "I have not come to abolish the law."? Also you might note Paul describes a type of man as lawless and he also says do not go beyond what is written does he not?

 

[Nick]

"The law was added so that the trespass might increase." Rom 5;20
For the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change also of the law." Heb. 7:12
Doesn't your statement "we don't have law anymore" contridict this fact; "I have not come to abolish the law."? Also you might note Paul describes a type of man as lawless and he also says do not go beyond what is written does he not?

We don't have the Law anymore in a sense because we are saved though the blood of Jesus Christ, not the Law.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

We don't have the Law anymore in a sense because we are saved though the blood of Jesus Christ, not the Law.

Nicky haven't you read:
"And for Your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man." Gen. 9:5
I really don't think you have escaped the classification of "each man. too" have you?
And isn't it written by the prophet:
"Our Lord is a Lawgiver", and doesn't the prophet quote Him, "a law shall proceed from Me" ? Two witnesses establish a thing. He says so and the prophet says so too.

 

[childeye]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

The Scriptures say that revelation is given to us by men, not to us directly.

So you have never heard form God? How did you believe, through the flesh? They shall all be taught by God is what Jesus says. Everyone who has heard from the Father comes to me.

What scripture can you produce that says revelation knowledge comes through men?

Thus, Jesus told the Apostles to preach to the world and Paul states the same thing - his ministry is to preach to the world. I find nowhere in Scriptures where the Spirit of God reveals doctrinal truth to individuals - esp. in direct contradiction to what the Spirit of God reveals to the "Church", the community of believers as a whole through the apostles, pastors, evangelists and prophets...

After reading writings from several early church Fathers there seems to always been division over doctrine to some degree. What is the church and who is the end all say all of what Love will have each individual do has always been controversial albeit unnecessary. Murder of the competition for such authority over what Love would do ensued through this concept.

We are not "inerrant". How do you filter out what is "from the Spirit" and what is from yourself or the devil?

Love God with all your heart mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself. Love will not err for God is Love.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

So you have never heard form God? How did you believe, through the flesh? They shall all be taught by God is what Jesus says. Everyone who has heard from the Father comes to me.

Sure, God speaks to you and I, but not at the level of doctrinal construct that makes us think we need to depart from the teachings of the Church. Jesus taught us specifically that a house divided against itself must surely fall. Thus, a teaching from the Church, the foundation of the Truth, is not later contradicted by the Spirit of God, Who later supposedly tells you otherwise...

Why does God work through the Apostles and preachers and teachers of today??? So that men are not so arrogant that every thought necessarily comes from God, because that is where I fear one goes in this "individual pipeline to God" mindset.

What scripture can you produce that says revelation knowledge comes through men?

Paul states it over and over. The Apostles seem pretty sure that they were given revelation from God. Are you contradicting that?

After reading writings from several early church Fathers there seems to always been division over doctrine to some degree.

You are confusing the DEVELOPMENT of doctrine with actually proclaimed doctrine. It is natural to write about and reflect on the relationship between the Son of God and God the Father. Some will disagree on points. But once that is solemnly defined officially by the Church, who has been charged with defining God's revelation, there is no more dissension among the Fathers. Any such later contradiction is considered schism and heresy, just as we hear spoken of in the New Testament.

What is the church and who is the end all say all of what Love will have each individual do has always been controversial albeit unnecessary. Murder of the competition for such authority over what Love would do ensued through this concept.

I am not sure what you mean by this. WHO is murdering the competition??? Last I remember, Jesus only left one set of apostles and established one church with one faith, one doctrine and one baptism. Some people do not like this and invent their own. It is not unusual for people to make God in their own image, rather than what He has revealed...

Love God with all your heart mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself. Love will not err for God is Love.

While rejecting what He has revealed to mankind? I don't think I'll take that chance, Larry...

Regards

 

[childeye]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

Sure, God speaks to you and I, but not at the level of doctrinal construct that makes us think we need to depart from the teachings of the Church. Jesus taught us specifically that a house divided against itself must surely fall. Thus, a teaching from the Church, the foundation of the Truth, is not later contradicted by the Spirit of God, Who later supposedly tells you otherwise...

The Spirit would not contradict His self I agree. I am the church also or so I hope. If Christ be in me and I am his, as I believe, I do have knowledge according to His grace. With no disrespect intended towards those early servants who preceded us in the faith, the church is not a hierarchy, it is wherever Christ lives in men.

Why does God work through the Apostles and preachers and teachers of today??? So that men are not so arrogant that every thought necessarily comes from God, because that is where I fear one goes in this "individual pipeline to God" mindset.

Joe, the apostles preached and the scriptures confirm that the New Testament is about each man knowing God for his self so that no brother will have to say "know the Lord". Even Catholics teach a personal relationship with Christ. There are false teachers however and we will know them by their fruits. But I know what Love is and what I would want done to me. Yes arrogance is an impediment even to honesty, still the Spirit chastises and reveals such arrogance io each individual believer, thanks be to God.

Paul states it over and over. The Apostles seem pretty sure that they were given revelation from God. Are you contradicting that?

Of course not, since I am confirming that Truth was revealed to them by revelation through the Spirit even as they testify to such knowledge in their writings. The scripture in fact is reproof that there exists One Spirit of Truth since the same things I read in scripture are the same teachings I have recieved through revelation that comes in the name of Jesus and belief that he is in fact the Christ.

You are confusing the DEVELOPMENT of doctrine with actually proclaimed doctrine. It is natural to write about and reflect on the relationship between the Son of God and God the Father. Some will disagree on points. But once that is solemnly defined officially by the Church, who has been charged with defining God's revelation, there is no more dissension among the Fathers. Any such later contradiction is considered schism and heresy, just as we hear spoken of in the New Testament.

But the historical evidence is clear that there has been and currently is schism and that over doubtful things. The fact there is one Truth and it is Love is ample evidence that there should be no division if we all have the same Truth.

I am not sure what you mean by this. WHO is murdering the competition??? Last I remember, Jesus only left one set of apostles and established one church with one faith, one doctrine and one baptism. Some people do not like this and invent their own. It is not unusual for people to make God in their own image, rather than what He has revealed...

I am refering to Eastern and Western, Protestant and Catholic division. It only takes a decent lawyer to pervert doctrine yet Christ remains Christ and Truth remains Truth. It is hard to pervert "Love your enemies" yet the Protestants and Catholics did pervert it, all in the name of defending the Truth.

While rejecting what He has revealed to mankind? I don't think I'll take that chance, Larry...

I am not advocating that God would tell a man to reject these commandments. The Word of God will accomplish His task and this will be done as God says, "By my Spirit".

 

[francisdesales]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

The Spirit would not contradict His self I agree. I am the church also or so I hope. If Christ be in me and I am his, as I believe, I do have knowledge according to His grace. With no disrespect intended towards those early servants who preceded us in the faith, the church is not a hierarchy, it is wherever Christ lives in men.

The Spirit would not contradict Himself, you say, but that's not what you actually believe, as per your responses...

The Church is both "invisible" and "visible". It certainly is not an invisible-only entity. The Church DOES have an hierarchy, always has - it is difficult to avoid the paradigm of leadership, even in the very earliest Church. Apostles, remember them? They had power to bind and loosen upon other Christians. They were charged to feed the sheep, esp. Peter. Paul claims an authority that no other ordinary Christian of the time could override. It's impossible to state that the Church was ever some vague notion of "believers" united in a general sense of "anyone who loves is of the Church". Even the pagans "love" their own, Larry... Are they part of the Church, as per the Bible?

Joe, the apostles preached and the scriptures confirm that the New Testament is about each man knowing God for his self so that no brother will have to say "know the Lord".

The only way we "know" God is by being taught by men to turn to Him and to experience Him through ritual, words and actions among the men of the world. The Church does not live in a vacuum that is separate from the world. In addition, what can we say about the New Testament if, according to you, it is not the inerrant word of God???

What IS revelation, then? Whatever we think? By definition, it is no longer revelation.

Even Catholics teach a personal relationship with Christ. There are false teachers however and we will know them by their fruits. But I know what Love is and what I would want done to me.

Of course we are to have a personal relationship with Christ, but that cannot happen outside of a community. God is a communion of Persons and the Body, the Church, is also a visible communion of persons. As to knowing what one wants done to you, it is not really the subject here.

Yes arrogance is an impediment even to honesty, still the Spirit chastises and reveals such arrogance io each individual believer, thanks be to God.

And as long as men have free will, that revelation can be stifled and men become even more arrogant... This is why I believe God desires that we live in community - to be told by others that we need to be humble, to be obedient and to serve others. We delude ourselves into thinking how holy we are if we don't receive any constructive criticism from our brothers. Can't do that when you belong to a "church" of one where every whim that enters one's head is "from God" and one thinks they are quite loving in God's eyes...

Of course not, since I am confirming that Truth was revealed to them by revelation through the Spirit even as they testify to such knowledge in their writings.

As you said before, the New Testament has errors in it, so which is revelation and which is error???

The scripture in fact is reproof that there exists One Spirit of Truth since the same things I read in scripture are the same teachings I have recieved through revelation that comes in the name of Jesus and belief that he is in fact the Christ.

After our discussions, I am not convinced that the teachings you have "received" are indeed coming in the name of Jesus, nor in line with the Scriptures... This is the result of everyone thinking they have such authority.

But the historical evidence is clear that there has been and currently is schism and that over doubtful things. The fact there is one Truth and it is Love is ample evidence that there should be no division if we all have the same Truth.

Indeed, there is schism, and it seems that even the early Church had to deal with it. Its existence does not void the necessity of being part of that visible Church.

I am refering to Eastern and Western, Protestant and Catholic division. It only takes a decent lawyer to pervert doctrine yet Christ remains Christ and Truth remains Truth. It is hard to pervert "Love your enemies" yet the Protestants and Catholics did pervert it, all in the name of defending the Truth.

Individuals can pervert the truth, but the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth in teaching on faith and morals. As long as the Church is still a traveler in this world, there will be shortcomings found within her membership. That doesn't change the trust we place in God, who ensures that we know truth THROUGH the Church. Christ said that the gates of hell shall not prevail. Do you have faith in that promise?

Again, there is nothing that warrants the modern-day idea of rugged individualism that puts aside the visible Church in favor of a solo-going to God. It is an act of arrogance and disobedience to the Will of Christ.

Regards

 

[childeye]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

=francisdesales;567053]The Spirit would not contradict Himself, you say, but that's not what you actually believe, as per your responses...


The Church is both "invisible" and "visible". It certainly is not an invisible-only entity. The Church DOES have an hierarchy, always has - it is difficult to avoid the paradigm of leadership, even in the very earliest Church. Apostles, remember them? They had power to bind and loosen upon other Christians. They were charged to feed the sheep, esp. Peter. Paul claims an authority that no other ordinary Christian of the time could override. It's impossible to state that the Church was ever some vague notion of "believers" united in a general sense of "anyone who loves is of the Church". Even the pagans "love" their own, Larry... Are they part of the Church, as per the Bible?



The only way we "know" God is by being taught by men to turn to Him and to experience Him through ritual, words and actions among the men of the world. The Church does not live in a vacuum that is separate from the world. In addition, what can we say about the New Testament if, according to you, it is not the inerrant word of God???

What IS revelation, then? Whatever we think? By definition, it is no longer revelation.



Of course we are to have a personal relationship with Christ, but that cannot happen outside of a community. God is a communion of Persons and the Body, the Church, is also a visible communion of persons. As to knowing what one wants done to you, it is not really the subject here.



And as long as men have free will, that revelation can be stifled and men become even more arrogant... This is why I believe God desires that we live in community - to be told by others that we need to be humble, to be obedient and to serve others. We delude ourselves into thinking how holy we are if we don't receive any constructive criticism from our brothers. Can't do that when you belong to a "church" of one where every whim that enters one's head is "from God" and one thinks they are quite loving in God's eyes...



As you said before, the New Testament has errors in it, so which is revelation and which is error???



After our discussions, I am not convinced that the teachings you have "received" are indeed coming in the name of Jesus, nor in line with the Scriptures... This is the result of everyone thinking they have such authority.



Indeed, there is schism, and it seems that even the early Church had to deal with it. Its existence does not void the necessity of being part of that visible Church.



Individuals can pervert the truth, but the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth in teaching on faith and morals. As long as the Church is still a traveler in this world, there will be shortcomings found within her membership. That doesn't change the trust we place in God, who ensures that we know truth THROUGH the Church. Christ said that the gates of hell shall not prevail. Do you have faith in that promise?

Again, there is nothing that warrants the modern-day idea of rugged individualism that puts aside the visible Church in favor of a solo-going to God. It is an act of arrogance and disobedience to the Will of Christ.

Regards

Dear Joe, you have said much, which if I were to respond to each and every point you are saying it would take me all night. You have many inferances that drift from the church being the only official keepers of Truth, all the way to saying they are open to making mistakes. Suffice it to say, I think I get your main point which is to say the RCC is the authority passed down by the apostles.

What this has to do with the letter vs. the Spirit where all of this began is now drifting with the inclusion of the validity of a heirarchy although it is somewhat relevant. For if the Spirit is all one needs, who needs a heirarchy? I have respect for all teachers and preachers of God whose gifts through the Spirit and offices are meant to further the edifying of the church seen or unseen. I have already said I would not follow blindly so as to take sides in any conflict and partake in any carnal division. Be not followers of Peter or Paul etc... If Paul said to follow Christ and not him, I do not see why you would find fault with this. My point is that wars happened and we are left holding the pieces.

Your assertions that I have neglected the apostles of Christ and their need to preach I must respond to. Yes of course the apostles preached the Gospel, but not the scriptures described as the New Testament, as the bible did not exist at that time. I've already alluded to this earlier. Moreover and more to the point of the discussion is that the Apostles were ordinary men that learned what they teach through the Spirit. Does the Spirit now cease to teach? Has He now stopped testifying to God and His Christ?

Yes pagans loved each other and the gentiles who knew not the law yet performed aspects of it. So yes Love is a Spirit common to man. What would you have me do? Quite espousing Love because the pagans love? I know you mean to express that the word love can be cheapened, but not if it is recognized as the Spirit of God in us by grace through faith.

You say as long as we have freewill that arrogance can stifle revelation. According to your use of the term I understand what you mean. I would simply have said we can yet become lost, and that we may need an honest friend to say so. The Holy Spirit guides us and his rod comforts me without denying that the counsel of the Lord can come through a friend. But this is yet Love. Incidentally, freewill would imply we choose to be lost.

In addition, what can we say about the New Testament if, according to you, it is not the inerrant word of God???
We can say the New Testament is a New covenant and not a book.

What IS revelation, then? Whatever we think? By definition, it is no longer revelation
Really Joe, this is a silly question. The Apostles received revelation without the bible. Who do you say I am asked Jesus. Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you Peter, but only my Father in heaven. Revelation is revealed Truth and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth that testifies to the Father and son. Knowing Truth is about knowing God as in Who He is in character. Christ himself is a revelation of the invisible God. This is what establishes one's morality and ethics. Hence a personal relationship is vital to change someone on the inside, not laws and ordinances.

I respectfully suggest we narrow the conversation to a main point and try not to drift. Also, as you say, we should be on guard against arrogance.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

What this has to do with the letter vs. the Spirit where all of this began is now drifting with the inclusion of the validity of a heirarchy although it is somewhat relevant. For if the Spirit is all one needs, who needs a heirarchy? I have respect for all teachers and preachers of God whose gifts through the Spirit and offices are meant to further the edifying of the church seen or unseen. I have already said I would not follow blindly so as to take sides in any conflict and partake in any carnal division. Be not followers of Peter or Paul etc... If Paul said to follow Christ and not him, I do not see why you would find fault with this. My point is that wars happened and we are left holding the pieces.

I think Paul's meaning of "letter v Spirit" has more to do with following the spirit of a law or command, rather than just fulfilling something literally. An example would be Jesus' explanation of the fulfillment of the commandment to not commit adultery. Fulfilling the spirit of that command is to not even look at another woman and have lust in one's heart. The letter of the command is not to have sexual relations, quite literally. Thus, the "letter v the Spirit" has little to do with finding out for yourself "what the Spirit means" without the need to submit to what the Church teaches. It is not a battle of "Church against my opinions". That is not what Paul meant by "letter vs the Spirit", because he would be nullifying his own letters! As their spiritual father, he was tasked to provide for their growth. Just as today's pastors and preachers are.

Your assertions that I have neglected the apostles of Christ and their need to preach I must respond to. Yes of course the apostles preached the Gospel, but not the scriptures described as the New Testament, as the bible did not exist at that time. I've already alluded to this earlier. Moreover and more to the point of the discussion is that the Apostles were ordinary men that learned what they teach through the Spirit. Does the Spirit now cease to teach? Has He now stopped testifying to God and His Christ?

OK, if you want to narrow this subject, let's begin here...

Please explain to me how writings become Sacred Scriptures in the mind of the community. What you describe regarding the New Testament can be equally pointed to regarding the Old Testament, just further back in time. Everything you said about the New can be said about the Old. The teachings of the OT prophets was based upon what they taught and later, their writings were recognized as Scriptures, from God and inerrant.

You ask whether the Spirit still teaches. Yes, through men sent by that same Spirit. This is not a self-appointed position. One may have an initial discernment that they are called to preach the Word (formally) to others - but this takes much more time and prayer to determine that validity. In addition, as per Scriptures, one must submit to the current leaders and be sent by men who are already appointed and sent by the Spirit through the community. We see this in the Pastorals, where Paul sends particular elders, such as Timothy and Titus. They receive the laying of hands and the Spirit comes to them to preach and teach, given authority to feed the sheep upon the Word of God.

Let's keep clear the difference between witnessing to the Word that operates in our lives and the purpose of preachers and teachers in Scriptures.

Since God's revelation has been given and has been defined on many issues, I think we, as humble servants of the Lord who feel called to preach the Word, must keep in mind what the Spirit has already taught. Deviation from "the faith once given to the Apostles" is not teaching the Spirit's revelation.

Regards

 

[childeye]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

I think Paul's meaning of "letter v Spirit" has more to do with following the spirit of a law or command, rather than just fulfilling something literally. An example would be Jesus' explanation of the fulfillment of the commandment to not commit adultery. Fulfilling the spirit of that command is to not even look at another woman and have lust in one's heart. The letter of the command is not to have sexual relations, quite literally. Thus, the "letter v the Spirit" has little to do with finding out for yourself "what the Spirit means" without the need to submit to what the Church teaches. It is not a battle of "Church against my opinions". That is not what Paul meant by "letter vs the Spirit", because he would be nullifying his own letters! As their spiritual father, he was tasked to provide for their growth. Just as today's pastors and preachers are.

I agree that "Church against my opinions" is not "letter vs. Spirit". Truth is revealed not made up as I have already said many times. Christ is a person not an opinion. I also agree with your use of Jesus' description of the command to not commit adultery as a good example of letter vs. Spirit. I would add that Jesus also said concerning such, that for men it was impossible but for God all things are possible. This is critical to understanding the inability of men to achieve any righteousness without God. Hence the scriptures speak of men seeking a righteousness through works of the letter and another through faith in the Christ.

OK, if you want to narrow this subject, let's begin here...

Please explain to me how writings become Sacred Scriptures in the mind of the community. What you describe regarding the New Testament can be equally pointed to regarding the Old Testament, just further back in time. Everything you said about the New can be said about the Old. The teachings of the OT prophets was based upon what they taught and later, their writings were recognized as Scriptures, from God and inerrant.

Joe, I think writings. particularly the Old Testament, become sacred in the minds of men because they are solid communique from the living God complete with miracles and signs. It takes Godly Love in the heart to recognize Godly Love come in the flesh. Moses was a type of Christ, Joshua was a type of Christ, for the sake of the coming of the Christ. Personally I don't see how you come to the conclusion that everything I said about the New can be said about the Old. I am not aware of any errors such as different accounts of events nor any carnal sentiments behind the writers' words in the Old, excluding those parts meant to reveal carnal sentiments. I would say the misunderstandings that keep occuring between you and I are uncanny which would mean there are powers in the air between us intent upon division where none should occur. That is good news since something good is possible between us if we perservere in love.

You ask whether the Spirit still teaches. Yes, through men sent by that same Spirit. This is not a self-appointed position. One may have an initial discernment that they are called to preach the Word (formally) to others - but this takes much more time and prayer to determine that validity. In addition, as per Scriptures, one must submit to the current leaders and be sent by men who are already appointed and sent by the Spirit through the community. We see this in the Pastorals, where Paul sends particular elders, such as Timothy and Titus. They receive the laying of hands and the Spirit comes to them to preach and teach, given authority to feed the sheep upon the Word of God.

I understand your points Joe. If I may be frank, I feel I am halfway being admonished for having no Holy Orders from those you regard as "authority". Hence when you say "Church" this is what you mean, those in authority. You therefore are concerned because I do not recognize the same authority as you do. With all honesty Joe, we come from two different perspectives and I sense both of us do not want to be guilty of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, of crucifying the Christ. I would not trade God for religion as in how the Jews went with the religious authorities and rejected the Christ, nor do I accuse you of such.

Let's keep clear the difference between witnessing to the Word that operates in our lives and the purpose of preachers and teachers in Scriptures.

I only teach and bare witness to what I have witnessed. In all honesty, I can do no more or no less. I am not a teacher of scripture, nor a scholar. I do not possess the education you do. I am more like as my moniker says the eye of a child.

Since God's revelation has been given and has been defined on many issues, I think we, as humble servants of the Lord who feel called to preach the Word, must keep in mind what the Spirit has already taught. Deviation from "the faith once given to the Apostles" is not teaching the Spirit's revelation.

I agree wholeheartedly. May God bless your walk.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

I agree that "Church against my opinions" is not "letter vs. Spirit". Truth is revealed not made up as I have already said many times. Christ is a person not an opinion. I also agree with your use of Jesus' description of the command to not commit adultery as a good example of letter vs. Spirit. I would add that Jesus also said concerning such, that for men it was impossible but for God all things are possible. This is critical to understanding the inability of men to achieve any righteousness without God. Hence the scriptures speak of men seeking a righteousness through works of the letter and another through faith in the Christ.

We agree here. I have never said that we can do anything of salvific value in God's eyes without God. No one can be righteous without God. However, God is a God of Love - and Love deeply desires to share of Himself. It should come as no surprise that God WOULD aid us at every opportunity - He is a merciful God. I think my signature line sums it up well enough.

Joe, I think writings. particularly the Old Testament, become sacred in the minds of men because they are solid communique from the living God complete with miracles and signs. It takes Godly Love in the heart to recognize Godly Love come in the flesh. Moses was a type of Christ, Joshua was a type of Christ, for the sake of the coming of the Christ. Personally I don't see how you come to the conclusion that everything I said about the New can be said about the Old. I am not aware of any errors such as different accounts of events nor any carnal sentiments behind the writers' words in the Old, excluding those parts meant to reveal carnal sentiments. I would say the misunderstandings that keep occuring between you and I are uncanny which would mean there are powers in the air between us intent upon division where none should occur. That is good news since something good is possible between us if we perservere in love.

I agree that the community recognizes that a set of writings are divinely inspired. How then don't you see the NT as inspired and inerrant? As to "how I don't see how you come to the conclusion that everything I said...", you distinctly told me that James was confused, wrong, etc., in his attempt to correct Paul. You went on to tell me that the New Testament, unlike the Old, is not inerrant. My gosh, Larry, do you see why the term "jello" keeps coming up in my mind when you say "x" and then say "not x" a few days later???
There is a certain amount of frustration in dealing with this, I must admit.

It would be helpful to get things straightened out, since if you think that the Old Testament is in some way superior and "more inerrant" than the New Testament, than we need to address that error first. Stating that James was wrong in his definition of faith or attempting (incorrectly, according to you) to correct Paul, we have some serious issues on understanding what the Bible is and its authority.

I understand your points Joe. If I may be frank, I feel I am halfway being admonished for having no Holy Orders from those you regard as "authority". Hence when you say "Church" this is what you mean, those in authority. You therefore are concerned because I do not recognize the same authority as you do. With all honesty Joe, we come from two different perspectives and I sense both of us do not want to be guilty of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, of crucifying the Christ. I would not trade God for religion as in how the Jews went with the religious authorities and rejected the Christ, nor do I accuse you of such.

My goal is to point out a better way, one that is Scriptural, not to condemn people who are not like me and where I am at in my walk. The purpose is to hold out a goal, and if people recognize the truth in it and consider it, that is wonderful. I am certainly not in a position to judge where anyone will be at the end of it all, even myself. My experience has led me here and I want to share that with others. I am only pointing out a few errors in your thinking that may help you in your walk.

I only teach and bare witness to what I have witnessed. In all honesty, I can do no more or no less. I am not a teacher of scripture, nor a scholar. I do not possess the education you do. I am more like as my moniker says the eye of a child.

I agree wholeheartedly. May God bless your walk.

And you.

Regards

 

[childeye]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

I agree that the community recognizes that a set of writings are divinely inspired. How then don't you see the NT as inspired and inerrant? As to "how I don't see how you come to the conclusion that everything I said...", you distinctly told me that James was confused, wrong, etc., in his attempt to correct Paul. You went on to tell me that the New Testament, unlike the Old, is not inerrant. My gosh, Larry, do you see why the term "jello" keeps coming up in my mind when you say "x" and then say "not x" a few days later???
There is a certain amount of frustration in dealing with this, I must admit.

I certainly can appreciate your frustration. When the word "faith" takes on two seperate meanings, trust and... belief in existence, and is then applied with the word "works" which also is fluid in meaning such as in the works of the law meant to not sin, and works of repentance meant to be charitable, this becomes lost in semantics without proper clarification.

Regarding my saying James was wrong, that was conditional therefore, depending upon how he was using the term faith, for he uses both definitions given above in the same letter. As I said before, that it is my conjecture and not a given fact that can be proven or disproven, that James is addressing Paul's saved by faith through grace and not by works because he is having the same problem with semantics. Even Peter said that oftentimes what Paul said is hard to understand. Furthermore there is the statement "you have faith and I have works" indicating the same division caused by semantics and the fealty of the letter.

Not division between Paul and James mind you, but division in concept of whosoever James is applying the statement. Note I have included this last statement to try to avoid any misunderstanding regarding the term "division". The word misunderstanding pertaining to you misunderstanding me, not James misunderstanding Paul, if in fact it even is about Paul or someone else and depending on whether you even do misunderstand me or James misunderstands Paul or you misunderstand Paul and so are partial to James and so you misunderstand me. Not to imply you would have misunderstood it in the first place. That last statement being applied to misconstruing, not to ignorance so as if to say I think your stupid. Not that if someone was stupid it would be a crime to say so. Although again it may be true if someone was stupid it would be a crime to say so. Nor by misconstruing do I mean to imply I think you purposely obscure what I say to avoid the veracity of it. Not to imply I think I'm right and you are not, and everything I say is verifiable but only that some is. That phrase "I'm right" is actually pertaining to carnal superiority and not actual knowledge, lest you think I am admitting I am wrong since I am only saying I could be. Not that I think you would think that nor do I think you would think yourself superior, but just in case, while honestly confessing the possibility you might think that, yes it had ocurred to me. The possiibility that is, not the actual occurance of it. Get my Point? It is impossible for me to dodge all the ways you could misunderstand what I say. Welcome to Babylon. Shall we babble on? The fealty of words according to the letter. When do we stop and just believe?

Consequently James is wrong only if he confounds Paul's lesson responding to someone based on misunderstanding Paul's use of the terms. For Paul is using faith defined as trust while James is using faith defined as belief in existence at least in one instance. Paul is using works of the law and James is using works of repentance. Yet James is not wrong in the overall context wherein he is applying the terms, for James may be addrressing someone elses misunderstanding of Paul and not his own, even as we are discussing it now. I reiterate this is all conjecture and suppositions not meant to be taken definitively.

It would be helpful to get things straightened out, since if you think that the Old Testament is in some way superior and "more inerrant" than the New Testament, than we need to address that error first. Stating that James was wrong in his definition of faith or attempting (incorrectly, according to you) to correct Paul, we have some serious issues on understanding what the Bible is and its authority.

With all humility, I do not understand everything ever written in Old Testament scripture, and am not therefore able in all honesty to say there are errors nor say there aren't. So I do not think I would tell you it was inerrant as you say. Nor do I simply believe someone else who says there are no errors when they themselves honestly do not know. But it is this same honesty that recognizes there are two different accounts of what the two thieves said who were crucified with the Christ. It is this same honesty that recognizes Paul's expressed sentiment that Peter was kowtowing to the Jews, which is carnal of Peter if true or carnal of Paul if not true. If the latter, then this was not inspired by the Spirit of Truth.

So what? It does not invalidate all those things that were written through the Spirit. Nor does it mean I am preaching that the New Testament scriptures were not inspired by the Holy Spirit on the whole. My issue is to not count the letter greater than the Spirit. For it was of that mindset that were the Pharisees. Ever were they accusing and testing the Christ through scripture. Is it simple coincidence that the Samaritan lowlife, who probably knew little scripture, followed the Spirit and helped the man who was robbed, while those affluent in the letter bypassed the good deed? Is it coincidence that the Pharisees would not touch the prostitute yet she had more Love than they? Is it coincidence that Jesus says, go look in your precious scriptures, not the precious scriptures, for they all testify to me? Knowledge puffs up and God shows favor to the meek and humble. They get to do the good deeds.

I am only pointing out a few errors in your thinking that may help you in your walk.

Aren't we all doing this? For we all are excited about our relationship with God through Christ. But lets get to the heart of our contention, if there even is one, and quite trifling over semantics and petty misunderstandings. One final thought. I am not offended by your Jello term. I find it funny and endearing. I hope you feel the same way about my shadow boxing remark.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

I certainly can appreciate your frustration. When the word "faith" takes on two seperate meanings, trust and... belief in existence, and is then applied with the word "works" which also is fluid in meaning such as in the works of the law meant to not sin, and works of repentance meant to be charitable, this becomes lost in semantics without proper clarification.

The frustration is trying to figure out your point of view, not the meaning of a term in the Bible.

Regarding my saying James was wrong, that was conditional therefore, depending upon how he was using the term faith, for he uses both definitions given above in the same letter. As I said before, that it is my conjecture and not a given fact that can be proven or disproven, that James is addressing Paul's saved by faith through grace and not by works because he is having the same problem with semantics. Even Peter said that oftentimes what Paul said is hard to understand. Furthermore there is the statement "you have faith and I have works" indicating the same division caused by semantics and the fealty of the letter.

Larry, you wrote a lot - but it avoids my point;

The Bible is the inerrant word of God. It does not contradict. If PEOPLE READING THE BIBLE come to the conclusion that one is correcting another author, then THAT PERSON is in error. The interpretation of what James/Paul is saying is in error, not the actual words or the intent of the Sacred Author, Whom is the Holy Spirit, responsible for the Old Testament AND New Testament inspiration and inerrancy of Scriptures.

Thus, your statements that somehow, James is incorrect in his definition of faith is a personal interpretation issue. JAMES defines for HIMSELF what is "faith". Not you or I. It is up to the interrpeter to judge what James means. And by stating that "even the devil believes", it is very clear that James does NOT have the same complete idea of "walking in faith through trust in God" that Paul has in Romans!!! The attempt to state that James is correcting/contradicting Paul is a fallacy, since the interpreter is making THEMSELVES the center of gravity, rather than allowing the Word of God to speak for Itself.

I hope this is clear. We agree that James and Paul differ on the meaning of "faith". But it doesn't follow that James OR Paul are wrong. They are speaking in different senses.

With all humility, I do not understand everything ever written in Old Testament scripture, and am not therefore able in all honesty to say there are errors nor say there aren't. So I do not think I would tell you it was inerrant as you say.

OK, well, that seems more consistent - although I disagree with you. So what you are saying is that the Bible is the Word of God, but is not free from error of intent, is that correct?

So what? It does not invalidate all those things that were written through the Spirit.

It appears you are picking and choosing at what point the Spirit is "writing" the Scriptures, Larry. How exactly are you going to identify when the Spirit is protecting the Scriptures from error, and when man took over and the Spirit took a break? If the Bible is the Word of God, it MUST be truth, completely. Otherwise, it is not the Word of God, but man's opinion of God's revelation... it is no more "correct" than the Koran or Hindu Scriptures. This is the bane of relativism, where every religion is "correct" - all in the name of "tolerance"...

Aren't we all doing this? For we all are excited about our relationship with God through Christ. But lets get to the heart of our contention, if there even is one, and quite trifling over semantics and petty misunderstandings. One final thought. I am not offended by your Jello term. I find it funny and endearing. I hope you feel the same way about my shadow boxing remark.

Of course we are all "doing it". I am pointing out where your opinions are faulty and you are attempting to explain/back them up/change them as we go. I am presuming that you agree that there should be some consistency in our beliefs and that they are logically explainable.

The "Jello" term is not meant to be offensive, it is a description that I find funny that describes someone who is, to be nice, in a state of flux on their ideas and opinions. I am not saying you are willingly being difficult, but from where I sit, it's frustrating pinning down what you believe. Maybe you are unsure yourself. Perhaps these discussions will serve a useful purpose for you in solidifying what you actually believe, even if we continue to disagree.

Regards

 

[childeye]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

Larry, you wrote a lot - but it avoids my point;

The Bible is the inerrant word of God. It does not contradict. If PEOPLE READING THE BIBLE come to the conclusion that one is correcting another author, then THAT PERSON is in error.

The bible says to be honest correct? So I honestly said there exist two different accounts of what the thieves crucified with the Christ said. That James may be addressing misunderstandings I have surmised which one must do when unsure. That the sentiments expressed by Paul towards Peter kowtowing to the Jews were questionable, that is the only conclusion I have made.

The interpretation of what James/Paul is saying is in error, not the actual words or the intent of the Sacred Author, Whom is the Holy Spirit, responsible for the Old Testament AND New Testament inspiration and inerrancy of Scriptures.

I told you now for the fourth or is it the sixth time, the issue with James' "you have faith and I have works" is only conjecture on my part.

Thus, your statements that somehow, James is incorrect in his definition of faith is a personal interpretation issue. JAMES defines for HIMSELF what is "faith". Not you or I.

It is James himself who uses two seperate definitions for faith in his letter as you yourself agreed. I never said James was incorrect but only offered suppositions that were based on contingencies at your request. You have somehow clung to the idea that I have made conclusive determinations despite all my efforts to clarify for you that these are conjecture.

It is up to the interrpeter to judge what James means. And by stating that "even the devil believes", it is very clear that James does NOT have the same complete idea of "walking in faith through trust in God" that Paul has in Romans!!!

But I've already stated this same thing more than once.

The attempt to state that James is correcting/contradicting Paul is a fallacy, since the interpreter is making THEMSELVES the center of gravity, rather than allowing the Word of God to speak for Itself.

The scripture does not speak without the spirit for it is a script, I agree. I do not mean to imply James is correcting Paul since as I said I do not know. I merely said it seems he may be addressing Pauls teaching which may have been confusing to someone else.

I hope this is clear. We agree that James and Paul differ on the meaning of "faith". But it doesn't follow that James OR Paul are wrong. They are speaking in different senses.

But we have already agreed to this.

OK, well, that seems more consistent - although I disagree with you. So what you are saying is that the Bible is the Word of God, but is not free from error of intent, is that correct?

I'm saying the Word of God is Spirit and so yes the intent of the letter is intact although there may be error that I am not aware of and I have pointed out what appears to be discrepencies not vital in determining Truth so as to be honest before God.

It appears you are picking and choosing at what point the Spirit is "writing" the Scriptures, Larry. How exactly are you going to identify when the Spirit is protecting the Scriptures from error, and when man took over and the Spirit took a break?

Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit one achieves understanding of scripture. I don't pick and choose, I seek to understand. What is carnal is not spiritual so Pauls sentiments towards Peter I take with a grain of salt.

If the Bible is the Word of God, it MUST be truth, completely. Otherwise, it is not the Word of God, but man's opinion of God's revelation... it is no more "correct" than the Koran or Hindu Scriptures. This is the bane of relativism, where every religion is "correct" - all in the name of "tolerance"...

You are over reaching again with this either or logic without the knowledge to make such conclusive determinations. Is it possible the Word of God exists in more places than the bible? How many movies, songs, poetry, books, are inspired by the Holy Spirit? All things are relative to God, expressly Truth. If God is Spirit and a person, not a book, as in the Christ, respectfully how do you tolerate your own statement which the scriptures themselves nullify? The Word was made flesh.

Of course we are all "doing it". I am pointing out where your opinions are faulty and you are attempting to explain/back them up/change them as we go. I am presuming that you agree that there should be some consistency in our beliefs and that they are logically explainable.

I take it that it is your opinion that we are discussing my opinions. If I stated clearly they are my opinions, or conjecture or suppositions then I have not made any definitive conclusions such opinions are Truth. If I maintain that Truth is revealed and not gathered according to men's determination, I rely upon God and there is no arrogance. It should be clear to you by now that I do not believe Truth is based on opinion even if in your opinion I am saying this without actually practicing it in mental deliberation. I agree there should be consistency in our beliefs and do not doubt there exists a Truth we all must submit to, but only contend we end up arguing semantics because we approach from different perspectives. I seek to be mindful of this lest I accuse others unjustly. So here it is where all such Truth begins for me. The Christ is the revelation of Truth, He is a person and Jesus is that Christ. To come to know him is to come to Love Him. I know you will agree with this.

The "Jello" term is not meant to be offensive, it is a description that I find funny that describes someone who is, to be nice, in a state of flux on their ideas and opinions. I am not saying you are willingly being difficult, but from where I sit, it's frustrating pinning down what you believe. Maybe you are unsure yourself. Perhaps these discussions will serve a useful purpose for you in solidifying what you actually believe, even if we continue to disagree.

There is one Truth, I have said that for man, it is the Christ, the visible Image of the invisible God. I am sure of this as much as I am able to be sure. No one can own him therefore, yet he owns us. So it is good to be unsure of yourself when digitizing the Truth, this is humility to me. For who can decipher adequately what is eternal? It is futility. Therefore righteousness is by faith. These discussions may in the end prove to be fruitful or just hot air as we seem to be posturing for the sake of each others perception when we should be simply accepting that God determines our stations.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Salvation by Grace through Faith is denied by any person who says they are saved because they believed. This is just like saying that one is saved by keeping the Law or the Commandments of God. You see it does not matter if it's keeping one commandment to get saved or all the commandments, or if its the commandment to get water baptized, or if its a command to attend church, or if its a command to believe on Christ, yes because believing on Christ is a commandment 1 Jn 3:23 or repentance, because repentance is a commandment. Acts 17:30

30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

1 Jn 3:23 reads


23And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

So if you or i or anyone teaches or believes that one gets saved for being obedient to a command of God, you deny Salvation by Grace through Faith, and you believe and are promoting Salvation by works.