Essential vs Nonessential

[Jim Parker]

you know that I have loads of respect for you, so don't take this personally,

ANd I for you.
No I won't take it personally.

the mind numbing liturgy

It is the form of worship practiced by the earliest Christians.
That you do not understand or appreciate it does not make it invalid.

the variation on justification

What variation? There was no variation until protestors decided to reform the church which Jesus established.
(see: Justin Martyr: (AD 100-165) The First Apology of Justin Chapter LXVII.—Weekly Worship of the Christians.)

the corrupt leadership is enough to keep me out of the church that is not Protestant

HAH! As if there is no corruption in any Protestant churches! I've seen the Protestant pastors running off with their secretaries, using the church as their personal ATM; sweeping the damage done by pedophile ministers in the children's ministry under the rug; putting their whole family on staff; tapping the petty cash for $100 a day tax free; stabbing other pastors in the back; embezzlement, and on and on.
Do the names Jimmy Swaggart, Jimmy Bakker, Robert TIlton, and Peter Popoff ring a bell?

Nobody's got a monopoly on fraud, corruption, etc.
But it did see a consistent thread among the protestant churches I attended in that they all had, as part of their doctrine, "What's wrong with them dang KATH-licks."

jim

 

[Jim Parker]

This is false information about the 50,000 Protestant denominations, sects, etc.

BUt we can agree that there are 10s of thousands.

 

[OzSpen]

Here's what Jesus personally said:

John 5:28-29 (NKJV)… the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

Apparently, we also have a part to play in our salvation.

iakov the fool

Jim,

That's a bit rich, cherry picking 2 verses. What causes these people to 'have done good' and be resurrected to life? Are you suggesting good works determines salvation???

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

BUt we can agree that there are 10s of thousands.

No, Jim. Read the figures I gave you. They DO NOT amount to 10s of thousands. Seems like you have chosen to ignore the content of the information I provided.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

ANd I for you.
No I won't take it personally.

It is the form of worship practiced by the earliest Christians.
That you do not understand or appreciate it does not make it invalid.

What variation? There was no variation until protestors decided to reform the church which Jesus established.
(see: Justin Martyr: (AD 100-165) The First Apology of Justin Chapter LXVII.—Weekly Worship of the Christians.)

That's not according to 1 Cor 14:26 (NIV): 'What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up'.

This is hardly liturgical worship. It is every-member ministry when the church 'comes together'.

Oz

 

[Jethro Bodine]

HAH! As if there is no corruption in any Protestant churches! I've seen the Protestant pastors running off with their secretaries, using the church as their personal ATM; sweeping the damage done by pedophile ministers in the children's ministry under the rug; putting their whole family on staff; tapping the petty cash for $100 a day tax free; stabbing other pastors in the back; embezzlement, and on and on.
Do the names Jimmy Swaggart, Jimmy Bakker, Robert TIlton, and Peter Popoff ring a bell?

Nobody's got a monopoly on fraud, corruption, etc.
But it did see a consistent thread among the protestant churches I attended in that they all had, as part of their doctrine, "What's wrong with them dang KATH-licks."

Oh, don't misunderstand. I'm not defending Protestantism as one would defend Catholicism. It's just that to be neither invariably puts you on the Protestant side of the fence because as far as I know there is no non-denominational church within Catholicism. So, when you don't identify with a particular denomination, Catholic or Protestant, you by default get put on the Protestant side of that one particular divide (of many) in the body of Christ.

That's not according to 1 Cor 14:26 (NIV): 'What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up'.

This is hardly liturgical worship. It is every-member ministry when the church 'comes together'.

Oz

Of the 29 occurrences of the word "stumble", none mean "to be cast into fiery Hell" including in verse 9.

Definition
to put a snare (in the way), hence to cause to stumble, to give offense
NASB Translation
cause (1), cause...to stumble (2), causes (2), causes...to stumble (6), fall away (7), falls away (1), led into sin (1), makes...stumble (2), offend (1), offended (1), stumble (3), stumbling (1), take (1), take offense (1), took offense (2).

http://biblehub.com/greek/4624.htm

Okay, so you're opting for the 'it doesn't really mean what it says' argument this time.

Just so I understand, show us how this verse is 'not really' saying that it is better to remove that which causes stumbling so you will not be cast into the fiery hell:

9“If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell." (Matthew 18:9 NASB bold mine)

So, since it is possible for believers to be caused to stumble so as to be cast into hell, that makes essential doctrine more than just 'how to get saved' doctrine. It includes 'how to stay saved' doctrines, too.

 

[JLB]

It has been well said that “there should be unity in all things essential, liberality in all things nonessential, and charity in all things!”

Understanding what is essential and nonessential is wisdom.



JLB

 

[Jim Parker]

Are you suggesting good works determines salvation???

NO.
Jesus did.

 

[OzSpen]

NO.
Jesus did.

And you know the NT expresses that it is not good works alone that determines salvation: '8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast' (Eph 2:8-9 ESV).

Surely you are not suggesting that Jesus would teach a salvation message that is contrary to these 2 verses from the apostle Paul?

Oz

 

[Jethro Bodine]

And you know the NT expresses that it is not good works alone that determines salvation: '8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast' (Eph 2:8-9 ESV).

Surely you are not suggesting that Jesus would teach a salvation message that is contrary to these 2 verses from the apostle Paul?

Oz

I don't think he's suggesting that.

I've learned from talking to Catholics on line that the works the saved person does IS their faith. He can certainly correct me if I misunderstand.

I'm not in complete disagreement with it. The way I say it is our works are our manifest expression of our faith, and which Jesus will use to Judge us as having had faith in this life, or not, just as wicked works will be used to condemn the faithless--Matthew 25:31-46 NASB. This brings Paul and James into agreement. Faith that can not be seen is not the faith that saves.

"6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything (towards justification), but faith working through love." (Galatians 5:6 NASB bold and underline mine)

"14What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? ('No', of course) "
"...show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
(James 2:14,18 NASB bold and parenthesis mine)

 

[OzSpen]

I don't think he's suggesting that.

I've learned from talking to Catholics on line that the works the saved person does IS their faith. He can certainly correct me if I misunderstand.

I'm not in complete disagreement with it. The way I say it is our works are our manifest expression of our faith, and which Jesus will use to Judge us as having had faith in this life, or not, just as wicked works will be used to condemn the faithless--Matthew 25:31-46 NASB. This brings Paul and James into agreement. Faith that can not be seen is not the faith that saves.

"6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything (towards justification), but faith working through love." (Galatians 5:6 NASB bold and underline mine)

"14What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? ('No', of course) "
"...show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
(James 2:14,18 NASB bold and parenthesis mine)

Jethro,

I agree with the need for good works, but they are works that proceed from faith as James demonstrates: 'I will show you my faith by my works' (James 2:18) and not works that cause salvation.

By the way, Jim is Orthodox and not Roman Catholic.

Oz

 

[Jethro Bodine]

they are works that proceed from faith as James demonstrates: 'I will show you my faith by my works' (James 2:18) and not works that cause salvation.

That's what I'm saying. He's either saying that, too, or almost saying that. I do not believe he thinks that works earn salvation.

 

[JLB]

The way I say it is our works are our manifest expression of our faith, and which Jesus will use to Judge us as having had faith in this life, or not,

... which Jesus will use to judge us as having a [continuing] faith in this life, or not.

Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified. 2 Corinthians 13:5

It would be interesting to see the OSAS folks explain how a person can become "disqualified" without first being qualified.



JLB

 

[JLB]

And you know the NT expresses that it is not good works alone that determines salvation: '8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast' (Eph 2:8-9 ESV).

Surely you are not suggesting that Jesus would teach a salvation message that is contrary to these 2 verses from the apostle Paul?

Oz

I never understood why you guys always stop at verse 9?

For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
Ephesians 2:10




JLB

 

[OzSpen]

I never understood why you guys always stop at verse 9?

For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
Ephesians 2:10
JLB

Excellent point. Thanks for drawing to my attention and v. 10 affirms that good works follow grace, faith and salvation.

Oz

 

[netchaplain]

Excellent point. Thanks for drawing to my attention and v. 10 affirms that good works follow grace, faith and salvation.

Oz

I believe you have the proper order OZ! Grace, faith and salvation are antecedent (precede) to works, because "apart from Me you can do nothing."

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I believe you have the proper order OZ! Grace, faith and salvation are antecedent (precede) to works, because "apart from Me you can do nothing."

If I understand Catholic doctrine, Parker will agree with this but will say the 'salvation' part has only truly occurred, and continues to occur, if there are indeed works following. But we Protestants say the 'salvation' part has only truly occurred if the initial offering of faith was genuine. I think the former is more in line with what the Bible says: Works determine (expose) if you are truly saved (Philippians 2:14-15 NASB), because the 'faith' that does not work is the faith that can not justify/save (James 2:14 NASB, Galatians 5:6 NASB). But most Protestants think faith, whether or not it produces works, invariably and without exception saves.

I think where the rub will come in is in the matter of 'justification' and where it fits in the equation you presented. I would order the equation like this: grace, faith, justification, then salvation/works. Salvation and works being on equal par because salvation and works in a genuine salvation do not exist apart from one another. Note that it is justification that precedes and then produces works.

 

[JLB]

Excellent point. Thanks for drawing to my attention and v. 10 affirms that good works follow grace, faith and salvation.

Oz

Yes sir.

His workmanship.

We express His workmanship; for He works within us to both desire and do His good pleasure.

Apart from Him, I can do nothing.


JLB

 

[JLB]

If I understand Catholic doctrine, Parker will agree with this but will say the 'salvation' part has only truly occurred, and continues to occur, if there are indeed works following. But we Protestants say the 'salvation' part has only truly occurred if the initial offering of faith was genuine. I think the former is more in line with what the Bible says: Works determine (expose) if you are truly saved (Philippians 2:14-15 NASB), because the 'faith' that does not work is the faith that can not justify/save (James 2:14 NASB, Galatians 5:6 NASB). But most Protestants think faith, whether or not it produces works, invariably and without exception saves.

I think where the rub will come in is in the matter of 'justification' and where it fits in the equation you presented. I would order the equation like this: grace, faith, justification, then salvation/works. Salvation and works being on equal par because salvation and works in a genuine salvation do not exist apart from one another. Note that it is justification that precedes and then produces works.

I still like the "siggy".


It would be nice if he really understood it.


JLB

 

[smaller]

I am not aware of any believer, willfully or unwillfully, who has made themselves sinless. Any such claims of being sinless, even temporarily, to me are automatically qualified as "dishonest" statements.

Few can accept that this was Paul's end sight of himself:

1 Timothy 1:15
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Most run in the opposite direction that Paul landed on, and the exact opposite conclusion for themselves. So there is "an essential" understanding. And a opposite conclusion by the many. All thinking themselves "willfully" as non-sinners.

Who can think themselves "willfully" as the chief of sinners? Few, I'd expect. And even fewer will see how Paul derived that conclusion, for themselves.