Salvation by faith alone/only?

[felix]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

Forgive me, but I fail l to understand if you are agreeing or disagreeing with what I said. Certainly, your analogy is accurate, but I sense some disconnect since I cannot comprehend why you would tell me this. I have not advocated for disobeying Jesus or God. I am saying faith precedes obedience. Moreover I am defining the term and reason for Christ so as to make effective the cause of his being sent. Was he sent to tell us the world is on fire and head for the exit or is he Himself the exit?

The reason I posted is because you didn't share the same view of the phrase 'Faith in Jesus Christ'. So, I made it as a analogy so that we can atleast know if we are on the same boat. By saying my analogy is accurate, you agree that we are indeed on the same boat

 

[childeye]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

Then you are not realizing that the definition of "faith" is not always the same in Scriptures. Rolling everything into one definition as a "life of faith" is different than the term "faith" - which does NOT equate with "obedience" when separated from a general walk. We must look at the context of Scriptures, and James 2 doesn't allow us to define faith as "our walk in Christ"...

When we analyze our walk in Christ, there are a variety of virtues and attitudes, faith being one of many. Love, hope, repentance, patience, etc. These are not all "faith" - which means, according to Hebrews 11:1:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith leads to obedience, but they are not the same thing.

And thus, James chides Christians who have faith, but not obedience. Paul says the same thing in 1 Cor 13. Larry, you be the judge if faith and obedience to God is the same thing here:

And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 1 Cor 13:2

Anyone reading that can clearly see that faith alone is NOTHING. Without charity, and with all the faith in the world, you are nothing - not saved... Thus, here, it is clear that faith is NOT equal to obedience in areas of Scripture. It would seem that charity is more important than faith, and it remains, while faith disappears once we see God face to face. Thus, charity is more important than faith. With love, I fulfill ALL the tenets of the Law, says Paul to the Romans... Paul never says this about "faith", does he.




There is no such term that I am aware of in Scriptures - true faith.

Faith is belief in God. How strong is that faith? Is it enough to die to self, to seek out God when it is not convenient? To turn to repentance and change our lives? If it doesn't, it is "dead faith" - which does NOT mean "no faith". Again, read James 2, who notes that Christians have faith. Big deal, even the devil believes that God exists. But I will show you my faith by my works/love (which the Christians James addresses were not, as seen by their mistreatment of the poor.

"True faith" doesn't accomplish anything. God is the impetus behind our accomplishment. In other words, "true faith" is not a chemical reaction that God catalyzes and walks away, watching your 'faith reaction' bubble up and turn into works like some inexorable and inevitable chemical reaction. Faith is among the many gifts God gives us that enables us, in Christ, to do good. But even WITH faith, we STILL require God to move our wills and desires to do good. Faith ALONE doesn't accomplish any good deeds without God. This is clear in the OT, where people SAW God's works and had faith in Him, but then promptly turned to sin, rather than good works. Where was the conveyor belt that self-generated those good works? And in James? They didn't happen there, either.



Again, "having faith in" something, even God, does not in of itself generate good works on auto pilot. I can see why a person who doesn't believe in the will would say this. Love is an act of the will. One must desire -as moved by God - to do good. It doesn't happen while we just watch passively. Having a disposition that includes faith (it is not alone, hope is there, for example) makes us more open to God's promptings to do what we were created to do, good works. (Eph 2:10)

Regards

My dear Joe. You have said much here. All of which I can agree except for those things describing what I have said which I feel you have misunderstood. For instance, I am aware there are different definitions for the term faith used in the bible. I realize faith is not the same as obedience. I know faith without love is pointless. I do believe in a will.

I grieve that we cannot confer accurately with one another because when I use a term in one context it is received in another and perhaps the same is happening on your end. Consequently, I am hesitant to speak freely without first anticipating every avenue of possible misunderstanding, and phrasing what I say in a way that minimizes those possibilities.

I will speak of True faith. When I say "True Faith" I am applying faith in a subjective view so that it is a constant yet not an absolute. For example, faith is not a true faith unless moved towards Love by inspiration of that Love. This opens the possibility for a false faith in my reasoning that does not believe Love will endure. Works will manifest accordingly. Hence my terminology is tantamount to saying weak faith or strong faith, belief or unbelief, relative to the absolute which is Love which is God.

I will speak of obedience. Obedience follows the direction of ones faith and there is obedience to sin although this is at once disobedience to God. The terms obedience and disobedience are therefore relative according to the direction of ones faith which is relative to God.

As I said, I do not believe we disagree but clearly there is miscommunication. So it is you say, "True faith" doesn't accomplish anything. Then you say, God is the impetus behind our accomplishment. In other words, you and I are in agreement, however I would point out "True faith" is acknowledging God as the impetus. And Godly impetus does accomplish all things. I can do all things through Christ for example, a statement of True faith. You can do nothing apart from me, says Christ. Another statement of True faith.

Always a pleasure to have discourse with you Joe. Thank you for your sincere concerns for me.

 

[childeye]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

The reason I posted is because you didn't share the same view of the phrase 'Faith in Jesus Christ'. So, I made it as a analogy so that we can atleast know if we are on the same boat. By saying my analogy is accurate, you agree that we are indeed on the same boat

We are in the same boat and that boat is Christ, so let us row in unison since it is much more productive. Or is this a motor boat?

 

[francisdesales]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

My dear Joe. You have said much here. All of which I can agree except for those things describing what I have said which I feel you have misunderstood. For instance, I am aware there are different definitions for the term faith used in the bible. I realize faith is not the same as obedience. I know faith without love is pointless.

I guess I am a bit confused on this, since you say this now, and yet earlier, you said " Yet I would go further and say it was never faith at all if there were never obedience through such so called faith."

This seems at odds with what you wrote most recently. You also earlier disagreed with how faith was defined by James when I pointed out that even the devil believes.

Larry, I apologize if I am "misunderstanding you", but all I can do is base ideas on is what you are presenting.

Regards

 

[childeye]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

I guess I am a bit confused on this, since you say this now, and yet earlier, you said " Yet I would go further and say it was never faith at all if there were never obedience through such so called faith."

This seems at odds with what you wrote most recently. You also earlier disagreed with how faith was defined by James when I pointed out that even the devil believes.

Larry, I apologize if I am "misunderstanding you", but all I can do is base ideas on is what you are presenting.

Regards

No problem Joe. I sense no guile in you. You have always done your best to understand me and it is appreciated. I am aware we are experiencing a miscommunication gap. I dare say it is happening all over these boards.

My main issue with James is that I believe he is hearing second hand the teaching by Paul about not being saved by works, and because of semantics with the word works, he draws a false conclusion that Paul is saying we need not do any good works. I reiterate, this is conjecture on my part for the sake of reconciling the resulting contradiction. Consequently the definition being applied to faith by James is somewhat askew in this circumstance as well as the word works. I am just saying that faith precedes obedience and so if there were no good works there was never any real faith pointed towards God or inspired by belief in True Love, the eternal Spirit.

I never meant to imply James doesn't know what faith is, just that if it is being said to address Pauls teaching, Paul was not applying it in such a way. He was saying "trust". We are saved by grace through trust, and trusting God is righteousness in God's eyes. And so it was, I said Satan did not trust God although he surely believes in Him.

Boy that was hard to explain. I hope this is adequate for you to understand what I am trying to say. For this reason I have never liked this topic of Faith vs. works, it is lost in semantics causing disagreement where there would not be any otherwise. Furthermore James' take on it essentially wipes out or blurs what Paul is teaching and visa versa.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

My main issue with James is that I believe he is hearing second hand the teaching by Paul about not being saved by works, and because of semantics with the word works, he draws a false conclusion that Paul is saying we need not do any good works.

There is no contradiction - remember, James is Sacred Scriptures, inspired by the Spirit of God. Thus, it is not a matter of JAMES drawing false conclusions, it is MEN who are drawing the wrong conclusions, Larry... Would you agree?

I reiterate, this is conjecture on my part for the sake of reconciling the resulting contradiction. Consequently the definition being applied to faith by James is somewhat askew in this circumstance as well as the word works.

Faith, to James, is intellectual belief. To Paul, he is more encompassing, using the definition you use - trust. The word can have multiple meanings. The issue is figuring out the context. Clearly, Paul and James MUST agree. Thus, once we analyze the context, we can determine what James means. It is not "THAT" faith or faith "ALONE WITHOUT WORKS" that saves. James is defining faith with modifiers.

I am just saying that faith precedes obedience and so if there were no good works there was never any real faith pointed towards God or inspired by belief in True Love, the eternal Spirit.

Genuine faith and trust in God will leave us open to God's promptings to do good. These are absolutely necessary - since without them, our "faith" is dead. Dead faith cannot save. Only living, moving, breathing faith that is SEEN, as James states, can save. Thus, "faith alone" does not save, as James states.

Now, does this disagree with Paul? Certainly not. Even Ephesians 2 and Romans 3-4 do not provide such an idea, if one looks more closely. Eph 2 states in verse 10 that we are created to do good works - that is the purpose of faith. And thus, faith that is saving cannot be alone here. In Romans, we have an issue of a poor translation that gives people the idea that doing things are meaningless in regards to faith.

When you say "real faith", vs. false faith, that is a misnomer. Our intellectual belief must lead to obedience to God. Trying to maintain "faith alone" is basically trying to maintain a cliche that just doesn't accurately state what Scriptures state - faith alone does not save. Maintaining that it does, and changing the meaning, does not do justice to the Scriptures.

I never meant to imply James doesn't know what faith is, just that if it is being said to address Pauls teaching, Paul was not applying it in such a way. He was saying "trust". We are saved by grace through trust, and trusting God is righteousness in God's eyes. And so it was, I said Satan did not trust God although he surely believes in Him.

Agree.

Boy that was hard to explain. I hope this is adequate for you to understand what I am trying to say. For this reason I have never liked this topic of Faith vs. works, it is lost in semantics causing disagreement where there would not be any otherwise. Furthermore James' take on it essentially wipes out or blurs what Paul is teaching and visa versa.

I think we agree, but you are trying to hard to hold onto the poor formula of "faith alone" - even stating that James was contradicting or was trying to correct Paul. That's Luther's fallacy. Sacred Scriptures do not contradict. In reality, faith must have good works, obedience to God. Otherwise, we are not saved.

Regards

 

[TheRealTruth777]

What the Bible very clearly states, over and over, though, is that all men will be judged based upon what they did. If we did good in Christ, we are judged accordingly. If we rejected that, we are deemed as suitable for eternal separation from God.

Regards

Yes...true, and it reaffirms this in Revelation 22:12 as well.

 

[childeye]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

I think we agree, but you are trying to hard to hold onto the poor formula of "faith alone" - even stating that James was contradicting or was trying to correct Paul. That's Luther's fallacy. Sacred Scriptures do not contradict. In reality, faith must have good works, obedience to God. Otherwise, we are not saved.

Joe, you are priceless. Must I now explain the contradiction? I did not mean to imply there is a contradiction within the Holy Spirit. I am saying in my conjecture there appears to be a contradiction between Paul and James. Perhaps Luther came to the same conclusion, I don't know, I've never studied Luther. There is no evidence I am aware of that can conclusively link James correcting Paul, but that should not concern us. I merely gave my honest evaluation of the text so it is I reiterated that it is conjecture.
And here it gets complicated again to explain the "assumed" contradiction. I am not defending faith alone if you are refering to faith defined as Belief in existence. Nor faith alone defined as trusting in the Christ but not actually trusting so as to do what he says. "Why call me Lord Lord and not do what I say?" But that faith defined as trust that actually walks in that trust so as to be doing what Jesus said, that I would defend.

That faith alone inspired and subserviant to Love which comes by grace, I would defend. To make all of this less complicated I simply don't call or regard anything other than this type of faith that actually walks the walk, faith at all. But for your sake I can agree such faith is dead without walking in that faith. I hesitate to say that faith is dead without works because then I would have to apply the correct definition to works so as not to be implying that we are saved by the workings of the law, although I have no problem saying our works or fruits will be judged. Perhaps I have a poor formula, we all do the best we can with what God has given us. I say that with all sincerity and humility.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

Joe, you are priceless. Must I now explain the contradiction? I did not mean to imply there is a contradiction within the Holy Spirit. I am saying in my conjecture there appears to be a contradiction between Paul and James. Perhaps Luther came to the same conclusion, I don't know, I've never studied Luther. There is no evidence I am aware of that can conclusively link James correcting Paul, but that should not concern us. I merely gave my honest evaluation of the text so it is I reiterated that it is conjecture.

I am priceless??? :p

Larry, again, I am going on what you write. Yet again, you are backtracking, proving to be ever-elusive as Jello... Here is what you wrote:

My main issue with James is that I believe he is hearing second hand the teaching by Paul about not being saved by works, and because of semantics with the word works, he draws a false conclusion that Paul is saying we need not do any good works.

Am I being fair in my reply? Now, how could someone come to THAT conclusion if they believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God? How could an inspired writing make a false conclusion on another inspired writing???

Larry, there is no problem if the Scriptures are read carefully and taken in context. Whether James had Paul in mind or not, he doesn't say. He doesn't make any direct mention of Paul, nor does he cite any of Paul's writings to "correct" Paul. I think a more careful analysis will show there is no contradiction, it is only in the minds of men.

And here it gets complicated again to explain the "assumed" contradiction. I am not defending faith alone if you are refering to faith defined as Belief in existence. Nor faith alone defined as trusting in the Christ but not actually trusting so as to do what he says. "Why call me Lord Lord and not do what I say?" But that faith defined as trust that actually walks in that trust so as to be doing what Jesus said, that I would defend.

So faith is not alone, is it... Yet, this was the "battle cry" of the Protestant Reformation - man is saved by faith alone - and THIS was meant to mean WITHOUT doing anything, no matter how the formula is changed by those who want to remain Protestants while realizing the error of the classical reformers and changing "sola fide". Luther believed one did not have to love to be saved. And yet, 1 Cor 13:2 remains...

That faith alone inspired and subserviant to Love which comes by grace, I would defend. To make all of this less complicated I simply don't call or regard anything other than this type of faith that actually walks the walk, faith at all. But for your sake I can agree such faith is dead without walking in that faith. I hesitate to say that faith is dead without works because then I would have to apply the correct definition to works so as not to be implying that we are saved by the workings of the law, although I have no problem saying our works or fruits will be judged. Perhaps I have a poor formula, we all do the best we can with what God has given us. I say that with all sincerity and humility.

I appreciate your efforts to clarify. Realize that I deal with many people with different beliefs. Mine are well known - they are stated in the Catechism for everyone to see. No one has to guess what I believe. I don't have that luxury with non-Catholics. Thus, I must base my opinions of their doctrines on what they write. Larry, I hope you understand my concern, at times, of what you write. It is not personal, but I think we should be careful of what we write - and any correction is in the spirit of love.

Regards

 

[childeye]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

Am I being fair in my reply? Now, how could someone come to THAT conclusion if they believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God? How could an inspired writing make a false conclusion on another inspired writing???

I believe you are being fair in your reply. I did not respond to this point because I don't believe the scriptures labeled as the New Testament is entirely infallible. I am confident that when it says all scriptures are given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit it is refering to Old Testament scripture as the bible in it's current form did not yet exist. I'm sure those who wrote the books comprising the New Testament were also inspired but there are technical errors not conducive with perfection and I do not wish to take anything for granted. At times I sense some carnal influences coming through also, as Paul seems to be questioning Peters' motives regarding his standing with the Jews in Jerusalem.

Larry, there is no problem if the Scriptures are read carefully and taken in context. Whether James had Paul in mind or not, he doesn't say. He doesn't make any direct mention of Paul, nor does he cite any of Paul's writings to "correct" Paul. I think a more careful analysis will show there is no contradiction, it is only in the minds of men.

Yes I agree as we've been discussing the differences in definitions of terms based on context. Whether James misunderstood Paul or not one cannot say for certain but it is irrelevant. Whether there is a contradiction in James mind I cannot tell, but I understand both their points of view so I agree that in the Spirit, there is no contradiction.

So faith is not alone, is it... Yet, this was the "battle cry" of the Protestant Reformation - man is saved by faith alone - and THIS was meant to mean WITHOUT doing anything, no matter how the formula is changed by those who want to remain Protestants while realizing the error of the classical reformers and changing "sola fide". Luther believed one did not have to love to be saved. And yet, 1 Cor 13:2 remains...

So this is your quibble with "faith alone"? Now I understand your tenacious endeavour with this piece of jello. But I am not a protestant Joe, unless you label me one. I do believe you may be biased if I may be so bold. Here's a question for you. Would you stand before God and say with absolute certainty, that Luther believed one did not have to have love to be saved? I find that hard to believe myself. Luther was baptised Catholic was he not? AHHH we are all divided by semantics, and in the subtlty of words have we sown so much distrust.

I appreciate your efforts to clarify. Realize that I deal with many people with different beliefs. Mine are well known - they are stated in the Catechism for everyone to see. No one has to guess what I believe.

Joe, I empathize with your position. The Chatecism is not so clear either and subject to the same fealty of words as any other writings. No one can adequately put God on paper. For this reason the New Testament (not refering to scripture) is about the Spirit.

Larry, I hope you understand my concern, at times, of what you write. It is not personal, but I think we should be careful of what we write - and any correction is in the spirit of love.

Yes Joe, I appreciate your concern but in the end I believe it is all in God's hands. I am loathe to side with anyone so as to be against another. I do not think it is possible to say where the light ends and darkness begins but I can tell which way the light is shining and so it is I believe in the Christ.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

I believe you are being fair in your reply. I did not respond to this point because I don't believe the scriptures labeled as the New Testament is entirely infallible. I am confident that when it says all scriptures are given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit it is refering to Old Testament scripture as the bible in it's current form did not yet exist. I'm sure those who wrote the books comprising the New Testament were also inspired but there are technical errors not conducive with perfection and I do not wish to take anything for granted. At times I sense some carnal influences coming through also, as Paul seems to be questioning Peters' motives regarding his standing with the Jews in Jerusalem.

Wow, this is an interesting take. I don't run into many people who make this claim about the inspiration of the New Testament. I think you are the first in ten years of this... Do you think that somehow, God is not directing the inspired writing of the New Testament, given the nature of God's plan of salvation that CULMINATES in Christ? I find it hard to believe that "in the fullness of time" equates with no guidance from God's Spirit when it comes to writing letters to the Christian community. God inspired the "old covenant" writers, but not the "new covenant", when the old was a shadow of the good things to come??? This makes little sense.

As to Peter and Paul, that has nothing to do with the validity of Sacred Scriptures or any contradiction within, but rather, a disagreement between Peter and Paul that was not doctrinal. Christians can sin, and Paul was calling Peter to task for his treatment of the Gentile brothers. I think one doesn't have to look far for Paul to make such general statements about the population of Christians in general. James certainly states this in James 2 - that Christians were not living up to their potential. But this is not on the same lines as a contradictory stance in doctrine WITHIN Sacred Scriptures.

What would our sola scriptura fans say if they saw this!!!

Yes I agree as we've been discussing the differences in definitions of terms based on context. Whether James misunderstood Paul or not one cannot say for certain but it is irrelevant. Whether there is a contradiction in James mind I cannot tell, but I understand both their points of view so I agree that in the Spirit, there is no contradiction.

You seem to be saying two opposite things at the same time... They agree in the Spirit but contradict each other in their writings. Larry, are you sure you are not a politician??? ;)

My comments on jello remain!

So this is your quibble with "faith alone"? Now I understand your tenacious endeavour with this piece of jello.

The issue on "jello" is your ever-waffling stance. You say one thing, I call you to task, and you then say what appears to be an opposing stance. Sometimes, you have opposing stances in the same sentence. Larry, you are going to have to decide between one or the other, I think...

But I am not a protestant Joe, unless you label me one.

If I had a dollar for every Christian who told me they weren't a Protestant... What IS a Protestant, Larry??? What does "PROTEST" mean, in context??? Who are these "Protestants" protesting??? If one is protesting the Protestants and is not Catholic, where is the Scriptures warrant for THAT?

I do believe you may be biased if I may be so bold. Here's a question for you. Would you stand before God and say with absolute certainty, that Luther believed one did not have to have love to be saved?

That's what he wrote, and that's how he explained himself... Maybe he changed his mind the day before he died. Maybe he was just a liar and meant something else, being a closet Catholic... I don't know. What I do know is what he wrote - just like you. I see what you write and I base my judgment on what you write.

I find that hard to believe myself. Luther was baptised Catholic was he not?

So were you... Perhaps you can understand his point of view better than I could, since I never became a formal member of a non-Catholic Christian community. I went to Christian services during my "seeking" days, but a few weeks of study convinced me that I was looking in the wrong place. Knowledge of history could NEVER allow me to be a Protestant... For me... I can't answer for you or anyone else.

AHHH we are all divided by semantics, and in the subtlty of words have we sown so much distrust.

Well, given we are not talking over a beer in person, I can only go on what you write. I apologize if you think I am being too "precise" in looking over your statements, I am trying to see what your point of view is. Again, I don't have the "Larry's Catechism" handy, so I don't know what you believe on many subjects.

Joe, I empathize with your position. The Chatecism is not so clear either and subject to the same fealty of words as any other writings.

It is quite clear, I am not sure where that comes from. Certainly, words are open to interpretation, but I think catechisms, whether Catholic or not, are much more clear and give a good indication of where that particular Christian group stands on doctrinal issues. Perhaps you could provide some examples?

No one can adequately put God on paper. For this reason the New Testament (not refering to scripture) is about the Spirit.

No one can make that claim. Not even the Pope. Doctrines ATTEMPT to describe what God has revealed in human language. The Church has been given authority to define the meaning of God's revelation, as the Scriptures (oh, well, at least what is called the "new testament...) point out. That is the best we can hope to for here on earth - a voice of truth guaranteed by the Spirit of God in the midst of error... I have no idea what you mean by the second sentence, I won't comment, except to ask for an explanation, since I am a bit concerned on where it is going... I am afraid that if I respond, I will be putting words in your mouth, so I will await your response.

Yes Joe, I appreciate your concern but in the end I believe it is all in God's hands. I am loathe to side with anyone so as to be against another. I do not think it is possible to say where the light ends and darkness begins but I can tell which way the light is shining and so it is I believe in the Christ.

I can understand the desire to bring "peace", but peace at any cost is not a Christian tenet. Jesus speaks often about the "truth" - I take it that this is important to Him, esp. when He calls Satan the "father of lies", rather than the "father of evil". Apparently, truth v lies is a battle that we here on earth are part of, and there is no reason to hide that fact to maintain "peace at all costs". God desires that we know the truth and be saved.

Please accept this as a brother to brother discussion, I am not trying to put you on the defensive, I am just trying to understand what you are saying. If we disagree, so be it, but I would like to know your views, and if the situation warrants it, to provide another point of view for you to think over.

Regards

 

[childeye]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

I find it hard to believe that "in the fullness of time" equates with no guidance from God's Spirit when it comes to writing letters to the Christian community. God inspired the "old covenant" writers, but not the "new covenant", when the old was a shadow of the good things to come??? This makes little sense.

My dear Joe. I can't help but laugh at your response. As I said you are priceless. Now keep your shirt on. Here are quotes from what I said,

I am confident that when it says all scriptures are given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit it is refering to Old Testament scripture as the bible in it's current form did not yet exist.

Now how can that statement be inaccurate? And this,

I'm sure those who wrote the books comprising the New Testament were also inspired but there are technical errors not conducive with perfection and I do not wish to take anything for granted.

Obviously, I have stated here that the writers of New Testament scripture were also inspired with the caveat that there may be errors.

As to Peter and Paul, that has nothing to do with the validity of Sacred Scriptures or any contradiction within, but rather, a disagreement between Peter and Paul that was not doctrinal. Christians can sin, and Paul was calling Peter to task for his treatment of the Gentile brothers.

Since it is in the bible it is relevant pertaining to validity. If one apostle is bent on reprimanding another this shows division spiritually and yes doctrinally. I truly don't think Peter was guilty of what he was being accused of and this division was based on false assumptions. The Holy Spirit is not divided against itself.

You seem to be saying two opposite things at the same time... They agree in the Spirit but contradict each other in their writings. Larry, are you sure you are not a politician??? ;)
My comments on jello remain!

No I am not saying two different things. If you are refering to Paul and James I felt I had explained that thoroughly enough. The writings take two words Faith and works and apply them with differing definitions causing confusion and the appearance of a contradiction.

Or if you are refering to Paul and Peter, I only said that remarks are made by Paul I would honestly say are not conducive with the Spirit. You are in too much of a hurry to blast away at this perceived Jello. As I said the Holy Spirit is not divided against itself. It is either the Holy Spirit needs Paul to correct Peter which I have a hard time believing, or this doubt Paul has concerning Peter is not of the Holy Spirit. As we read in Acts, Pauls' "fears" turned out not to be true as Peter stood up against those who wanted to cause all new gentile disciples to get circumcised.

The issue on "jello" is your ever-waffling stance. You say one thing, I call you to task, and you then say what appears to be an opposing stance. Sometimes, you have opposing stances in the same sentence. Larry, you are going to have to decide between one or the other, I think...

You are shadow boxing your own misbegotten preconceptions Joe, while I can only stand back and marvel at your footwork. There are semantics and I have answered your questions. As I said all things are relative to an absolute. Faith in the devil is not faith in God. Nor is he who is a slave of sin a free will.

If I had a dollar for every Christian who told me they weren't a Protestant... What IS a Protestant, Larry??? What does "PROTEST" mean, in context??? Who are these "Protestants" protesting??? If one is protesting the Protestants and is not Catholic, where is the Scriptures warrant for THAT?

You would have to ask the protesters what they are protesting Joe. I'm sure you know more than I. I simply heard the Gospel and believed and all that political morass of centuries ago I do not consider to be Godly. Be not a follower of Paul or Peter for such divisions are carnal.

That's what he wrote, and that's how he explained himself... Maybe he changed his mind the day before he died. Maybe he was just a liar and meant something else, being a closet Catholic... I don't know. What I do know is what he wrote - just like you. I see what you write and I base my judgment on what you write.

With all due respect Joe, if you take from his writings after the same manner as you draw from mine perhaps it would be better to refrain from judgment formed of skepticism and render others some benefit of the doubt. I sincerely don't believe Luther said you need not have Love to be saved. Show me where he said this and I will concede he is wrong and agree with you if it matters what some man said long ago. Personally I want no place in such a conflict.

So were you... Perhaps you can understand his point of view better than I could, since I never became a formal member of a non-Catholic Christian community. I went to Christian services during my "seeking" days, but a few weeks of study convinced me that I was looking in the wrong place. Knowledge of history could NEVER allow me to be a Protestant... For me... I can't answer for you or anyone else.

Now here is where Christianity gets a bad reputation. I'm not looking for Christ here or there, the Kingdom of God is in the heart.

Well, given we are not talking over a beer in person, I can only go on what you write. I apologize if you think I am being too "precise" in looking over your statements, I am trying to see what your point of view is. Again, I don't have the "Larry's Catechism" handy, so I don't know what you believe on many subjects.

Christ to me is simple. Believe that Jesus is the True Image of God, receive the Holy Spirit and walk accordingly. Abide in Love and Love will abide in you.

It is quite clear, I am not sure where that comes from. Certainly, words are open to interpretation, but I think catechisms, whether Catholic or not, are much more clear and give a good indication of where that particular Christian group stands on doctrinal issues. Perhaps you could provide some examples?

In our PMs I have already given you some. We are about to get back into a discussion on freewill. As you know I do not believe in it as an absolute while the Chatecism claims it both as an absolute and yet relative. I've personally met with Priests, Nuns, Teachers, and even the head of Theology for the Archdiocese. None of them give the same answers to questions that arise at the fundamental levels of understanding. But I give credit to the head of Theology for the Archdiocese. He was very accomodating and remarkably intelligent. While the others were mostly perplexed and unable to address simple issues, he understood everything I was saying. Nor did we ever disagree in the hour or so I met with him.

The Church has been given authority to define the meaning of God's revelation, as the Scriptures. That is the best we can hope to for here on earth - a voice of truth guaranteed by the Spirit of God in the midst of error...

As I said, none of them give the same answers. We have Catholics that don't count other Catholics Catholics.

I have no idea what you mean by the second sentence, I won't comment, except to ask for an explanation, since I am a bit concerned on where it is going... I am afraid that if I respond, I will be putting words in your mouth, so I will await your response.

Quite simply, the New Testament as in the Newness of the Spirit and not the Oldness of the Letter. You said it yourself Chatecisms ATTEMPT to describe what God has revealed in human language, but the Holy Spirit reveals to each man without having to read it.

Apparently, truth v lies is a battle that we here on earth are part of, and there is no reason to hide that fact to maintain "peace at all costs". God desires that we know the truth and be saved.

You read too much into what I say. I am loathe to take sides and be a follower of any man other than Christ. His commanment to Love one another is simple although a cross. My battle is to carry a cross, not tell others how to carry theirs. To get divided over doubtful things concerning doctrine to a point where you kill one another in the name of him who sacrificed himself for all, I want no part of it.

Please accept this as a brother to brother discussion, I am not trying to put you on the defensive, I am just trying to understand what you are saying. If we disagree, so be it, but I would like to know your views, and if the situation warrants it, to provide another point of view for you to think over.

Hey I put it out there so you are welcome to jiggle the Jello. It is difficult to discuss such matters on a forum. I realize this. I am always glad to hear your takes on what I say. As I said you're priceless and I don't take it in any other way than lovingly.

 

[Elijah674]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

My dear Joe. I can't help but laugh at your response. As I said you are priceless. Now keep your shirt on. Here are quotes from what I said,

I am confident that when it says all scriptures are given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit it is refering to Old Testament scripture as the bible in it's current form did not yet exist.

Now how can that statement be inaccurate? And this,

I'm sure those who wrote the books comprising the New Testament were also inspired but there are technical errors not conducive with perfection and I do not wish to take anything for granted.

Obviously, I have stated here that the writers of New Testament scripture were also inspired with the caveat that there may be errors.


Since it is in the bible it is relevant pertaining to validity. If one apostle is bent on reprimanding another this shows division spiritually and yes doctrinally. I truly don't think Peter was guilty of what he was being accused of and this division was based on false assumptions. The Holy Spirit is not divided against itself.



No I am not saying two different things. If you are refering to Paul and James I felt I had explained that thoroughly enough. The writings take two words Faith and works and apply them with differing definitions causing confusion and the appearance of a contradiction.

Or if you are refering to Paul and Peter, I only said that remarks are made by Paul I would honestly say are not conducive with the Spirit. You are in too much of a hurry to blast away at this perceived Jello. As I said the Holy Spirit is not divided against itself. It is either the Holy Spirit needs Paul to correct Peter which I have a hard time believing, or this doubt Paul has concerning Peter is not of the Holy Spirit. As we read in Acts, Pauls' "fears" turned out not to be true as Peter stood up against those who wanted to cause all new gentile disciples to get circumcised.




You are shadow boxing your own misbegotten preconceptions Joe, while I can only stand back and marvel at your footwork. There are semantics and I have answered your questions. As I said all things are relative to an absolute. Faith in the devil is not faith in God. Nor is he who is a slave of sin a free will.




You would have to ask the protesters what they are protesting Joe. I'm sure you know more than I. I simply heard the Gospel and believed and all that political morass of centuries ago I do not consider to be Godly. Be not a follower of Paul or Peter for such divisions are carnal.



With all due respect Joe, if you take from his writings after the same manner as you draw from mine perhaps it would be better to refrain from judgment formed of skepticism and render others some benefit of the doubt. I sincerely don't believe Luther said you need not have Love to be saved. Show me where he said this and I will concede he is wrong and agree with you if it matters what some man said long ago. Personally I want no place in such a conflict.



Now here is where Christianity gets a bad reputation. I'm not looking for Christ here or there, the Kingdom of God is in the heart.



Christ to me is simple. Believe that Jesus is the True Image of God, receive the Holy Spirit and walk accordingly. Abide in Love and Love will abide in you.




In our PMs I have already given you some. We are about to get back into a discussion on freewill. As you know I do not believe in it as an absolute while the Chatecism claims it both as an absolute and yet relative. I've personally met with Priests, Nuns, Teachers, and even the head of Theology for the Archdiocese. None of them give the same answers to questions that arise at the fundamental levels of understanding. But I give credit to the head of Theology for the Archdiocese. He was very accomodating and remarkably intelligent. While the others were mostly perplexed and unable to address simple issues, he understood everything I was saying. Nor did we ever disagree in the hour or so I met with him.



As I said, none of them give the same answers. We have Catholics that don't count other Catholics Catholics.



Quite simply, the New Testament as in the Newness of the Spirit and not the Oldness of the Letter. You said it yourself Chatecisms ATTEMPT to describe what God has revealed in human language, but the Holy Spirit reveals to each man without having to read it.



You read too much into what I say. I am loathe to take sides and be a follower of any man other than Christ. His commanment to Love one another is simple although a cross. My battle is to carry a cross, not tell others how to carry theirs. To get divided over doubtful things concerning doctrine to a point where you kill one another in the name of him who sacrificed himself for all, I want no part of it.


Hey I put it out there so you are welcome to jiggle the Jello. It is difficult to discuss such matters on a forum. I realize this. I am always glad to hear your takes on what I say. As I said you're priceless and I don't take it in any other way than lovingly.

Interesting, Joe is priceless, yet, the Word of God did not start until we had it recorded into books! In other Words, what we have in say... John? was only for these ones in that time on. (Eccl. 1:9-10 + Eccl. 3:15)

And pray/tell, who told Adam & ALL the rest before this recording of all the doctrines that were required of God??? See Gen. 26:5 for How God VERBALLY INSTRUCTED HIS CREATION! And even WHAT THESE FAITHFUL OBEYED!

Then came the Mount Sinai where God agreed to STOP TALKING to His own in Person. Exod. 20:18-22.

Now here you come with more Jer. 17:5 stuff that the Word of God only came in the recording of the NT. Even try Rom. 2:14-15 for your much needed help!:waving ;) (God does not [need] us. His work is a Loving PRIVILAGE!)

But, what in the world do you think that Noah with the Eternal Gospel of Rev. 14:6 were preaching along the Strivings of the Holy Spirit for 120 years if not what Christ/God told us about Abe in that Gen. 26:5 Truth??? AND THE LAWS THERE RECORDED!

--Elijah

 

[francisdesales]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

My dear Joe. I can't help but laugh at your response. As I said you are priceless. Now keep your shirt on. Here are quotes from what I said,

I am confident that when it says all scriptures are given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit it is refering to Old Testament scripture as the bible in it's current form did not yet exist.

Now how can that statement be inaccurate? And this,

I'm sure those who wrote the books comprising the New Testament were also inspired but there are technical errors not conducive with perfection and I do not wish to take anything for granted.

Obviously, I have stated here that the writers of New Testament scripture were also inspired with the caveat that there may be errors.

Perhaps you have a different definition of "inspired" than 99.99% of other Christians. The idea means that the author was led by God's Spirit to accurately write down what God wanted revealed WITHOUT ERROR. Now, you present a contradiction to that idea. If you are equating "inspired" with a human idea, as if some "muse" leading Shakespeare to write "Romeo and Juliet" - with Sacred Scriptures' inspiration - then we have a fundamental disagreement, no matter how much you wiggle and jiggle. If the Bible is JUST a human writing, albeit "inspired" by your definition, then how can we call it "THE WORD OF GOD"??? It would NOT be the "Word of God", since you yourself admit that it contradicts itself and has errors. :

How can the God of Truth present a book to mankind with errors and outright contradictions in it? Especially on KEY elements, such as how are we to be saved? 2 Is our Scriptures no different than the Koran?

Perhaps we should leave our conversations at this level and continue. I am curious to know more about one of the basis of our faith, the Sacred Writ, according to you. I sense some serious discrepancies here.

Regards

 

[childeye]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

Perhaps you have a different definition of "inspired" than 99.99% of other Christians. The idea means that the author was led by God's Spirit to accurately write down what God wanted revealed WITHOUT ERROR. Now, you present a contradiction to that idea. If you are equating "inspired" with a human idea, as if some "muse" leading Shakespeare to write "Romeo and Juliet" - with Sacred Scriptures' inspiration - then we have a fundamental disagreement, no matter how much you wiggle and jiggle. If the Bible is JUST a human writing, albeit "inspired" by your definition, then how can we call it "THE WORD OF GOD"??? It would NOT be the "Word of God", since you yourself admit that it contradicts itself and has errors. :

Are we now discussing proper definitions Joe? Inspired means to be moved to do something by something or someone. It doesn't mean there can be no flaws so that all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed. It doesn't mean all the punctuation is perfect so there are no misunderstandings, nor different perspectives such as how Judas Iscariot died or what did the two theives crucified with the Christ actually say. So I don't care if 99.9% of Christians can't agree on what it says yet all agree it is infallible. It's kind of like saying nobody can know the Truth, when you would have to know the Truth to say such a thing. Such reasoning is hypocritical.

Now look what you say here:If the Bible is JUST a human writing, albeit "inspired" by your definition, then how can we call it "THE WORD OF GOD"??? It would NOT be the "Word of God", since you yourself admit that it contradicts itself and has errors. :

I am glad to address this woe begotten misconception for you, although it is fraught with pitfalls. Put yourself in my shoes. Here you start out with "if" causing me to answer a supposition. Never mind that it is applied in a way that can be taken both as a hypothetical and also an algebraic certainty. And if I answer one way I risk being castigated the other way. The scriptures described as the New Testament are not dictation from God. They contain the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, their exploits, instruction in conduct, insights into spiritual reckoning, deciphering of Old Testament writings for our benefit and a glimpse of early church happenings.

Then you say JUST a human writing which of course both of us believe is true so please don't proclaim me Jello if I acknowledge they are not monkeys.

How can the God of Truth present a book to mankind with errors and outright contradictions in it? Especially on KEY elements, such as how are we to be saved? 2 Is our Scriptures no different than the Koran?

Where did I say there were contradictions on key elements such as how to be saved? The Word of God is Spirit and the bible can only testify to the Word of God. It is not that Word it testifies to. If the Bible is the Word of God, then we best get on our knees and worship it. For the Word of God is God and all things were made through it so says the Bible that testifies to it. The letter is only a shadow of the Spirit. You drift left and then wildly swing right. Even out the ship and give balance to the walk.

Perhaps we should leave our conversations at this level and continue. I am curious to know more about one of the basis of our faith, the Sacred Writ, according to you. I sense some serious discrepancies here.

And how shall we evaluate these discrepancies, through the pride of men who cannot agree on a single definition of a term? Shall we validate through that which is not validated? All is built on faith. God remains unchanged and Holy and that is all that really matters. Peace be upon you and your house.

 

[childeye]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

Interesting, Joe is priceless, yet, the Word of God did not start until we had it recorded into books! In other Words, what we have in say... John? was only for these ones in that time on. (Eccl. 1:9-10 + Eccl. 3:15)

And pray/tell, who told Adam & ALL the rest before this recording of all the doctrines that were required of God??? See Gen. 26:5 for How God VERBALLY INSTRUCTED HIS CREATION! And even WHAT THESE FAITHFUL OBEYED!

Then came the Mount Sinai where God agreed to STOP TALKING to His own in Person. Exod. 20:18-22.

Now here you come with more Jer. 17:5 stuff that the Word of God only came in the recording of the NT. Even try Rom. 2:14-15 for your much needed help!:waving ;) (God does not [need] us. His work is a Loving PRIVILAGE!)

But, what in the world do you think that Noah with the Eternal Gospel of Rev. 14:6 were preaching along the Strivings of the Holy Spirit for 120 years if not what Christ/God told us about Abe in that Gen. 26:5 Truth??? AND THE LAWS THERE RECORDED!

--Elijah

Dear Elijah, I often have a hard time understanding your posts though I encourage you to keep posting to me. I do believe you have misunderstood what I say if I understand you correctly. For the record, I never said the Word of God only came in the writings of the New Testament. The Word of God has always been since He first spoke all things into creation. He still does talk to people through the Holy Spirit and through His Christ. He is the eternal Spirit of Love after all.

 

[Elijah674]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

Dear Elijah, I often have a hard time understanding your posts though I encourage you to keep posting to me. I do believe you have misunderstood what I say if I understand you correctly. For the record, I never said the Word of God only came in the writings of the New Testament. The Word of God has always been since He first spoke all things into creation. He still does talk to people through the Holy Spirit and through His Christ. He is the eternal Spirit of Love after all.

OK: Good! 'i' did misundertand you, I had thought that you stated that because a certain verse was in the NT that we could not believe that it included OT Truth [to them].

--Elijah

 

[childeye]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

OK: Good! 'i' did misundertand you, I had thought that you stated that because a certain verse was in the NT that we could not believe that it included OT Truth [to them].

--Elijah

Truth is Truth and never changes, men just come into knowledge of it. For Truth is God.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

Truth is Truth and never changes, men just come into knowledge of it. For Truth is God.

And so how do we come to know the truth, if the Bible is not the inerrant word of God and has mistakes within it, parts that disagree with other parts???

Regards

 

[childeye]

Re: DEAD faith will not do it!

And so how do we come to know the truth, if the Bible is not the inerrant word of God and has mistakes within it, parts that disagree with other parts???

Regards

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