Posted on 02/27/2011 8:08:19 PM PST by Natural Law
Faith Without Works? Do Calvinists Actually Read the Christian Bible? Is anyone as mystified as I am at this contradictory and unbiblical Calvinist “Sola Fide” idea that faith without works is sufficient for salvation? How can Calvinists reject James Chapter 2 which states that; “What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?” (James 2:14) and "Faith without works is dead" (James 2:26). To do so is antithetical to Scripture.
The Calvinist rejection of James is at best substitutional, permitting Calvinists to conclude that works naturally follow from and are only a result of true faith thus requiring no conscious commitment or consideration. The result is a negation of the call to Beatitude and a rejection of the obligations of the Second Greatest Commandment issued by Jesus Himself.
Borrowing from Hinduism many fringe Calvinists actually practice a form of the Brahiminst caste system in which they profess that their own Salvation was secure from the beginning of time and no obligation exists toward the less fortunate and needy because God rejected their election from the beginning of time.
The substitution of actual, contextual Scripture for the more flattering personal interpretations is a return to the Gnostic heresies that the Church successfully rejected more than a thousand years earlier. They attempt to seek truth through Scripture on their own despite the admonition of Peter who stated; “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20).
Faith alone is insufficient. Adam and Eve had faith yet fell. They spoke directly with God yet succumbed to sin. What about Paul, whom many Calvinists give greater credence than Jesus, when he says; "And if I should have prophesy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could move mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." (1 Corinthians 13: 2).
Perhaps the citations some will more closely identify with; the demons whom Jesus expelled.
"And behold they [the demons] cried out saying: What have we to do with thee, Jesus Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?" (Matt 8: 29).
The demons had faith certainly equal to that of the Calvinists. Not only do they profess that Jesus is the Son of God, but they also have a profound knowledge of Scripture and profess belief in the final judgment. Peter didn’t profess that Christ is the Son of God in Matthew 16:16-- eight chapters later. Why didn’t Jesus didn't make the demons the rock on which He built His Church? He required Works to build His Church.
I'm talking about you specifically -- is this statement not correct? You came to your conclusions by learning from someone else, correct?
You did not start off a blank slate and pick up a Bible and come to your conclusions on your ownsome -- is that not a correct statement?
Genesis1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
The first 24 hr day of the earth as we know it today. And all days after that have been.
However, if you include verse 1 in that first 24 hr day you cannot deny that God’s first act turned out to be a mess that then had to put in order.
>>What do you believe?<<
There was a “world that then was” prior to verse 2 that Satan had so corrupted that God destroyed it almost completely just as He will do at the end of this world as we know it.
hmmmm.... ok, I had never thought of it that way.
Is this a common belief of Calvinists or Pentecostals?
I came to my conclusions from reading scripture with guidance from the Holy Spirit. If someone tries to “teach” me something I go directly to scripture and find the truth.
There was an entire earth age that existed between the first two verses of Genesi...I don't know enough about this to comment, CB -- can you simply state how this is possible? Do you take this to also explain the Elohim in plural point?Some.... will insist the Bible states the earth is 6000 years old.
The Bible DOES NOT state this. You simply cannot document that God's Word says the earth is 6000 years old. It says quite the contrary.
...These foundations go back million's of years.....
you’ve given me a lot of think about and read over the next few days. I need to leave for home now. Thank you and God bless.
Genealogies have been done ad nausea from written record both from scripture and other early writings. There is only a 45 year discrepancy between beliefs. All end up somewhere around 6075 years since Adam.
There was a “world that then was” prior to verse 2 that Satan had so corrupted that God destroyed it almost completely just as He will do at the end of this world as we know it.
hmmmm.... ok, I had never thought of it that way.
Is this a common belief of Calvinists or Pentecostals?
Looks like CynicalBear subscribes to the "gap theory." I wouldn't rule it out dogmatically (some great Jewish sages, like the late Rabbi 'Aryeh Kaplan, believed in it), but I don't personally believe in it because it's simply unnecessary.
Note that CynicalBear is basing his belief on a quotation from the "new testament" and on the chr*stian belief that "Satan" is an enemy of G-d who "corrupts" things--a false dualistic belief alien to Judaism.
Other then to be “willingly ignorant”?
"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." (2 Pet 3:5-7 KJV)
It seems to me wise to not want to be “willingly ignorant”. Denying clear scientific findings proving the age of the earth to be much longer then the 6-7 years certainly puts so called Christians in a position of being ignorant and a poor witness.
It seems to me wise to not want to be “willingly ignorant”. Denying clear scientific findings proving the age of the earth to be much longer then the 6-7 years certainly puts so called Christians in a position of being ignorant and a poor witness.
You put an awful lot of faith in the "objective findings" of "scientists," don't you?
Between the "objective findings of scientists" and Divine Revelation, I'll take Divine Revelation. Cosmogony is beyond the purview of science anyway. It can only be known via Revelation and theology.
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void (tohuw); and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain (tohuw), he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
How can you believe such nonsense? We have folks debating it in our church but this is not related to our salvation and I believe God created the world over a longer period of time as the days do not have to be human like days, these are much longer, millions or billions of years.
How can you believe such nonsense? We have folks debating it in our church but this is not related to our salvation and I believe God created the world over a longer period of time as the days do not have to be human days, these are much longer, millions or billions of years.
Right. The same people who can't figure out how to assemble a bicycle on Christmas Eve, or make a decent souffle from the cook book are going to read a translation of a translation of a translation, without knowing the cultural imperatives or language structure of the previous versions and arrive at a high fidelity interpretation. YOPIS is the idiots Magesterium.
Now what makes you think that by relying only on scripture for truth doesn’t allow a person to look at other beliefs or interpretations (not languages but views, beliefs, etc) to then go back to scripture to find how they agree or disagree?
And why not investigate the languages that it has come through to watch how closely it compares to the original. The following verses all say the same thing don’t they?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. [English]
31 [g]»Glaube an den Herrn Jesus, dann werden du und alle, die in deinem Haus leben, gerettet [Dutch]
οἱ δὲ εἶπαν• πίστευσον ἐπὶ τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν, καὶ σωθήσῃ σὺ καὶ ὁ οἶκός σου.[Greek]
ויאמרו האמן באדון ישוע המשיח ותושע אתה וביתך׃ [Hebrew]
at illi dixerunt crede in Domino Iesu et salvus eris tu et domus tua [Latin]
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Could you tell me when, since Genesis 1:5 the evening and the morning changed from your “do not have to be human days” theory to our current 24 hour days if they were not in Genesis 1:5?
Thank you for so eloquently making my point for me. What you attribute to "Dutch" is actually "Deutsch" (German).
How interesting. My lineage is Dutch, “Deutsch” as you put it. My grandfather and father spoke fluently the language. There was always a mix. Many referred to the language as Friesian. Check out where many of the ancestors who called themselves Dutch came from. I doubt I made “your point” at all.
Now you are just babbling and furthering my point in the process. If you get things this screwed up with living languages and existing populations just think how badly you are misinterpreting Scripture.
Dutch and Deutsch are definitely not the same thing. Although some do refer to the Pennsylvania Germans as Pennsylvania "Dutch" it is an error. Deutsch is the German word for German.
Friesian is something altogether different. It is a primitive Germanic language spoken by less than 500,000 people in localities in Germany and the Netherlands adjacent to the North Sea. It is most closely related to Old English.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.