Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
the last sentence in the universe I would have expected from you is that it is all God and nothing us
No I am not. And I assure you that our Roman Catholic brethren would agree with me. It is arrogant and presumptuous to believe that our contribution to the God-man relationship is anything but a one way affair.
The Protestants echo this, but they forget something: God is everything, yet He is humble. We are nothing and we are arrogant and proud. So, no matter how little or insignificant our love for Him is, He loves us nonetheless.
Was this difference a cause of the split? I vaguely remember from about a million posts ago that the split happened a little after the reformation because of "differences"
The Great Schism occurred five hundred years before Reformation. The main difference was papal authority and the issue of Filioque as it was inserted in the Nicea Creed by the Spanish clergy in the 6th century.
However, the great Palamite theology based on hesychastic practices shows that our thinking with regard to the Holy Spirit is not different at all (namely that the Holy Spirit is the eros that exists between the Father and the Son; the disagreement is on the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone (since the HS is only because of the Father, before all ages) and the illegitimacy of the Latin insertion contrary to the canon.
Nicea Creed = Nicene Creed
Not only that, but in carrying out what God planned, preordained and wished, Harley D states the man did it out of his "wickedness!"
Let's get this logic straight: A loving and good God makes man, makes him disobey Him, makes him wicked and condemns him for it and all his generations to death. Then He sends His own Son to become a man, makes Him suffer and kills Him -- for man's wickedness that was preordained by God and calls this "redemption." (Protestant theology 101)
Of course faith is necessary. Faith in God. Some people will never know the story of Jesus Christ. Many were born before Christ. Are you saying all of those people are condemned to hell without a chance for salvation MERELY because they didn't even have a chance to know the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth?
Christ says we must abide in Him to be saved. His commandment is to love from within. A person who truly loves another selflessly DOES have Christ abiding within them - although they might not know anything about Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus was a historical person - but He also IS God. He is not limited to a particular time and location. The Logos, the Wisdom of God, comes to whom He will. A person who follows the Law written on their heart (Romans) has been spirtually circumcised BECAUSE of Christ. Islam will not save a single person. Hinduism. Buddhism. While some of these religions may prepare someone to receive the Spirit to enable him to love, it is ONLY through Christ that we are saved. There is no other person whom we are saved through - whether they know that person or not.
Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God
Water baptism is the normative way of entering the Kingdom IF it is presented to a person in a visible form. But as St. Augustine said so many years ago, God is not limited by the sacraments. His Spirit can come upon whom He wills, even if the person is not water baptized. Normally, a person who has access to Christian teachings and the Gospel must be first baptised. But the Church also teaches a "baptism by desire" - the person would have been baptized had he access to the Church ministers, and "baptism by blood", a person's witness being sufficient that the Kingdom has come to that person.
Could we agree that it is undeserved merit?
Yes, I think that is a good definition of grace.
Could we agree one must be judged guilty to receive mercy?
Not necessarily. Mercy also means sympathy. A person doesn't need to be judged guilty of anything to receive sympathy.
Regards
Good questions. First, I included those quotes from the earliest Christians not as an argument from authority (which they are, but not as Scripture is), but for historical purposes. When Christians speak this way in a unanimous fashion, historically speaking, we should recognize that this WAS the legitimate beliefs of those people. We believe that these writings are in perfect continuity with the writings of the Scriptures (and it was these same men who called those writings "Scriptures" and nothing more, nothing less. Let's not forget that).
So though a Church Father is not authoritative as Scriptures by themselves, they DO give us a sense of Christian belief in the time following the writing of Scriptures. One must come to one of two conclusions: Either this is legitimate continuity, or the ENTIRE Church of the Scriptures was lost to the world - all at one time. Each and every community founded by Paul and the rest of the Apostles. With nary a murmur of dissent. Considering that Christians willingly went to their death for refusing to worship the Caesar, a trifle of a thing to the Romans, I find it interesting that NO ONE even makes one protest against the scenario that Protestants propose: that the entire Church changed throughout the empire in one generation without a dissenting voice.
As to the Scriptures and their continuity with the Church Fathers...First, Christ sent out His own Apostles to preach and teach the Word of God, the Gospel, to the world:
"Then said Jesus to them again, Peace [be] unto you: as [my] Father hath sent me, even so send I you" john 20:21
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. " Mat 28:19-20
Note, in Matthew's Gospel, Jesus says He will be with the Church for ALL time until the end of the world. Thus, He is providing for a CONTINUOUS succession of Apostles. Certainly, Christ's mandate would not end with the death of these particular men! The Kingdom of God must go out to the entire world and for all time!
And that is exactly what we see the Apostles doing as they are approaching the end of their earthly lives:
"To Titus, [mine] own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee" Titus 1:4-5
"And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." 2 Tim 2:2
"I charge [thee] before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure." 1 Tim 5:21-22
"Confirming the souls of the disciples, [and] exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed." Acts 14:22-23
1 Tim also includes qualifications for bishops and deacons, offices of leadership within the Church. When Christ had not returned, it seemed to the first Apostles that it was time to pass on the role of leadership to other men. The Church was to exist for all time, said Christ. And so within the Scriptures, we begin to see that a new generation of men, such as Timothy and Titus, were being ordained, given the Traditions (teachings) of the Church to pass down and protect. This is in perfect harmony with the writings of the Church Fathers that I gave you, is it not?
Honestly, one of the things that has always troubled me most about Catholicism is the belief that priests have the actual, literal power to forgive sin, and that this is necessary for the lay Catholic to achieve final salvation.
Again, another good question. Christ had shown through His ministry that man COULD have the power to forgive sins. Christ was God, but we must never forget that He also was man. Thus, what He did, we ALSO can do (with God's grace). AFTER His resurrection (and many people don't realize the significance of that), Jesus gave power to His Apostles to forgive sins in John 20:23. Earlier, He gave the Apostles the power to bind and loosen - which was the power to make binding decisions on the community (they were replacing the "chair of Moses" of Mt 23:3). The laying of hands has always been seen (in Scripture) as a passing of authority and power to another person. We see this in the OT and NT (Acts, especially, but also the Pastorals). The power of the Spirit is given THROUGH this visible "laying of hands". Again, this is right in line with what the later Church Fathers write. The continuity is quite amazing.
Regarding the Sacrament of Confession. The point of the sacrament is NOT to "earn" salvation - a hoop to jump through to obtain salvation. It is there for our spiritual good. It is there for post-Baptismal sins of serious account. We see even Paul has found that the reality of the matter is that Christians CONTINUE to sin AFTER Baptism and receiving the Spirit. He writes to SAVED Christians: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind" 1 Cor 6:9
Confession is a wonderful blessing that is similar in action to the story of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15. That is the meaning of Confession - a visible sign of forgiveness from Christ THROUGH the priest. WE cannot see or hear Christ say "I forgive you of your sins". Talk to any Catholic who practices Confession, and they will tell you it is soothing and comforting to the soul to HEAR that one has been forgiven. Through the power given by Christ to MEN, (Himself being the precedent) WE SEE and HEAR that we are forgiven. Today, psycologists say that this aids in closure and is instrumental in the healing process - to hear we are forgiven by the one we offended. Confession is a blessing to us, not a hoop or work to complete before we are saved. We are saved by the love we show others, done in faith, not by compiling a laundry list of things to do!
I don't think it is necessary to discard tradition, it just must be tested. For example, is not clerical celibacy a tradition?
You are correct in a sense. First, chronologically, Christ gave His Apostles a Body of teaching. Some they presented orally, others in letters. The letters became Scriptures. The oral teachings were ALSO written down, but are not Scriptures. It doesn't follow that the oral teachings originally given are of less value than the written epistles. They (the epistles) ARE treasured and considered inspired and inerrant. But properly understood, the OTHER teachings of the Apostles are ALSO "inspired". Thus, they BOTH have the same source. Today, we look at this body of teachings, the writings of the Fathers, the Liturgies, the Scriptures. They ALL must agree, correct? Those writings that do not agree, we cast out. The teachings must comply with each other. This means that Scripture INTERPRETATION must agree with Apostolic Tradition, and Apostolic Tradition must be at least IMPLIED or found within Scripture itself. But it is not necessary to be completely spelled out in its finished form.
An example. Intercessionary prayers to the saints in heaven. The Scripture does not EXPLICITLY mention it. But Apostolic Tradition DOES. Is it actually refuted in Scriptures? No. Is the practice implied? Yes. First, death does not separate us from Christ. Next, Paul himself asks for prayers, and he prays for other Christians. Finally, the prayers of a righteous man is effective. Certainly, those in heaven are righteous? So the concept is implied in the Scriptures, found in actual practice in early Christian history, and given a seal of approval by the leaders of the Church, who were charged to teach and protect correct doctrine (see the epistles of John and Jude for this idea of correct doctrine vs. heterodox teaching)
The idea seems to be that Catholics should approach clerics with their honest questions, and the clerics will relay Church teaching, and require the person to adopt it to remain in good standing
The priests of the OT had the exact same jobs. They, also, taught the people the "correct" way to come to God. Of course, the people must trust that God really did come to the prophets and patriarchs, just as WE must trust that God came to the Apostles! WE both do that with Scriptures! Really, don't we do that with the Bible? The Bible is NOT self-authenticating. The individual books, for the most part, don't SAY they are God's Word. WE know they are because SOMEONE TOLD US THEY ARE God's Word! Who? The Church did! If we don't believe the Church's witness, then why do we believe that the NT letters are God's Word? A final comment on this - the Jews do NOT believe the NT is the Word of God! Muslims believe on faith that the Koran was delivered by the Angel Gabriel as the literal Word of God. Thus, WE, MEN, rely on other men to tell us the Word of God. We either believe their word or not. This has been the way of things from the beginning (even the Jews had to make that choice - was Moses giving God's Commandments or his own?). So we ALL must trust God's messenger - and determine whether they really are God's messenger. We know this by their fruits and their works.
Regards
I would think that it would be every Christian's greatest desire to emulate Christ by being totally obedient to the Father's will and not our own will. Isn't that DESIRING to want to be a "robot" to God?
On the other hand if you feel we're saying that God directs the affairs of men in some sort of "robotic obedience" fashion then I would suggest looking at my updated tagline and explaining this verse.
I would suggest the following article, The Glory of God in the Problem of Evil.
Kosta is correct, but I see he is emphasizing one part of our "relationship" with God - perhaps it might seem he is disregarding the other part.
God gives His own life and friendship to us. We call this gift grace. We do not earn or deserve God's grace. Grace allows us to become God's adopted children and respond to His abundant love. I think this explains both "parts" of the relationship - that God takes the initiative, God provides us with Grace, God provides us the impetus to respond to Him - and YET, We also are called to RESPOND. Thus, because of the existence of free will (the ability to respond to God implies the ability to reject God), we DO, in some manner, are called into a relationship. We give of ourselves, even if it is miniscule compared to God. God is not looking for quantity, but the giving of our SELF. If we are to become like God, we must "act" like Him (which we cannot do without Him - John 15). We must love others, even our enemies. We must place God in our lives first, like Christ did. We must give of ourselves totally, just as Christ did. THAT is the relationship we are in. Through the Incarnation, man CAN be enabled to partake in His most holy divine nature. I feel confident that Kosta agrees that the Incarnation allows us to partake in the divine nature, although he will probably use different words, such as theosis and divinization. But the concept is the same. We are to become like Christ ONLY because He became like us (St. Athanasius said something to that effect - God became man so that we could become "gods" [not ontologically!])
Jesus came to proclaim the Kingdom. God has always desired to share of Himself with us. To do this, Jesus came to establish the Kingdom here, even now, but not yet! Jesus told us what the Kingdom of Heaven is like. Not only is it the Church on earth, but it is our relationship with Christ Himself. Through this Church, the people whom we fellowship with, the pastors who teach the Word to us, the priests who administer God's graces to us visibly through the sacraments, the Kingdom is made present even now. And ESPECIALLY through the Mass (Divine Liturgy), the Kingdom of Heaven comes and joins in with our own participation with Christ in His eternal offering of Himself to the Father.
God has covenanted with His people. HE took the initiative and HE binds Himself to this covenant. But was it ALWAYS one-way? The Mosaic Covenant DEMANDS obedience to God. Christ did not change that. We are STILL commanded to obey the Commandments. However, Christ specifically fulfilled the Law by EXPANDING it - "you have heard it said...but I tell you - if you even look at a woman with lust in your heart, you have committed adultery", and so forth. In Matthew 5-7, Jesus tells us what our relationship must be based upon - love of God and neighbor. We are not to be like the hypocrites who follow the Law, but not in their hearts. Thus, we MUST love - and by loving our neighbor, we love God. This is the relationship we are called to partake in. It is not one-sided - although it is ultimately dependent upon God's graces. Would you agree, Kosta?
The Great Schism occurred five hundred years before Reformation. The main difference was papal authority and the issue of Filioque as it was inserted in the Nicea Creed by the Spanish clergy in the 6th century.
I think our respective communities grew apart culturally first. We hardly spoke each other's language. Politically, we were separate after the fall of Rome in the early 400's to the barbarians. Leadership-wise, we took different paths, also. Rome had no or little political pressure for many years, while Constantinople lived under the often-heretical emperor. Thus, East and West took different paths ecclesiastically and culturally many years before the Schism or even the Filioque (which was not listed among the reasons in 1054).
The Filioque was taken as a slap in the face by the Greeks because it was done without a Council and because the Greeks perceived that it was heretical teaching. Simply put, it was a huge misunderstanding and a lack of tact on the part of Rome. Theologically, the formula is acceptable (though I think "through" rather than "and" would be better). The Papacy, I believe, was not a real problem for the East (although I think the Bishops in Constantinople would have desired for Rome to stop "butting in") - they appealed to him over and over again to fight heresy. I believe the split is more over lack of understanding each other culturally. Polemics naturally didn't endear us to each others positions! Theologically, there are very few issues that we disagree on. But because we have different points of view (the Trinity can be approached from more than one direction!!!), we often fail to understand that we agree, but said differently. We pray that God wills that His Church re-unite.
Brother in Christ
This is not a problem IF you believe that the Catholic Church was instituted by Christ, its continuity seen through the Scriptures and into the writings of the Church Fathers. If I didn't think the Church was a gift from God to guide us into the Kingdom, than I would totally agree with you.
Regards
These both talk about rewards for the saved not being saved. Saved is saved, rewards are rewards
(Regarding Mat 5:20) Ahhh exactly, we can never enter heaven based on our own righteousness, (our works, law keeping, church attendance etc) we enter only covered in the righteousness of Christ.
If that is not reading your theology into Scripture, I don’t know what is. Where does Matthew 5-7 mention ANYTHING about being covered in Christ’s righteousness? That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard! The ENTIRE SECTION talks about YOU! Not about Christ covering you! He talks about reaching fulfilling the meaning of the Law BY loving others! When we pray, when we fast, when we give alms…In our relationships with others, even our enemies. Where or where does Matthew mention ANYTHING about being covered with Christ’s righteousness??!!
Jesus, knowing the sinful man’s heart, knew he violated the 1st commandment “You shall have no other gods before me,” and pointed out his god. “Sell all and follow me.” The young mans man’s unwillingness to follow shows his fallen nature as opposed to his external “religious” activities. Jesus showed that the rich young ruler had not even begun to keep the commandments. His self-righteousness was only self-deception.
I paraphrased what scripture tells us about righteousness IN Christ. This young man did not have that
Jer.23:6 This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.
.
Rom 8:1 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
1Cr 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
1Cr 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:
1Cr 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption
Phl 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
Ephesians 4:22You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
When God looks at the elect He see the righteousness of His son, not the sinful men we are. Think of David having Jonathan's royal robe placed on Him. That robe offered the protection to the son of the King. People seeing it from afar knew he was the kings son.
Think of the 1st act of the father to the prodigal son, He ran and embraced Him and placed on Him a robe of honor.
Scripture tells us we have put on Christ, that we are IN Christ. We wear the righteousness of Christ as our robe from the father .
The Rich Young Man, I didn’t say the man thought Jesus was the Savior, or was God. He asked Him, as a Teacher, to tell him what was needed to be saved. Considering Jesus was God (although the man didn’t know), we must take seriously the answer He gave the young man – to obey the commandments out of love. Of course he was asking what HE needed to do! WE ALL want to know what is necessary to be saved. I don’t see your distinction. Nor do I understand your discussion on “not knowing Jesus was God”. So what…He received God’s advice, didn’t he? Unfortunately, he didn’t become “perfect”.
Can any man keep ALL THE COMMANDMENTS? if they could, would we need a savior? What did Paul say ?
Gal 3:24 — Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
The very purpose of the law is to show us we are sinners in need of a savior. No man could keep the law perfectly , Christ could and he kept it for us . That is why He could be the spotless lamb, the perfect substitute to appease the wrath of the Father.
The rich ruler wanted to know what he might need to do to be sure that he had not missed anything in his righteousness. Was there something that might prevent him from attaining everlasting life - life with God? Jesus struck a "fatal blow "to his theology and confidence. His did not understand righteousness .
Jesus did not REJECT that the commandments were necessary for salvation! In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus even says “HE LOVED HIM”. Doesn’t sound like this man was a Pharisee, a hypocrite that Jesus tells us to NOT emulate throughout the Gospels.
Of course Jesus loved him, that has nothing to do with the fact that the man believed he could be saved by his own righteousness. Did jesus run after him? Beg him to stay? Change the plan of salvation so that the young man could be admitted to His fellowship by law keeping?
Jesus got to the heart of the matter and revealed a corrupted understanding of righteousness. He categorically stated that only God is good. To think of a human in the same terms as God is a lack of understanding of the holiness of God and the sinfulness of men . His standard was inadequate. IT WAS BASED ON HUMAN RIGHTEOUSNESS RATHER THAN GOD’S.
Quite frankly, you miss the point of the story. If it was about “earning” salvation, if Jesus wanted to condemn following the Law, now was His chance…JESUS HIMSELF asked the man if he obeyed the commandments, the MAN didn’t say “see, teacher, I am doing “x”, and “y”. He asked because the man desired to know what was God’s will. As a teacher of the Law, Jesus WAS in a position to respond to this legitimate question. Again, you are reading your theology into the Scriptures. Love is the key to understand Christ’s teachings, not about God vs. man’s righteousness…
Mans love or Gods love? Can a man without the Holy Spirit love as God loves? What was Gods will in this? Was law keeping sufficient? Was temple attendance sufficient? Was the issue love or was it doing self serving works? Was it that He did not know God at all and he could not recognize Him when he stood in his presence?
Except Jesus saw something that perhaps the young man had never even considered, there is more to righteousness than keeping the law
Hardly. This is about putting Jesus first in our lives. Recall all of the verses in the Bible that talk about the rich and entering heaven? Do you know why? How can a rich man rely on Christ? He relies on himself.
You mean like doing good works? Participating in rituals in the temple? Like believing that a man can generate God pleasing love in a corrupt heart? That kind of self reliance?
He has the means to place his trust in himself. Christ wants us to die to ourselves! We MUST if we are to love. Love means dying to ourselves for the sake of the other. You must know this, being married, right? How can we die to ourselves when we see ourselves as the center of the world?
If you can show me a scripture that a man is capable of self generated love that will please God I would be interested in that. Can a man have the Love of Christ come from a corrupt heart?
Eph 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
Eph 3:16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
Eph 3:17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
Eph 3:18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what [is] the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
Eph 3:19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
Eph 3:20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,
Eph 3:21 Unto him [be] glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
Jesus told the young man he lacked something in spite of his law keeping . What he lacked was faith . If he lacked faith, he wouldn’t obey the commandments out of love!!! The wicked do not obey the Law.
No man can obey the law. Self generated love is always self serving. it seeks its own rewards. The commandments reflect the holiness of God that no man can measure up to.
Those who have no faith in God are foolish. There are too many such verses in the OT to even begin to quote them all.
The question is , is it the mans self generated faith or the faith given by the indwelling Holy Spirit ? What is foolish?
1Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
Phl 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Eph 3:11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: 12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him
.Phl 1:29 For unto you] it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Act 3:14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; 15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. 16 And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
We are not looking at human hope or human faith .. but at a supernatural faith brought by God to the man . This is not faith the train will be on time or that the sun will rise in the morning ... This is a supernatural faith, to believe what others with human faith deny.
1Cr 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
What the man lacked was the attitude of dedicating himself entirely to God.
He did not even KNOW God how could he be dedicated to Him? He lived a life of self assurance, his money and his law keeping were his gods. That was what he was dedicated to
His priorities were out of balance, and it showed when asked to give them up. Money, not God, was where his heart was.
Money WAS HIS GOD .It was where he looked for assurance and safety . Hs priorities were exactly the priorities of the unsaved man .
Jesus did not come for the righteous,He came for sinners. So why would he demand law keeping here?
Christ says not ONE jot of the Law will pass away.
Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Christ did not come to destroy or to abolish the law or the Prophets. Every jot and tittle is still in effect, but Jesus makes it very clear that what He came to do, is to FULFILL them, because we never can .
The saved are no longer judged by the Law. Christ fulfilled that law for us. But that law still stands to do as it did for Paul, show him he is a sinner in need of a Savior
Romans 8:1-2 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death"
A man that plans to be saved by keeping that law had best read your favorite scripture author :)
James 2:10 "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all".
In other words, if we plan to be saved by keeping the old testament laws, we better keep all of them, or we are lost.
No man can keep the law perfectly so men still need a Saviour. The purpose of the law was to point men to Christ.
He DEMANDS we keep the Law – the “royal” law of love (James). If He is your king, He expects obedience to His commands. Do you obey your king or not?
Do YOU ?
Matthew 22:34-40 But when the Pharisees heard that He had put the Sadducees to silence, they gathered themselves together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" And He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
Can YOU keep this law? Can YOU obey every one of them perfectly? Can you love God with ALL YOUR HEART? ALL YOUR SOUL ? ALL YOUR MIND ? 24 hours a day , 7 days a week. 365 days a year PERFECTLY? Do you ever wonder whats for dinner? Do you ever get angry with your brother? Your mind is not on God at that moment. Can YOU keep that law?
Do you really love your neighbor as much as yourself? If you love yourself at all then you can not be loving God with all your heart because some of it is filled with self love.
All of us have a powerful instinct of self-preservation and self-fulfillment. We all want to be happy. That is self love not the love of God demanded here. But I do know one that kept this law, and he took my sinful self love to the cross and paid for it
James is speaking to saved men on how the world will see them. It is about being justified in the eyes of men
The ENTIRE NT is written to “saved” people. I don’t understand the difference here in James. James is talking about adding deeds of love to our faith – since they don’t come automatically.
All the letters are to the church ( the saved.. Acts is a historical account as are the Gospels. (Many will say te gospels are actually OT as they are the account before the cross, before grace and mercy and redemption by Christ. The difference is that the letters were not written to tell the church how to be saved, they were already saved, it was doctrinal teachings and how to live the Christian life.
It allows a man to think men can be saved on the basis of that work and not need Christ as their savior( ie. Muslims)
We already covered this ground. There is a difference between an action done out of self-righteousness (for wages) and the SAME action done out of love of God and neighbor. You should be able to tell the two apart when you examine yourself.
So men are not saved by Christ or His righteousness but by " their love ", could I have some scripture that love saves and not Christ?
No where does Jesus say or imply that one is saved by works. The book of James was written to a converted church , not heathens seeking salvation . It tells them how their conversion is seen by the unsaved world . It is not about becoming saved or being saved. It is about the fruit of your salvation.
Nor did I! I have NEVER said we are saved by works ALONE! We are saved by faith AND works… Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Were they showing all those saving works to God or each other? Did God need to SEE their works to know their hearts ?
This addresses a hollow profession of faith , not a saving one . Can a hollow profession save him? NO, any more than works can save.This scripture says to the church that this faith is non existent , it is dead.
It addresses FAITH! There is no "regular" faith and "saving" faith mentioned in the Scritures...
I share with you Pinks thoughts on this
There are those who have a faith which is so like that which is saving as they themselves may take it to be the very same, and others too may deem it sufficient, yea, even others who have the spirit of discernment. Simon Magus is a case in point. Of him it is written,"Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip" (Acts 8:13).
Such a faith had he, and so expressed it, that Philip took him to he a genuine Christian, and admitted him to those privileges which are peculiar to them. Yet, a little later, the apostle Peter said to him,
"Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God... I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity" (Acts 8:21, 23).Studies on Saving faith
You seem very intent on combining “works” and “faith” into one thing called “saving faith” so as to keep “sola fide” intact. The problem is that sola fide does not consider love as necessary for salvation. Do you? If I have not love, will I enter heaven? If you say no, then faith is not alone
Quite the contrary it counts the Love of Christ as he hung on that cross paying the debt we could not pay as primary not our own self generated self centered self serving love as saving anyone, least of all our selves.
You have a doctrine of works built on one scripture. You have chosen to ignore all the passages on faith that it should be read with. There is a day when we realize that our self generated faith can never save us, our works can never save us, our love can never save us . Then we will know for sure that Christ has, because man can never save himself. That then brings assurance that he has completed what we can not even start. He is the author and finisher of our faith . As long as our salvation rests on us and our faith and our love and our works men will never know for sure , they will die in fear ..
Some time ago I took a Bible survey taught by an excellent Theologian. He commented that there were other languages that were spoken at that time but that God selected greek because it was the most precise language of the area. We see that for instance in the word love. Unlike English or Hebrew Greek offers a precise word so there can be no mistake of the meaning
agapê (love, charity) and words derived from it
philia (friendship, love) and words derived from it
storgê (natural affection), only as astorgos (lacking natural affection) in Ro.1:31 and 2Tim.3:3.
I did not know you were Serbian Orthodox , I had the pleasure of attending Serbian Orthodox Vespers a time ago, I found them very beautiful and the people very warm and friendly.
No. The ONLY reason I do anything "good" is not because of my "free will" or MY submissiveness to God. The ONLY reason I do anything "good" is simply because God has given me a certain amount of faith to do His works.
He keeps me on the path of righteousness to accomplish what He wants. If I follow after my will (which leads to sin) He will chastise me and get me back on the right path. If left to my will I would not do anything righteous. There is nothing I have to boast about and it has nothing to do with anything that I "freely" do. ANYTHING that I do is simply because God has mercifully chosen to use me.
It should be noted that each person has various degrees of this faith according to what God has given. God doesn't want everyone to be a Billy Graham or a Pope. Everyone has a function in God's church no matter how glorious or humble that position is. Isaiah was called to "harden" people's heart. How would some of us like that ministry-hardening people's heart to God's message? God doesn't grade us on our success or failures. God grades us on our obedience to do the task He has appointed for us.
Regarding the ecclesiological status of reformed communities, you cite a dictionary. That proves that these communities can be called "church" in accordance with the English language. Linguistically, this is true. But it is wrong theology.
Christ built His Church on the foundation of Peter (Matthew 16:18) and through His apostles, who He sent to the world in His stead (John 20:21). He predicted that the church will be one despite temporal divisions (John 17:11-23; 1 Corinthians 12:12). He predicted that the apostles will be taught proper doctrine by the Holy Ghost (John 14:26). He also predicted that the Church as a whole is perfect and glorious (John 17 22-23). His apostle St. Paul taught that all be admitted to the Church (1 Timothy 2:4). His other apostle and the first pope St. Peter decreed that his office will be held by his successors in perpetuity (2 Peter 1:15). Accordingly, the marks of the Church are one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
The Protestant communities of faith variously miss at least one of these marks. The organizatonal union with Rome, incidentally, is not among the marks. Till relatively recently, the Church of England was considered a part of the true visible Church, because it maintained the apostolic succession, and despite its opposition to Rome. Since then, due to sever doctrinal drift, they lost their apostolicity, and today, with homosexual bishops they are firmly along the road to lose their holiness.
Not so with the Eastern Orthodox. Too little separates us doctrinally to deny that we have oneness of teaching. Their liturgical and monastic tradition ensures their holiness; their ecclesiology is all-inclusive and hence catholic; they have the same apostolic succession. For these reasons the Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox are a valid church in the theological sense.
While points of disagreement exist, and many Orthodox vigorously resist all ecumenist entreaties, I am not aware of any disagreement regarding the interpretation of scripture. Personally, I rely on both Catholic and Orthodox exegesis of the scripture interchangeably.
Christ's church was built upon Himself. "That Rock was Christ." "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 3:11.) "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief comer stone." (Eph. 2:19-20.)
Peter wrote this
"As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: if so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed." (1 Pet. 2:2-8.)
"Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord." (Eph. 2:20-21.)
So much greater then is the charge to Peter to be the foundation of Christ's Church (Matthew 16:18), feed and guide her sheep (John 21:15-17), and hold the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 16:19).
Be careful where you cite 1 Peter. The word there is "lithoi", -- stones, -- not "petra" as in Matthew 16:18.
Without actually intending to, those translators produced a literary milestone. We can still celebrate both the superb translation of the Bible they intended to create (emphasis added) and the classic work of English literature that was an accidential, yet most welcome, outcome. Our culture, has been enriched by both aspects of the King James Bible. Sadly, we shall never see its equal-or even its like-again (The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language and a Culture, Alister McGrath, p.310)McGrath is a general editor of the NIV Themetic Study Bible.
'Inaccuracies, obfuscations and outright blunders' are not found in the King James, they are found in the modern 'bibles' and the corrupt critical texts that they are translated from.
You know that Rom.6:16 is referring to the choice that a saved man makes to either stay in the Spirit or in the Flesh?
So the regenerate man does make choices between God and the Flesh by 'yielding' to either one or the other (two natures).
If this were not the case then you are left with a saved man either not sinning again or God being responsible for his sinning.
This is the view that that L.S. Chafer taught.
(I know,I know he wasn't a real Calvinist!) :>)
As for saving grace, if God initiates and reveals Himself, why cannot man freely either respond or reject the light shown to him. (Jn.3)
Regeneration does not precede faith but is the result of it and faith is what man must do both to be saved (accept the gift) and in growing up (yielding)
We walk by faith, not by sight.(2Cor.5:7)
The Jews that did not enter the land did not do so because they did not mix the promises of God with their faith (Heb.4:2)
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.