|
Post by randy on Jan 15, 2021 7:39:58 GMT
Some here at least partly agree with me, although I detected some "nervousness" about things I said. I don't say things perfectly because I'm imperfect.
This conversation just took place in another setting, and may help you to explain how some have viewed the Protestant doctrine of "Faith Alone," and how I feel James might qualify this doctrine somewhat.
A friend argued against my "Faith plus Deeds" formula for "Saving Faith" by saying...
"Randy we sit in a boat with two oars namely faith and deeds. Without both you are going nowhere. Where most get it wrong is that the boat's name is Sanctification. Your ticket to get in the boat is Salvation. To get the ticket you do not need the same oars as with Sanctification namely faith and deeds. You need faith by grace. "
And I responded...
Those are names you give oars, and you've created the model for your own belief. This is *not* what James said! James said that Faith and Deeds are both necessary. He didn't say that Deeds are unimportant in the matter of Salvation. He just said Deeds were critically important to determine if Faith has any real value.
Obviously, if your Faith doesn't have any real value, than it has no capacity to obtain Salvation. So Deeds are critically important to Salvation because they are critically important to define our Faith as relevant. Without Relevant Faith we cannot have faith to be saved. The kind of Faith that saves us is Relevant Faith, ie Faith that has deeds with it. As Jesus said, "Repent and Believe."
Mark 1.15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”
You do a real disservice to Jesus and to the Bible when you claim that Deeds do not play any role in Salvation. As I just pointed out, Deeds play a critical role in defining Relevant Faith. If we don't have Relevant Faith, we don't get saved. The only Faith that is Relevant is Faith that has deeds. Without repentance we don't have Relevant Faith. Conversion is the intentional abandonment of past practices for new practices. Unless we are willing to change our practices, we don't have Real Faith. And we won't really be saved!
If you don't think I know what you're talking about, you're foolish, because I was raised a Lutheran, and went through two years of catechism, learning Martin Luther's doctrines of Faith Alone. I know them through and through. I was confirmed!
But I'm no longer a Lutheran, even though I still love and admire Martin Luther. I just have an adjusted view of his "Faith Only" view. There has been a terrible imbalance caused by an overemphasis on Faith Alone. It doesn't mean any fallen human being helped Christ redeem us on the cross. It just means that for us to have true faith in his redemption we need to convert from our own fallen ways to embrace the life he died to give us.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Jan 15, 2021 17:31:14 GMT
My understanding is that when, by God’s Grace, we experience Saving Faith, we become born again. Thereby we desire to do good deeds because, we are now children of God and are ever grateful for our Savior’s Redemption.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Jan 16, 2021 17:20:14 GMT
My understanding is that when, by God’s Grace, we experience Saving Faith, we become born again. Thereby we desire to do good deeds because, we are now children of God and are ever grateful for our Savior’s Redemption. Yes, that's a safe formula to embrace, and completely orthodox. However, I'm defining Faith in a biblical way that challenges the view that Faith does not require any deeds. Both Jesus and James said it. True Faith requires Deeds. If we do not repent of our own ways, we have not really adopted Christ's ways. This isn't meeting a standard to get saved in terms of "Earning" our way there. Rather, it is proving that our Faith is genuine by choosing to convert from our ways to his ways.
This is a difficult distinction to make when we talk about Works, because there are two different kinds of Works involved here. One "Earns" something, and the other simply produces "Deeds." The Faith that I speak of involves Works that do not Earn, but rather, produce Deeds. In choosing for Salvation we choose to adopt the Life that Christ died to give us. Unless we actually receive his life, and demonstrate that we have received his life, we aren't truly saved, and our Faith was not actually genuine. True Faith has Deeds, even though it doesn't Earn anything. It must produce Christ's life in our lives in order to demonstrate that we've really received Christ.
I suppose that's as clear as mud, but nevertheless, growing up a Lutheran I was bothered by my approach to God with a Faith that did not really produce a complete repentance from my sins. Until I completely repented of my independent way of life, and embraced Christ as my way of life, I never felt that my Faith was completely legitimate. Salvation was free, but I actually had to take it and put it into action. Until I did so, in what way had I really received Christ?
I recognize that someone like myself can receive Christ, and not fully produce the life of Christ in my own life. We're not talking about perfection here. All we really need to do to be saved is produce evidence of genuine repentance. We have to show that we've given up our old independent life for Christ, as our way of life. That does not require perfect conformity to Christ on our part. But it must be shown that we have received a new spiritual nature from Christ when we made that decision. True Faith produces in us a New Nature, which should be in evidence if we really received Christ.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Jan 16, 2021 17:27:14 GMT
We are both in agreement there.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Jan 18, 2021 7:28:03 GMT
We are both in agreement there. The real problem here, brother, involves predestination. Most Protestants believe that our will is crippled and we cannot even pursue God without Him approaching us first with the Gospel. We are blind to the truth, and will not pursue a life that we cannot even see. It's called Total Depravity.
I don't believe this entirely. Though I tend toward some form of Calvinism, I do believe that Man is only degenerate in the sense that without receiving a New Nature from Christ he cannot obtain eternal life.
But that doesn't mean he cannot do good or that he cannot accept Christ. It just means that without having the Gospel preached to him there isn't enough knowledge to respond to God's word, even though God's word speaks to all men's consciences all the time. We need the help of the Gospel message to hear God clear enough to respond to this message.
Those who believe in Total Depravity believe that somehow God enables them to make a choice for Christ apart from their own will. God does it for them in the form of Predestination. I cannot, however, believe that God bypasses free will. I do believe that Man can choose to accept Christ or to do good simply by responding to God's word to their conscience, which is the very thing that enables them to do good. People don't need to get saved to do good, but they have to receive a New Nature, or be saved, in order to obtain eternal life. Sorry if some of this seems a little redundant to you, or perhaps obvious to you. My fight is with those who believe we have no free will, and should just let God decide who should do good or receive Christ as Savior. I do believe our message is designed to get men to respond of their own free choice to the word of God in their soul.
A corollary to my belief here is opposed to the common notion that we need to somehow be told by God what to do, it being supposed that we can't do good on our own. God has to guide us--otherwise, we are pretty much on our own.
We have to know that we are free men, and can choose to do good in Christ's Spirit all the time. It is not something so much about being told what to do, or about some form of specific guidance. Rather, it is a matter of having Christ's Spirit in our lives all the time, so that whatever we do, it is done with the *right spirit* and subject to God's approval or disapproval.
I find that when circumstances in my life stand against a particular choice I'm making, rather than fight against it I find it's God's will to submit to the direction God is giving me. If I have to hurt other people to get my way, I find that is not God's way. I hope that makes sense?
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Jan 18, 2021 8:07:09 GMT
Yes I understand where you are coming from Randy.
|
|
|
Post by Naama on Jan 23, 2021 0:13:47 GMT
Faith without works only makes sense when a society is so intoxixated by immorality they are drifting closer and closer to destruction.
Faith without works is the product of a disembodied spirituality and a disembodied spirituality is the product of a disembodied personhood and a disembodied personhood is the product of sexual immorality.
A disembodied faith and spirituality is an attempt to escape reality.
Works are evil when people believe their works satisfies a defective need in God.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Jan 23, 2021 6:37:06 GMT
Faith without works only makes sense when a society is so intoxixated by immorality they are drifting closer and closer to destruction. Faith without works is the product of a disembodied spirituality and a disembodied spirituality is the product of a disembodied personhood and a disembodied personhood is the product of sexual immorality. A disembodied faith and spirituality is an attempt to escape reality. Works are evil when people believe their works satisfies a defective need in God. That was strangely put, but makes sense to me. It certainly makes me think, and that's probably good! I do think there's probably a relationship between immorality and religious faith. When we deny the characteristics that God created us to have, we've begun to abandon a faith that displays genuine works of righteousness. Our faith becomes a big zero! We lose all spirituality we may have had initially.
|
|
|
Post by Naama on Jan 27, 2021 17:50:24 GMT
Its not so strange once a person understands why sexual immorality is uniquely attached with idolatry in scripture.
A man who sends his woman out to work and puts her on the pill doesn't love her as a woman but as a person. And of course a woman doesn't love her man as a man but as a person in this situation.
Its that simple.
The promise of a redeemer came after Adam and eve rejected eves purpose of being created as a helper to man.
Its just that simple.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Jan 27, 2021 18:53:17 GMT
Its not so strange once a person understands why sexual immorality is uniquely attached with idolatry in scripture. A man who sends his woman out to work and puts her on the pill doesn't love her as a woman but as a person. And of course a woman doesn't love her man as a man but as a person in this situation. Its that simple. The promise of a redeemer came after Adam and eve rejected eves purpose of being created as a helper to man. Its just that simple. True, I see the human relationship part, the "marriage" of man and woman, as being reflective of the God-human relationship, as well. When Adam and Eve viewed making decisions apart from God acceptable and reasonable, their own human relationships suffered simultaneously. To make decisions while considering others is God's way. We need a Redeemer because we tend to make decisions strictly for ourselves or for our own interests.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Jan 27, 2021 22:05:22 GMT
Its not so strange once a person understands why sexual immorality is uniquely attached with idolatry in scripture. A man who sends his woman out to work and puts her on the pill doesn't love her as a woman but as a person. And of course a woman doesn't love her man as a man but as a person in this situation. Its that simple. The promise of a redeemer came after Adam and eve rejected eves purpose of being created as a helper to man. Its just that simple. Sorry Naama but the way I see it Genesis teaches that the promise of a redeemer was given after Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Genesis 3:15: “And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.”
|
|
|
Post by Naama on Jan 28, 2021 1:42:33 GMT
I also agree, after they rejected the purpose of their creation.
That why the rest of genesis deals with couples
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Jan 28, 2021 2:48:24 GMT
Interesting though
|
|
|
Post by Naama on Jan 28, 2021 7:00:22 GMT
Is that a tiny bit of hesitation mr. jfox?
Would you consider the curses after the fall reveal the nature of the fall? Adam was cursed with the pain of providing for his wife and Eve was cursed with pain of childbirth.
The promised messiah came to teach us by the example of his life how to fully love without putting up barriers and walls even when it hurts and causes death and his resurrection took sins power away.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Jan 28, 2021 7:13:18 GMT
Is that a tiny bit of hesitation mr. jfox? Would you consider the curses after the fall reveal the nature of the fall? Adam was cursed with the pain of providing for his wife and Eve was cursed with pain of childbirth. The promised messiah came to teach us by the example of his life how to fully love without putting up barriers and walls even when it hurts and causes death and his resurrection took sins power away. Great point! The curses reflect a breakdown in human relationships, just as Man broke his/her relationship with God, his/her Creator.
But sin is defined as an act of transgression against God's Law. It does result, however, in a breakup in unity among people, including in their personal relationships.
I was not, however, just a curse in relationships but also in matters of work production. Man had problems with success in his work, and thus problems in providing. He had impaired his relationship with God, and thus had mixed blessings and curses in his personal projects.
The woman also had problems with producing children for God because she had attempted to do this without God's help. Since she wanted to determine when to have God's help and when not to have it, she produced children through measured success, a painful process.
|
|
|
Post by Naama on Jan 28, 2021 14:15:05 GMT
I think everyone can agree it would be wrong to marry a repentant same sex couple because they would just be moving back into the same sin they repented from? If we cannot agree on this point then its pointless to move forward.
Now lets take this same example to an opposite sex couple who repents from living in sin.
If no transformational change takes place in a couples relationship from living in sin to marriage then the couple is likewise just moving back into the same sin they repented from by getting married. In fact, marriage becomes a meaningless ceremony that enables and celebrates sin.
This is what happenned...if a ceremony can make room and bless opposite sex sin then we must accept that it can make room and bless opposite sex sin.
When the western world practiced, embraced and upheld lawful marriage (coverture) there was an observable functional difference between living in sin and marriage.
What defined living in sin was the woman worked and the couple used some form of birth control.
Lawful marriage requires a man to take his woman under the care and provision of his guardianship and the woman had to quit working and place herself under her man's guardianship.
If this change doesn't take place then a couple is not married but living in sin with or without a ceremony. When this hits critical mass then that society will implode on itself in three generations.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Jan 29, 2021 6:44:39 GMT
I think everyone can agree it would be wrong to marry a repentant same sex couple because they would just be moving back into the same sin they repented from? If we cannot agree on this point then its pointless to move forward.
Now lets take this same example to an opposite sex couple who repents from living in sin.
If no transformational change takes place in a couples relationship from living in sin to marriage then the couple is likewise just moving back into the same sin they repented from by getting married. In fact, marriage becomes a meaningless ceremony that enables and celebrates sin.
This is what happenned...if a ceremony can make room and bless opposite sex sin then we must accept that it can make room and bless opposite sex sin.
When the western world practiced, embraced and upheld lawful marriage (coverture) there was an observable functional difference between living in sin and marriage.
What defined living in sin was the woman worked and the couple used some form of birth control.
Lawful marriage requires a man to take his woman under the care and provision of his guardianship and the woman had to quit working and place herself under her man's guardianship.
If this change doesn't take place then a couple is not married but living in sin with or without a ceremony. When this hits critical mass then that society will implode on itself in three generations.
We shouldn't confuse marriage as a State institution and marriage as a Christian institution. Yes, they can be the same when the State recognizes marriage as defined by Christian standards. But the more secularized a former Christian society becomes, the less "Christian" the State marriage becomes.
So today we are trying to define what is a legitimate marriage before God. Well, God has two standards, one for those who are not Christians and another for those who are. The non-Christians are judged by the fact they enter into a covenant relationship with another person. They may not recognize the "serving" aspect to marriage that Christian marriages recognize. But they certainly understand a promise and matters of justice and compassion.
But for the Christian marriage, it is entirely predicated on both partners living in a real spiritual relationship with God, having a New Nature, and actively engaging in obedience to God. If such a marriage existed in a previously non-Christian marriage covenant there can be problems, because the marriage may have been entered into for insincere motivations. However, a truly-Christian marriage has no more basis for a divorce than any Christian has a basis for hating a fellow believer. This marriage is both a sacred covenant/legal agreement and an example of brother and sister in the Lord loving one another.
|
|
|
Post by Naama on Jan 29, 2021 14:07:07 GMT
So, in your opinion, morality is subjective? Is morality applicable to some machines but not other machines? Look up on the internet how Tolkien wrote a letter taking his friend C.S. Lewis to task for saying the prohibition of divorce was applicable to Christians but not non Christians.
The only way morality can be viewed as subjective is to believe the true person is a ghost trapped in the machine of the body.
|
|
|
Post by Naama on Jan 29, 2021 22:05:33 GMT
You must believe there are christian and non christian bodies to make christian and non christian marriage.
Martiage is universal because the meaning of the body is universal
|
|
|
Post by randy on Jan 30, 2021 5:36:24 GMT
So, in your opinion, morality is subjective? Is morality applicable to some machines but not other machines? Look up on the internet how Tolkien wrote a letter taking his friend C.S. Lewis to task for saying the prohibition of divorce was applicable to Christians but not non Christians. The only way morality can be viewed as subjective is to believe the true person is a ghost trapped in the machine of the body. You have the Non-Christian "machine" and the Christian "machine." They are definitely different, because the Christian has discovered Christ, is following his word, and is experiencing his virtues. The Non-Christian doesn't know God well, is not aware of God's word in his/her conscience, and is skeptical that a person can "change."
Without Christ in the person's heart/center, selfishness is the basic rule of life, and a person remains uninformed of God's unselfish ways. A person enters into contracts less seriously, because there is less belief in consequences for doing things selfishly.
Still, a Non-Christian understands legalities, and knows that breaking any covenant is wrong. Violating your word betrays someone. And so, marriage does exist for Non-Christians, but in a different way than for Christians. God's standards are the same, but the expectations are different. And recognizing the ignorance in Non-Christians there is more tolerance involved.
This isn't relativism. It's just reality. Nobody is justifying covenant-breaking, lying, and divorce. But we do have to recognize the value that comes from becoming a Christian in helping us to make wise decisions, and in making partnerships work.
Divorce is a reality of life for the pagan world, because the pagan world is selfish and not centered in God. Nevertheless, as painful as the consequences of divorce may be, it can be forgiven, and a person can be restored to God.
|
|