Matters of Faith
By Staff
Tuesday February 13, 2007 4:16:15pm


This blog is for open discussion of faith, religion, related topics.

These subjects can be very sensitive to some, so keep discussion civil, non-offensive, and open-minded.

Anyone posting derogatory or offensive comments will have their account suspended.


[permalink]
Post a comment: You must be logged in order to comment.

 
ringgoldone
Comments: 448
Joined: 07/24/2006
07/04/2008 09:28:34 AM
"Filthy rag" is a nice way of saying what the Hebrew conveys.
 
Romans11Six
Comments: 2
Joined: 07/02/2008
07/03/2008 09:40:57 PM
Diogenes you wrote: but again I fail to see the tremendous significance you, and Grace, place on that page

Thank you. You make my point for me. There is no significance in that page being there. Hebrews gives us our answer as to where the New Testament really is.

You wrote: I don't have any trouble understanding the Bible. You will have a lot of trouble trying to convince me otherwise, for I think I understand it well enough, even though I do not agree with the same application of "Rightly Dividing" scriptures, as you.

I have not and will not try to convince you of anything concerning matters of faith. If when shown your error with the bible doesn't work then I know I wouldnt have a chance.

You wrote: The writings of Paul are the most misinterpreted books of the Bible, and it is very risky to think his are the only words written to the "Gentiles", and it is even worse to think his words were written only to the "Gentiles".

After reading some of your post it appears to me that Matthew through John are the most misinterpreted books of the bible. You seem to think that Jesus means something other than what he says. Do you have trouble believing your bible? Perhaps your putting more stock in books your reading, or commentaries and so forth. IM not sure, but let's just believe our bible for a moment, without mans spin or spiritualizing anything.

Jesus say's - Matthew 5:5 - Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the Earth.

Why did he say that? Because he was preaching the same Kingdom message that John the baptist was preaching in Matthew 3 the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand. The Jews were awaiting their Messiah to come and rule on Earth in the Kingdom. Earth Earth Earth.

This is Opposite what Jesus after ascending to heaven told Paul concerning us/the Church.

Colossians 3:2 - Set your affections on things above, Not on things on the Earth.

Not on Earth Not on Earth Not on Earth.

Are we the church looking to inherit the earth?

You can have it, IM looking for Jesus to do what he said he would do concerning me in this dispensation...return for me. I have an appointment to meet him in the air.

Now, if that's not enough for you, then OK. I'll give you more.

Ephesians 2:6 - And hath raised us up together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.

Heavenly places. Last time I checked heavenly places and Earth were different.

Still not enough? OK, I'll give you more.

Phillippians 3:19 - Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind Earthly things.

Paul here is not talking about saved believers but rather Enemies of the cross...as stated in 3:18.

So, clearly Jesus when addressing his audience here during his earthly ministry is different than what he instructed Paul to say to us.

Ephesians 1:3 - Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.

Theres that word heaven again, not Earth.

Jesus say's Matthew 10:19 - But when they deliver you up,take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye speak.

This is Opposite what Jesus after ascending to heaven told Paul concerning us/the Church.

2 Timothy 2:15 - Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Take no thought or study? We have to decide here because no matter how hard you try these do not say the same thing.

It seems to me that we have a many today on TV and radio that would rather take no thought. It's quite apparent as soon as they open their mouth.

Matthew 23:1-3 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharises sit in Moses seat: All therfore whatsoever they bid you observe and do; but do not after their works: for they say, and do not.

So, if this is doctrine for us today, then we need to go to the Synagogue and find who sits in Moses seat, and whatever he says to do, do.

So you are sadly mistaken when you try to see the Gospel of the Grace of God in his earthly ministry. This is the Gospel of the Kingdom that is being preached. Not the same as the Gospel of the Grace of God.

Acts 20:24 - But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the lord Jesus, to testify the Gospel of the Grace of God.

We can find examples of Gods grace all thru the bible, but grace preached as a Gospel was not preached until the revelation of the mystery was given to Paul.

Ephesians 3:2-3 - If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: how that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; as I wrote afore in a few words.

The Gospel of the Grace of God is the only Gospel that will save anyone today. Anyone who has mixed one work with their salvation is an unsaved person.

Romans 11:6 Ephesians 2:8-9 Titus 3:5 and in several other places makes this fact so clear. That is if you believe the bible as it's written without reading into or spiritualizing it.


And by the way, I gave you verses that supported what I was saying in my other post, and I noticed in your response you choose not to address a single one with any bible. Hopefully you will respond this time with verses that show me my error.

If IM wrong I welcome the correction. But please use the bible when doing so.

Thanks.
 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 746
Joined: 07/13/2007
07/03/2008 05:27:15 PM
Hi ringgoldone.
Been a while. lol.

"menstrual rag?" Interesting choice of words. What version is that found in, or was that your words?
Just wondering. Never heard anyone say it that way before.
 
ringgoldone
Comments: 448
Joined: 07/24/2006
07/03/2008 05:17:46 PM
Total Depravity - David said "in sin did my mother conceive me". Because of Adam's sin, we are born sinners who can do nothing righteous (all our righteousness is like a menstrual rag in His eyes). Why else do little tots rebel against their parents without see that action modeled for them? How else can they say NO! when told to do something or not to do something. The sin nature is born within us.

Scripture describes our God as One who maintains control of His world and the people in it and that He can create one vessel for good and one for evil and still be sovereign and righteous. God does whatever He does first and foremost for His glory.

Predestination has nothing to do with Heaven or Hell, but that believers are predestined to be conformed into the image of Jesus Christ. That is the process of sanctification. Yes, God knew that the flood would be necessary as well as the cross. Jesus was slain before the foundation of the world.

And God knows each one who will live eternally with Him and each one who will reject His Son and spend eternity in Hell. We don't know that, so we must share the Gospel with all.
 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 746
Joined: 07/13/2007
07/03/2008 05:06:10 PM
Diogenes: "In fact, I don't wish to argue with you at all, but that is what this has turned into. An argument, with each of us shouting (electronically) at the other."

In this forum, I see hardly any options to emphasize on certain words other than by captialization. I wish there were an option for bolding script. Sorry you percieved that as shouting. Please look at may capitalization as emphasis. If I were shouting, I would capitalize the ENTIRE post.

Diogenes: " YOU don't have to do a thing more.

Jesus did that for you, on the cross."

And MY question is STILL: How do I know that from ONLY reading the 4 Gospels? Where are the verses- or even just ONE verse that tells me what you have inserted there?

Diogenes: " I hope you are not going to now tell me Jesus himself did not know of the "Mystery" you seem to think only Paul could know."

Where would you get that hogwash? Certainly NOT from anything that I have said. Tell me, are you attempting to "research" my beliefs in an attempt to find out what I believe, or are you going on what I say? I will tell you now, you will find that I am not very easy to "label" with men's theological titles. You may find some of my beliefs in many doctrines, but not all....my doctrine comes directly from the Bible. Not from man. If you want to find what I believe, ask me. And then look up the scriptures that I reference. Please don't depend on anyone's words to represent my beliefs other than my own.

Now, to answer your question (though it should be evident for someone who believes that Jesus IS God): Just because it was hidden from the foundations of the world, does not mean that Jesus didn't know it. God created it. Jesus is God. Period.

I am not angry, but I wish you wouldn't assume that I have a belief that I've never spoken of.

Diogenes: " tell you again, Paul taught the same thing Jesus taught."

And I will tell you again, of course he did. Paul's words were also the words of Jesus. But the instructions for us given through Paul were completely different than the words He spoke during His mortal ministry. There are some similarities...such as in Paul's instructions on how to walk worthy of our calling....BUT, the way to salvation is different.

Diogenes: "Read Revelation 3:20 and tell me again how John did not also teach this same "Mystery". "

I cannot tell you how John DID teach the same Mystery as Paul. Please tell me how.... Although, the words you refer to in this verse are spoken by Jesus, and not John, as far as I can tell.

Diogenes: "And I have not argued with you about the placement of a dividing page, because I have no clue about the significance you seem to find in that page. "

Exactly. There IS no significance in it. Why is it there?

Diogenes: "That one is also contained in the dictionary I provided a link to. The only difference I see, is the one I pointed to also contains the usage as a alternate for the word "Covenant" which is what the usage actually means on the title pages of the Bible. It is not the same usage, or meaning, as described in the third defintion in the Webster you provided.

I have no confusion at all between the words "testimony" and "testament". They both have similar meaning in the Latin roots of "Testis" and "Testate". The difference is more of a matter of tense."

Tense MATTERS. I am not asking for alternate words....I am referring to the one that is there. Latin roots mean nothing to me. There are MANY forms of words that have the same roots but DIFFERENT meanings. Either we believe that the word "testament" IN THAT TENSE without an ALTERNATE was put in the Bible and that is what we should use, or else we believe that our Bible isn't true. Period. Look at your own explanation. You say that they have "similar" meanings. "Similar" does not mean "Same." I do not want alternate words UNLESS the posess the SAME, not SIMILAR, meanings.

BTW, as I mentioned in the other post, I WENT to your link, and did not find your example of testament being a TESTIMONY given in court. Rather, I found more definitions pointing to the usage of the word in Hebrews, as well as it being called a dividing line of the Bible. The one that I posted, as I mentioned, was just the first one listed on a google search. I can copy and paste yours too, if you wish, but it will show much of what I posted in more of a repetitive form, therefore, I chose to post the shorter version, as I have a tendancy to take up alot of space already with my typing.

It is quite "interesting" as well that you call my choice to do so "interesting." - as to imply that I chose another meaning from another dictionary to suit my beliefs. Especially when your link says much the same as my shorter definition.

I am looking at this on the basis that the Bible is true and correct in it's wording. I do not see a need to correct it in order to make it mean what I need it to mean. I believe EVERY single little word is there for a reason. And each and every single little word is very important in it's own INDIVIDUAL meaning.

Enough of that. As much as words are switched, rearranged, alternated, etc. There is still no way to find what I have asked of you (and anyone else who wishes to show me, for that matter). Where is that salvation that we enjoy today, under grace, without works EVER outlined in the 4 Gospels. WHO will get me saved with Matthew Mark Luke or John ONLY?
 
Diogenes
Comments: 373
Joined: 01/31/2006
07/03/2008 05:03:04 PM
Welcome Romans,

Do you and Grace know each other LOL ?

Again we are at odds over a page, which of course was put in place when the KJV was printed, but again I fail to see the tremendous significance you, and Grace, place on that page.

I don't have any trouble understanding the Bible. You will have a lot of trouble trying to convince me otherwise, for I think I understand it well enough, even though I do not agree with the same application of "Rightly Dividing" scriptures, as you.

If you take me to task over that disagreement, I hope you realize this particular division of scripture is an ancient one, and not one commonly called "rightly".

The writings of Paul are the most misinterpreted books of the Bible, and it is very risky to think his are the only words written to the "Gentiles", and it is even worse to think his words were written only to the "Gentiles".







 
Diogenes
Comments: 373
Joined: 01/31/2006
07/03/2008 04:21:30 PM
Grace,

It is interesting you chose a different dictionary that the one I suggested. The first definition in the Websters obviously applies to the use of the word in naming the Old and New Testatments

That one is also contained in the dictionary I provided a link to. The only difference I see, is the one I pointed to also contains the usage as a alternate for the word "Covenant" which is what the usage actually means on the title pages of the Bible. It is not the same usage, or meaning, as described in the third defintion in the Webster you provided.

I have no confusion at all between the words "testimony" and "testament". They both have similar meaning in the Latin roots of "Testis" and "Testate". The difference is more of a matter of tense.

You claim the the passage of scripture requires no interpretation, and in the same sentence proceed to interpret a different meaning than what I read, by shifting the focus from what I see as the whole point of the parable.

You respond to:

I LOUDLY ANSWER YES ! THAT IS ALL YOU HAVE TO "DO"."

With:

Then what was the purpose of Jesus's Death? If all I have to do is love God and love people, why would it have ever been necessary for an "atonement" for my sin to be made?

The whole point of my electronic shouting ( notice the captials) is, that is all YOU have to do.

YOU don't have to do a thing more.

Jesus did that for you, on the cross.

I hope you are not going to now tell me Jesus himself did not know of the "Mystery" you seem to think only Paul could know.

WHICH IS CHRIST IN YOU, THE HOPE OF GLORY

What does it mean when one Love's God with all their heart ?

I tell you again, Paul taught the same thing Jesus taught.

Read Revelation 3:20 and tell me again how John did not also teach this same "Mystery".

And I have not argued with you about the placement of a dividing page, because I have no clue about the significance you seem to find in that page.

In fact, I don't wish to argue with you at all, but that is what this has turned into. An argument, with each of us shouting (electronically) at the other.



 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 746
Joined: 07/13/2007
07/03/2008 03:57:31 PM
Romans,

WELCOME, WELCOME, WELCOME, WELCOME.....

oh, and by the way, did I WELCOME you??? LOL.

You said: "Instead of letting the printer answer bible questions we should let the bible answer bible questions, because the page that says (New Testament) wasnt even put in bibles until the late 1500's."

I was under the impression that it was the 1800's. Could you please provide further information for this statement? I totally agree with the context of that statement, as well as your entire post. But I would like to be precise on the date at which that page was added.
Thanks.



 
Romans11Six
Comments: 2
Joined: 07/02/2008
07/03/2008 03:16:40 PM
The bible is not hard to understand when we respectfully #1 Aknowledge who is speaking and who is being spoken to. #2 Considering what goes before and what comes after (Text) And #3 What Dispensation (Age) they are speaking of.

Genesis 1:1 is not where the Old Testament begins no more than Matthew 1:1 is where the New Testament starts.

Instead of letting the printer answer bible questions we should let the bible answer bible questions, because the page that says (New Testament) wasnt even put in bibles until the late 1500's.

Hebrews 9:18 kjv - Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. Was this blood covenant made in Genesis? No. It's found in Exodus 24 when the prophet Moses had spoken every precept to his congregation according to the law and then he took animal blood and sprinkled the book and the congregation.

Where does the New Testament start? Again let's rely on the bible and not the printer. Hebrews 9:16-17 kjv - For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Romans 15:8 Paul speaking - Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcission(Jews) for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers.

These promises were made under law. Christ earthly ministry (Matthew - John was to confirm those promises. You can find these promises throughout the Old Testament.

If we keep reading we will notice that a few verses later in Romans 15:12 Paul says Esaias (Issiah) saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

This is speaking of the RISEN Christ, and not the earthly Christ. Notice: (Rise to reign).

His words in Matthew - John were to Israel as a Nation, and not Gentiles as individuals. They came in under law while we came in under grace which should go without saying could not happen until after the death of the testator.

This is where the Apostle Paul comes in. Remember our two prior verses above: Romans 15:8 and 15:12?

Now lets look at Romans 15:15-16 kjv - Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of The Grace that is Given to Me of God, that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles...

In these 3 verses we can discern that Jesus in his earthly body was sent to the lost sheep of the of Israel - Romans 15:8.

Then we see where Issiah prophesied that he would RISE after that earthly ministry to the nation Israel and reign over the Gentiles/Church Body of Christ/everyone on this list. - Romans 15:12.

And how would he do this??? By saving the Apostle Paul Acts chapter 9 and Paul becomes the Apostle to the Gentiles. Romans 15:16.


Just offering some friendly advice to anyone who wants to have a better understanding of their bible.
 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 746
Joined: 07/13/2007
07/03/2008 02:48:48 PM
Diogenes: "Do you consider "being saved" as separate from "eternal life" ?"

I consider "eternal life" to be a product of my salvation. Life is always the end result of any salvation. Whether it be the Life given to us through the resurrection power of Jesus (To live is Christ) or if it be the Eternal life that we will enjoy in the presence of God (to die is gain).


Diogenes: "In the parable, are you focusing upon the acts involved in helping the man, or upon the love which prompted those acts ?"

Love is the center point of the whole parable. But it is undeniably FAITH PLUS WORKS. Otherwise, you would not see the end of that answer being "GO AND DO likewise."

Diogenes: "In my interpretation of this whole passage, Jesus tells us eternal life is gained by completely loving God, and loving our fellow man. Period."

Consider that the scripture needs NO interpretation for it to say what it says. You are correct in what Jesus is saying....however, not so in TO WHOM He is speaking to. He isn't saying this to me, or you.

Diogenes: "Jesus was not telling the Lawyer to seek out a robbery victim, pick him up, take him to the hospital, and pay his bills. He was telling the Lawyer he would gain life by loving others, likewise as did the Samaritan."

If the love that Jesus is speaking of does not result in an ACT of love, then the words of Jesus have been negated. He meant what He said.

Diogenes: "You asked:

"So, all I have to do in order to inherit eternal life is to love God with every part of my being and love my neighbor (which is defined in the next portion of the passage) as myself?"

I LOUDLY ANSWER YES ! THAT IS ALL YOU HAVE TO "DO"."

Then what was the purpose of Jesus's Death? If all I have to do is love God and love people, why would it have ever been necessary for an "atonement" for my sin to be made?

Diongenes: "That difference is the what the mortal ministry of Jesus was about. Correcting man's corruption of God's word, by moving the emphasis on external observance of the "LAW" (Works), to a correct placement within the heart (Faith).
I submit that is the "Great Mystery" Paul wished to reveal."

Please read Colossians chapter 1 for the complete definition of the "Mystery."
Pay special attention to vs. 25-27 which reads: Whereof I(Paul) am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God; Even they MYSTERY which hath been hid from ages and from generations, BUT NOW is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this MYSTERY among the Gentiles; WHICH IS CHRIST IN YOU, THE HOPE OF GLORY.
The reason why I refer to the whole first chapter is because THAT is one place that OUR salvation is outlined very clearly, especially beginning at vs.12.

(From the Miriam Webster online dictionary, the first definition I came across in a google searcy of the word)
Testament:
Date: 14th century
1 aarchaic : a covenant between God and the human race : either of two main divisions of the Bible
2 a: a tangible proof or tribute b: an expression of conviction : creed
3 a: an act by which a person determines the disposition of his or her property after death b: will

---I believe you've somehow confused the word "testament" with "testimony." - and I must say, in the link that you provided for reference...I see that the definition that I am using is constantly referred to, while also addressing a dividing point in the Bible, and the example you used concerning a testimony in court is not referred to at all, rather something about a "political testament" is spoken of - referring to one's beliefs/convictions.

And again, the scripture that I use to determine this IS in Hebrews, which IS in the Bible, which WAS written by God, as well as the rest of the Bible. So I'm really not certain why there could be an arguement on the placement of a dividing page in the Bible that was not put in UNTIL the 1800's.

Please tell me how loving God and loving my neighbor will inherit me eternal life. Please also explain to me how it could be GRACE if I must still DO something to obtain it.
 
Diogenes
Comments: 373
Joined: 01/31/2006
07/03/2008 02:07:51 PM
Ringgoldone,

I agree that if you pull out Limited Atonement, it all falls apart.

The whole thing is a house of cards.

I can pull out the "T" too, begining with Jesus telling us we must become like children.

The T comes from the claim "man is born into sin". Totally Depraved. You hear it all the time in many churches.

I would say instead "man is born doomed to sin", and there lays the difference.

Mankind's fall from Grace, in eating from the "Tree of Knowledge", was to know the difference between good and evil, thus corrupting the innocence man was created with.

Jesus said we must become as little children. Why ? I think this is because little children, retain their innocence, up until they can discern good from evil, and they then become accountable for theis "sin". The age of accountability is defined in scripture, for this very reason.

The problem is not in the design of God's creation. Contrary to what many will say, innocence still exists, and a child enters this corrupted world entirely in it's purity.

The whole argument for Calvinism fails to consider that God has the ability to to limit His involvement, and even His knowledge, in the affairs of his creation.

Why else would God have to destroy the world in flood ? It does not make sense for God to create something, if He knew ahead of time He would later regret creating it, and have to destroy it, and start over.

Could He of known what was going to happen ? Of course He could have, He is God and can know or do anything He chooses.

Could He have kept it from happening, by "preordaining" a different outcome ? Of course He could have, He is God.

Could He have decided to create an autonomous creation, with Free Will, in order for Love to truely exist ? Of course He could, He is God.

The biggest problem with Calvinism is, it takes all responsibility, for good and bad, completely away from man, and puts it on God.

This, in effect, makes man innocent by default, and makes God the author of evil, creating people "predestined" for Hell. In my mind there can be no greater blasphemy.



 
Diogenes
Comments: 373
Joined: 01/31/2006
07/03/2008 01:01:28 PM
Grace,

To avoid being further "mixed up" about what you are saying, please clarify some of what you said in the last half of your last post.

Do you consider "being saved" as separate from "eternal life" ?

In the parable, are you focusing upon the acts involved in helping the man, or upon the love which prompted those acts ?

In my interpretation of this whole passage, Jesus tells us eternal life is gained by completely loving God, and loving our fellow man. Period.

Jesus was not telling the Lawyer to seek out a robbery victim, pick him up, take him to the hospital, and pay his bills. He was telling the Lawyer he would gain life by loving others, likewise as did the Samaritan.

You asked:

"So, all I have to do in order to inherit eternal life is to love God with every part of my being and love my neighbor (which is defined in the next portion of the passage) as myself?"

I LOUDLY ANSWER YES ! THAT IS ALL YOU HAVE TO "DO".

This "Great Commandment" encompasses, all else, it is the answer to the controversy which began at the Jerusalem Council, when Paul discussed the "Law" with Peter and James, and it completely satisfies all observance of the Law.

The difference between the Old Covenant, and the New, is found within this elegantly simple command. It is what Jesus taught, and it is also what Paul and all the other Apostles taught, in spite of all the later, and confusing, interpretations to the contrary. That difference is the what the mortal ministry of Jesus was about. Correcting man's corruption of God's word, by moving the emphasis on external observance of the "LAW" (Works), to a correct placement within the heart (Faith).

I submit that is the "Great Mystery" Paul wished to reveal.

The paragraph you wrote concerning an interpretation of the word "Testament" is too big of a stretch for me to get my mind around it. It may be better to use the word "Covenant", but since "Testament" what is usually written upon the page you mention, I'll stick with it.

There are at least four other meanings of the English word you chose form Hebrews, only one has to wait until someone dies, but the usage in Hebrews is not the same one when used to separate the Bible.

I can testify in a court room while I am alive. That testament, is my statement of the truth, the Jury won't need to wait until I die for that truth to be relevant.

Testament. (n.d.). The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved July 03, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/testament
 
ringgoldone
Comments: 448
Joined: 07/24/2006
07/03/2008 12:38:24 PM
Diogenes:

I probably shouldn't jump in the midst of your discussion with Grace, but you mentioned TULIP. If you pull out Limited Atonement, it all falls apart. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. Those who spend eternity in Hell do so because they rejected Him.

On the matter of Calvinism, when you consider the sovereignty of God, either He chose those who are to be saved or He knows all who will be saved. Either way, it is the same group of people. I don't hold to hypercalvinism which says we don't need to witness, when in fact we are commanded to.

Whether Jew or Gentile, God's process is the same: the Father calls or draws (as Jesus put it), the Holy Spirit convicts of sin, righteousness and judgment, and the person repents and believes in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Lost people play a dangerous game if they think they can come to God on their death bed. Now is the accepted time - today is the day of salvation.
 
Diogenes
Comments: 373
Joined: 01/31/2006
07/03/2008 12:07:57 PM
Grace,
The mixed up is mutual, I think. I think I understand the difference you imply between scripture being written "FOR" or "TO" us, but I just don't make the same division you do.

I may have misunderstood your meaning about salvation "before the cross", but I do understand the difference you make now between "works based salvation" and "Faith Plus Works salvation", so we are on a bit of a better footing than before.

This is what I was talking about when I mentioned Luther's interpretation of Romans. The Reformation of the Catholics was, in intent, to correct a theological error around this very issue. What Luther removed, John Calvin later carried it to an extreme. Works versus Faith, Free Will versus Predestination, Irresistible Grace for the "Elect" versus man seeking God.

The Methodists, and Presbyterians have been at odds over this ever since, while the Baptists can take either side, or the middle.

I could spend, and I have spent, days in argument against the five points of Calvinism, sometimes referred to with the TULIP acronym, because I see this extreme as an aberrant interpretation of Paul. It takes away all value, reason, or merit, in the actions, or "works" of man, and completely negates the significance of heart, and mind of man. I can back a Calvinist into a corner, but they usually escape by shutting their ears and claiming understanding God is beyond our limited grasp, while they quickly exit the conversation.

I could also spend days in argument against the other extreme, which is just as aberrant by placing too much emphasis on the "works" of man, and thereby becoming the root of the "works based salvation" doctrines. People indoctrinated into this extreme view are so conditioned toward "earning" their salvation, and keeping it, it is almost impossible to get them to see above it. We both saw this recently.

I do not think you are close to either of these extremes, but you may be a bit further to one side than I am.

I think we may have different ideas about Justification, and Sanctification, but may be closer, than it seems right now, on our views about Salvation.

Yes, my reference to Luke 10 is my answer about finding Salvation. It is the same specific question the lawyer asked, and Jesus gives the answer.


 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 746
Joined: 07/13/2007
07/03/2008 11:24:03 AM
Okay, so I read the passage, and assuming because of the reference to finding "eternal life" you must be telling me how to get saved.

Luke 10:25-28 And behold a certain lawyer stood up and tempted him saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He(Jesus) said unto him What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he(lawyer) answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. And he(Jesus) said unto him, Thou hast answered right; this do, and thou shalt live.

So, all I have to do in order to inherit eternal life is to love God with every part of my being and love my neighbor (which is defined in the next portion of the passage) as myself?

Notice the command at the end of the parable from Jesus?
vs. 36 & 37 - (Jesus) Which now of these three thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among theives? And he(lawyer) said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, GO AND DO THOU LIKEWISE.

Jesus wasn't just making a suggestion here.
That was part of the requirement to inherit eternal life.

So, if this is the scripture that answers my question about my salvation being found in Luke, please explain how my trusting in these scriptures will save me if I were lost.
 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 746
Joined: 07/13/2007
07/03/2008 11:03:03 AM
Diogenes,
Just a couple of things that I want to clarify. I believe that you are getting a few of my phrases and words mixed up a bit. Understandingly so, as I say things that you most likely do not normally hear.

You are speaking of "works based salvation" of which I have not mentioned. To say that salvation before the cross was faith PLUS works is not to say "works based." It is STILL faith based, as if there were no faith, no works would have been produced. (ie. Abraham) However, those worrks produced went on to "merit" the believer with something. That is not works based, it is faith based...but the result is not the grace that we enjoy today....not when works are still required.

You've previously said that I do not believe that the Gospels are for us "gentiles." That is not my position, and I hope that I have already clarified that. If not, then please tell me so that I can clarify further.

Diogenes: "Furthermore, we don't even know who wrote Hebrews, so I feel a bit more confident in accepting Jesus at His word."

I have a very hard time with this statement....when talking about "taking Jesus at His word" you seem to be putting the Gospels, ahead of other parts of the Bible as being "the words of Jesus." The ENTIRE Bible is the words of Jesus. How could it not be? The Holy Spirit inspired men to write down these words. It does not matter the name of the man who penned them. They are ALL inspired. You believe that Jesus was God in the Flesh. You believe that the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit that dwells among men. So how can we put one part of the Bible above another as what is the words of Jesus (who is God) and what is not? Even I, who believe that there are certain parts of the Bible that are addressed directly to me as a Christian saved by grace, do not believe that one part of the Bible is any less God's word than the other.
So, do we really need to know the name of the man who penned Hebrews? Or is it enough to know that God wrote it? - just as He did the rest of the Bible?
And concerning the statement that you are disagreeing by answering you'd rather take Jesus at his word than something in Hebrews - a book of whom we do not know the author of... Think about this for a moment.

New Testament....Last Will and Testament......how does your "Testament" ....the instructions you leave for your loved ones to carry out AFTER your death......come into play BEFORE you die? With your study of historical Christianity, have you ever looked up the date in which that dividing page titled "New Testament" was put into your Bible? And then, those words that you are "taking Jesus at" - have you ever looked up the date in which they began to be "written in red" in that Bible? Have you ever asked yourself WHY those words are the only words in RED, when Jesus, who according to John, was there in the Beginning....He himself was called the WORD....and the Word WAS God....all things that were done were done BY Him.....would that not include EVERY word that was penned in the Bible? So why is only a portion of the words in our Bible written in red? WHO has deemed those more important than the others- when they are ALL God's words?

Sorry to have gotten off on that rant....but these are things that we should think about. There is a reason why certain things in our Bible are esteemed over others. With words in red (an act of MAN and not GOD) are popping off of the pages at us...then who can blame us for assuming that they are MORE important than the rest?

Now. I want to get to your answer. I am going to read the scripture reference you provided. But please be so kind as to tell me which of my questions you are answering with this. You said "very speciific question" however, I have asked a few....the main one being about finding our salvation in Luke. I think you are showing me how Jesus is emphasizing on loving one's neighbor, and that cannot be considered "work." But I have never said Jesus didn't teach on faith and love first and foremost (which would not indicate a salvation that is "works based") However, the works followed.

Is this an example of a scripture for salvation, or are you answering another question here? Please let me know so that I will read in the proper perspective of what you are explaining to me with this reference.
 
Diogenes
Comments: 373
Joined: 01/31/2006
07/03/2008 10:00:06 AM
Grace,

I was not avoiding your very specific question, I just wanted some time to think about it. There are a number of places in the four gospels which I think show a different placement of the value of works than that of the "works based salvation" taught by the Pharisees, who might strain out the gnats, and then swallow a camel.

You asked for it from Luke, and even provided an exerpt from Luke 18:18, but my immediate thought was Luke 10:25 - 37. The expert of the law, attempts to test Jesus in his understanding of the "Law". Jesus turns the test around, and asks the Lawyer the same question.

The lawyer's reponse is actually a quote from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18, but it shows much insight, uncommon insight, which agrees with what Jesus has been teaching.

The lawyer tries again to test, somone he thinks is an uneducated layman, with the question of who is his neighbor. Again Jesus turns this back to him, and makes the question more like "What kind of neighbor are you ?".

You may interpet the passage to indicate the assistance of the Good Samaritan as a "work", and then claim Jesus was describing a works based salvation, but to do so, in my humle opinion, is to miss the important message entirely. In my view, doing so puts Paul's emphasis on faith vs. works into an inappropriate gospel context.

The lawyer recites what Jesus has termed the Great Commandment, to love God and love one's neighbor.

This is the heart of the "law", and the power of the words cause the lawyer to feel convicted, and he seeks to justify himself when he asked "who is my neighbor".

I think he probably wanted to limit the definition of "neighbor" as maybe to mean "one of his people", but instead Jesus gives him a parable to demonstrate true love of a neighbot to include helping a complete stranger, someone from another "peoples". The parable is not about the "work" of helping the beaten man, it is about the command to "love".

Being righteous is rooted in that love. The actions, or "works" are a result of that love, not the other way around.

The parable of the Samaritan, is to test the Lawyer, on his understanding of what is the quintessential message of the the Torah, summerized in his own version of "The Great Commandment".

Your comments have seemed to state Jesus was not teaching something "New". He wasn't, He was correcting man's misinterpretations of the truth existant from the start. Throughout his ministry in Judea He had to deal with similar encounters with Pharisees who had an understanding of the Law which was way out of proportion. In each of these encounters Jesus corrected the Pharisees, by emphais on the "justice, mercy, and faithfulness" of God, and not the works of man. The very "Grace of God" which they so often had failed to see.

But it is there. I want to talk some of Luther's interpretation of Romans later on, because it is a root cause of some of these modern controversies.

 
Diogenes
Comments: 373
Joined: 01/31/2006
07/02/2008 04:55:33 PM
Grace,

I said "playful stab" precisely because I did not take offence at the comment. I only mentioned it because we are again in the same discussion as before, and I think we both may need to learn more tollerance before we are done.

It seems to all come down to a difference in perspective. A difference I am not sure how to get around.

You often state "through faith in the death burial and resurrection of His Son".

I would state "through faith in the Life, Death, and Resurrection".

I would add the word "Life" at the front, for I veiw the mortal ministry of Jesus, His teachings, and His words, as completely applicable to me.

We agree on many things, but I doubt we are going to agree on that.

A works based salvation ? That is certainly not what I read in the words of Jesus.

Again, a differnce in perspective.

You may have answered my questions, but I will first need a better understanding of those answers before I can turn it around again. Then I can attempt to respond to that reveral without worry about further compounding this.

Your answers consistently imply that works were required in each of those cases, except for the thief.

Please clarify how you determine that, because that is not what I read in the words of Jesus.

You said;

"The occurances in the four gospels that we speak of are really still Old Testament. Hebrews tells us that without the death of a testator, the new testament does not come in effect. It was not until after the death of Jesus that a New Testament can come into place, regardless of where man put that dividing page in our Bible. So, during the mortal ministry of Jesus, it was stil faith PLUS works for salvation."

I don't think so.

I think the transition from the Old Covenant to the New actually began with the conception of John the Baptist, six months before Gabriel visted Mary with the news of Jesus.

Furthermore, we don't even know who wrote Hebrews, so I feel a bit more confident in accepting Jesus at His word. He summarized the "law" with two commands. Love God, and Love your neighbor. He said these were sufficient, so where are the "Works" ? He said that whosoever believes on Him, has everlasting life. Where are the "Works" ?

At every turn, He challenged and corrected the Pharisees on the significance of their "Law".




 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 746
Joined: 07/13/2007
07/02/2008 03:12:23 PM
Diogenes: "God can reach out and touch whomever He chooses, whether that one be a Mormon, a Pharisee walking down the road, or other poor pilgrims like me."

Another area in which we differ. I see it as whomever chooses to reach out to God may do so. While I believe that God can do whatever He wishes, I do not believe that is how He is "reaching out" to us. I believe that He already has. I believe that He has equipped us with the resources and the mind to come to Him, through faith in the death burial and resurrection of His Son.

We just most likely have differing viewpoints on how God deals with man in this day and age. -Which is not unusual among various believers.

Also, in referring to any of my statements toward you as a "stab" I hope that you've not been offended by my words in the past and have neglected to say so. I have not considered anything that I've said to you as a "stab" - playful or otherwise. I do have a tendancy to joke around sometimes, however, I have no intent of "stabbing" at you when doing so. If my joking is too offensive, or bordering on insulting, please inform me of such.
 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 746
Joined: 07/13/2007
07/02/2008 03:01:31 PM
"A lack of response, is not a reliable indication of agreement."

Forgive me, I was under the impression that you did respond, and were in agreement that we must look at the words of Paul in order to understand how salvation comes by grace through faith alone. - Which is the only salvation that is NOW available to us. I will try to take the time to scan back through our previous posts to refresh myself on the conversation.

I had no intentions of trying to offend you with that statement. However, it is equally frustrating to me when you seem to also be "deaf" on my words stating over and over that I believe the whole Bible, including the Gospels IS FOR all Christians. You have confused my words when I say that I understand to WHOM Jesus was speaking to. That does not mean that I believe we cannot profit from those words which He spoke. I do not, however, believe that WE can NOW find salvation through them no more than we can NOW find salvation through building an ark.

Diogenes: "I don't wish to prove you are "wrong" in anything. You have found the truth, so the path you followed to that truth is not something I would want to call "wrong"."

-And I hope that I have not led you to believe that I think that is your view. However, in bringing up the subject, and providing me with reasons why I should look at things "differently" - it does appear that you wish to change my mind on the subject.

Diogenes: "I do not wish to anger you, but I also am not ashamed to speak what I believe, and I do so honestly, and openly."

As you should be able to do, without angering me. I believe that you may be assuming that it is much easier to anger me than it acutally is. I get more angry when people do not respect me enough to say what they really mean. I like straght talk....so please continue to be open and honest, and not ashamed, as we will get NOWHERE in any conversations if we both do not use that approach.

Now to your questions that you believe I am avoiding.

1. "Why did you skip the very heart of my post in your reply ?"
I believe I did not "skip" it. I apologize if I did not address what you wished for me to address...It is not in "avoidance" of answering, however I did pay special attention to the points that stuck out to me. I hope that it is safe to assume that the questions you listed are the ones that you feel I've avoided, and will answer them.

2. "What of those believers in the crowd ?"
They were not save by grace through faith in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus. Sin had not yet been paid for. They could not be saved under GRACE as we know it until after the cross.

3. "Were they "saved" by their faith in Christ ?"
Partially answered that above....faith in who He was? Yes, to the extent that they could be. But they also had to keep the law, as part of that requirement for salvation before the cross.

4. "What of the thief on the cross ?"
He believed Jesus was who he said he was, nothing is said for that sin penalty being paid, his faith WAS accounted unto him for righteousness. He got the same salvation as those before him who had enough faith to find favor in the eyes of God. Were THEY saved by grace through faith ALONE? No. Works had to accompany their faith. Had the theif believed on Jesus BEFORE he hung on that cross, he would have had to keep the law during his living days, just as was required for those others who believed upon His name.

5. "What of John the Baptist ?"
Same salvation as already mentioned. Same as the patriarchs of old. Remember, we covered this before. The occurances in the four gospels that we speak of are really still Old Testament. Hebrews tells us that without the death of a testator, the new testament does not come in effect. It was not until after the death of Jesus that a New Testament can come into place, regardless of where man put that dividing page in our Bible. So, during the mortal ministry of Jesus, it was stil faith PLUS works for salvation.

6. "Jesus said, as recorded in all of the four of the gospels, that whosoever believed on him, will not perish, but will have ever lasting life. "
And those who obeyed those words recieved everlasting life. Just as Noah was saved in the flood. Just as Moses obeyed God for the deliverance of the Hebrews. Just like Abraham's faith saved him, etc. etc. etc. But we aren't leading people out of Egypt NOW, building arks NOW, selling all of our possessions, leaving our families, etc. etc. etc. to obtain salvation. It is a DIFFERENT program. There WAS salvation by faith and obedience (works). NOW it is salvation by grace through faith without works. (Eph. 2:8-9)

7. " How is that not "salvation" ?"
It's not OUR salvation. There is no mention of paying the penalty for sin. How is it OUR "salvation" WITHOUT that payment?

8. " How is that not God's gift of Grace ?"
Works were involved. According to Jesus and John and Peter and James and Jude....there must be works that accompany that belief. If not, then you don't posess adequate "faith" for salvation. In Hebrews we are told that the devils even just BELIEVE Jesus is who He says he is...but that is not enough. According to James, if you do not possess works with your faith, then your faith is dead. How can dead faith save anyone? According to John, if you sin AT ALL you are of the devil and you do not know Christ at all, and cannot be called one of His.
God's Gift of Grace is the fact that we can do NOTHING to MERIT salvation. ELSE it is NO LONGER Grace. Even Jesus, Himself had requirements other than just "believing." That is not grace unto salvation, and there is no way that it could ever be not when works are involved. The only way grace is grace is when there are NO WORKS WHATSOEVER involved.


Diogenes: "Since, I had just told you I arrived at my conversion (a new Christian) from the words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels, excluding Paul, I didn't know how to respond to that, so I didn't."

Please explain your position. You are telling me something that I do not believe to be possible. Therefore, if it has been "possible" for you somehow, please enlighten me. Your goal has been to do so, and to show me where I may need to do some research and perhaps look at it differently. Again, in order for me to do so, you must show me HOW a person can come to salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Jesus on the Cross in those four gospels- alone.

I have answered your questions. Now let's reverse them so that you can answer them for me.

What of those believers in the crowd ? HOW were they "saved" by their faith in Christ ?

What of the thief on the cross ? HOW was he saved?

What of John the Baptist ? HOW was he saved?

Jesus said, as recorded in all of the four of the gospels, that whosoever believed on him, will not perish, but will have ever lasting life.

How IS that "salvation" by grace through faith alone as we know it NOW ?

How IS that God's gift of Grace, knowing that works must accompany that belief when we take into consideration ALL of the instructions of Jesus ?

Now tell me HOW one might obtain salvation by grace through faith by reading the Gospels?
If this is possible, do you not believe that I should know how?
How could we possibly come to any conclusions if you are not willing to discuss the way that you've come to salvation?
 
Diogenes
Comments: 373
Joined: 01/31/2006
07/02/2008 02:06:12 PM
Grace,

On another point.

A while back you took a playful little stab at me over a statement I had made about religious tolerance, and said maybe you could ask Jbh001 to teach you some too.

The intent of the statement I had made to Jbh001, was that I had learned, through recent experience, that many find the way to truth by paths other than the one I chose, and it was not my place to say otherwise.

My previous conversation with you on the same topic as today's, was that "recent experience".

God can reach out and touch whomever He chooses, whether that one be a Mormon, a Pharisee walking down the road, or other poor pilgrims like me.

 
Diogenes
Comments: 373
Joined: 01/31/2006
07/02/2008 01:44:06 PM
Grace,

I have tried to reply to this before, but to me, it is as if you are deaf to my words on the subject.

I don't wish to prove you are "wrong" in anything. You have found the truth, so the path you followed to that truth is not something I would want to call "wrong".

It is a different path than mine though, and since my path also led to the same truth, I wish only to show that neither is the path I followed "wrong".

This became important again to me, when I read your recent comments about the book of John not being an appropriate place for a "new Christian" to learn about salvation.

I do not wish to anger you, but I also am not ashamed to speak what I believe, and I do so honestly, and openly.

So please try to understand that this comment;

"You and I have had this discussion before, and I was under the impression that you had finally somewhat agreed with me...but I see now that you either really did not at the time, or you have changed your mind."

Is, at least, uncomfortable, in it's implication that I was less than so.

That said, I choose not to assume an offence was intentional, and I will try to clarify where I do, and do not, agree with you.

I agree with what you have stated about salvation, grace, and faith. I agree with what you have stated about the insignificance of man's works.

I also agree with the concept of "rightly dividing" scripture, but I do not agree with your application of that concept, as concerns the four gospel accounts. I never intended that you should think I did, so I must not have been as clear as I thought, the last time we had this conversation.

I have not changed my mind about the things I know to be true. One of these things is, I know you are a true Christian, and so you prove to me that our differences did not impact our separate arrival at the same truth.

When we last had this conversation you made the same challenge for proof, but when I tried to explain the scriptures from the four Gospels that I think define salvation, you asserted these would not mean the same for a "new Christian, and suggested I must have somehow been influenced by Paul to have interpreted them as such.

Since, I had just told you I arrived at my conversion (a new Christian) from the words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels, excluding Paul, I didn't know how to respond to that, so I didn't.

A lack of response, is not a reliable indication of agreement.

Today, you parse out a couple of my comments, and again propose the same challenge. You ask for a proof, which I think I have supplied in the comments you didn't reply to. So, again, I am at a loss as to how to respond.

Why did you skip the very heart of my post in your reply ?

What of those believers in the crowd ?

Were they "saved" by their faith in Christ ?

What of the thief on the cross ?

What of John the Baptist ?

Jesus said, as recorded in all of the four of the gospels, that whosoever believed on him, will not perish, but will have ever lasting life.

How is that not "salvation" ?

How is that not God's gift of Grace ?
 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 746
Joined: 07/13/2007
07/02/2008 11:51:42 AM
Diogenes,
I'm afraid that you may have either gotten the wrong impression of what I believe is FOR us and what words are spoken TO us. Perhaps, before I tell you this again, you might remove any preconcieved notions on what value you believe that I place on any portion of the Bible....consider this:

I believe that the Bible, as a WHOLE, was written for us. I believe that it is the inspired word of God. EVERY bit of it. Just as the scripture that I referred to in 2 Timothy, I believe that I may profit from EACH and EVERY word. I have never said at ANY TIME that ANY part of the Bible is not beneficial to Christians. I do apologize that somehow, either I, or something else you have read, has caused you to believe otherwise.

Now. knowing this. I also understand that when Jesus told his followers how to pray (the Lord's prayer) He also told them that if they do not forgive their brother, then they will not be forgiven. He also said that if their righteousness did not exceed that of the Pharisees then they would never see the Kingdom. He told them that if their eye offends, gauge it out. If the arm offends, cut it off. He told the rich young ruler that he must keep the commandments in order to enter into the Kingdom. After that rich young ruler replied that he had kept them since his birth, Jesus said, "Sell all you have and follow me."
-These things were required for the followers of Jesus in order for them to enter into the Kingdom. It's easy to "spiritualize" all of this and try to say what we think Jesus meant. The problem is, apparently that rich young ruler didn't spiritualze the words of Jesus, he took them literally - else he would not have had a reason to walk away sorrowfully.

Diogenes: "I think it is a risky thing to think God walked among us, and spoke only to the Jewish"
Ask the gentleman, who, a few years back, right here in Chattanooga...believed so much that the words of Jesus during His mortal ministry were spoken directly to him, that the man, having an issue with lust - pulled over to the side of the road and gauged his own eye out. This is a true story. Now this man did exactly what Jesus said. He took His words literally, as they should be taken. Yet this man had one problem. He did not understand that the words that Jesus spoke were referring to the penalties they had in those days for breaking those Jewish laws. Had this man understood that, and realized that the penalty for his having a 'lustful eye" had already been paid, he would still have his eyesight in both eyes today.
In my opinion, the "risky" thing to do with Jesus' words is when we don't take them literally, and by doing so, we say that Jesus didn't really MEAN what He said. OR we take them literally, but don't understand to WHOM He was speaking when He said them.

Now, Jesus DID speak to Gentiles a couple of times. But, as I said, He came to HIS OWN first, which were the Jewish people. He told His own disciples when He sent them out during His mortal ministry on a mission, "Go NOT unto the way of the Gentiles, but go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Again, since the whole Bible is profitable to the Christian, I do not see where it matters WHEN any of the four gospels were written. It matters not who wrote them. They are simply accounts of the life of Jesus. And our salvation does not come from them. How can salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Jesus on the cross come through accounts of what Jesus said BEFORE He died? I have YET for anyone to show me the words of Jesus during His mortal ministry that will get a person saved by grace through faith in His death burial and resurrection.

You and I have had this discussion before, and I was under the impression that you had finally somewhat agreed with me...but I see now that you either really did not at the time, or you have changed your mind. With that, let me give you this task:

Since we are talking about Luke's Gospel, let's just use it. Pretend that I am a sinner, lost, without Jesus. You are witnessing to me. Take me to those scriptures in Luke that will get me saved. Show me how one would find their way with only the Gospel of Luke.

Understand this also, I do not take your words lightly, or autmatcially assume that you are wrong because you believe something different than I. But in order for me to change my mind, which is what I assume you wish by bringing this up, you must prove to me that I am wrong. So please do so, with the words of Luke...get me saved.
Then afterwards, go to Matthew, Mark, and John to do the same. OR you may use all of them combined. Makes no difference to me. However, the challenge is this. You may only give me scripture from these books. None from Paul. And you may not allude to the words of Paul to explain anything. I am very curious as to how one would "find their way" as you put it, simply by the words of Jesus contained in the 4 gospels, without using the words of Paul at all.
 
Diogenes
Comments: 373
Joined: 01/31/2006
07/01/2008 05:29:12 PM
Grace,

Luke addressed his gospel account to a Roman. A Gentile. He states his purpose in doing so in his elegant introduction. It was written ten to twenty years after Paul's death, or fifty to sixty after Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven. He was a Gentile, writing to a Gentile. The churches he ministered to were in majority Gentiles. He wrote in Greek, the language of the Gentiles.

He clearly was not writing either his gospel, or Acts, for the Jewish people, his writings were for all Christians, like us.

That is scripture, rightly divided.

The simple truth I see throughout the New Testament, including the four Gospels, the letters of Paul, and the other books as well, is actually touched upon by your statement.

"Jesus spoke to them concerning their own teachings and traditions."

Jesus corrected them on their teachings and traditions.

Jesus demonstrates God's grace and forgiveness in His teachings and actions throughout the testimonies of the four gospels.

It is a tricky thing to say "There were NO Christians in the crowd, whatsoever."

There were those in the crowd who believed Jesus was Messiah. There were those in the crowd who had seen with their own eyes the Holy Spirit upon Jesus, when John the Baptist recognized Him for who He is. There were those in the crowd who had heard Him state, in public, in bold, clear, language, exactly who He is. There were those in the crowd who witnessed the feeding of the multitude, turning the water into wine, the healing of the sick. There were those in the crowd who saw Jesus walk on the water, and calm the storm with a command. Many of these believed on Him, they followed Him, and many gave their lives for Him, but you are correct in that they were not then called "Christians".

Even so, because they believed on Jesus, accepted He was truly God among us, Messiah, the Savior, they gained everlasting life.

What of John the Baptist ? what of the thief on the cross, who led a miserable sinful life, but gained salvation by through his last minute faith?

This was all before Jesus died on the cross, and so before His resurrection, yet they gained life because of their faith.

It was before Paul's conversion, before he even began his walk on the road to Damascus, yet they gained life because of their faith.

A gift, by the Grace of God.

Jesus was "God among us", He was the gift, God's Grace, in the flesh.

The Truth. The Way. Jesus was then, and is now, fully God, the same God found in the Old Testament, or the New.

The four gospels are the demonstration of this.

Paul was not often called a "Christian" either. He considered himself an enlightened Jew, who had encountered the Messiah of his Jewish religion.

And Paul taught the same things Jesus demonstrated, not something different.

I think it is a risky thing to think God walked among us, and spoke only to the Jewish.

 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 746
Joined: 07/13/2007
07/01/2008 01:41:17 PM
Diogenes: "I have been a bit troubled lately over a response you recently made to someone else about the appropriateness of the book of John for a new Christian, and it brings back some points I have long wanted to discuss with you, but have been reluctant to do so because of your adamant belief that the Four Gospels were not written for us "Gentiles"."

Probably just another example of my inability to get my point across at times, or perhaps it is my tendancy to say TOO much....and get OFF of the point.

The last part of that statement is would be a totally extreme view, that I do not hold. However, it is not uncommon for others to derive it from statements I've made. I understand that I may make statements that the average traditional Christian may have never heard before. This would naturally lead to a rejection of that statement...and perhaps even an accusation of heresy or blasphemy. (not saying that's YOUR opinion, as you have stated otherwise....just making you aware that it is not an uncommon occurance with me.)

The fact is that I believe this scripture:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Tim. 3:16

however, I also believe that you cannot fully grasp that scripture until you understand how another one works that is given just a few verses before:
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, righly dividing the word of Truth." 2 Tim. 2:15

How can all scripture (which is the word of Truth) be profitable for anything if we do not understand what we are reading? Learning to "rightly divide" the scriptures does not mean that we learn to spiritualize every statement that we do not understand, it means that we understand where we fit in the equation. And I'm sorry, but I do not believe that we fit in every part of the Bible. There are parts in which we are CLEARLY not a part of.

That does not mean, however, that I cannot read the words of Jesus and understand that I should try to be more kind to people, or that I cannot find life lessons in some of His parables. But regardless of WHO wrote the books and when they were written, they were still involving a different people, at a different time.

We ALL need the accounts of Jesus's life, so that we can understand where we fit in the whole scheme of things. But the fact is, while Jesus was teaching the Law (because that was what He was doing...fulfilling it) I do not find anywhere that Jesus explains salvation that we know today...which is by grace through faith alone, other than in His instructions that came through the Apostle Paul.

We can say that when Jesus said to "believe on His name" that is what He was referring to, but only if we have read or are a bit familiar with the writings of Paul, can we come to that conclusion. If we had no knowledge of the truth of Paul's writings, we would only be assuming that we must believe that Jesus came to earth as God's Son to be the Messiah and rule over His Kingdom in Jerusalem. That is all that we would need to believe to be saved....and of course, we would need to know how to keep the law perfectly in order to reign with Him in that Kingdom. We would only be looking for a returning Messiah, we would know nothing of salvation by grace through faith, as Paul taught. We would not understand that there is now no difference between the Jew and the Greek (gentile). We would not understand that we do not obtain righteousness through good works rather than by our trust in Jesus, knowing that we have His righteousness and not our own. We would believe in Baptism for the remission of sins. We would believe that if we sin, at all, then we do not know Christ. We would understand that if we are guilty of breaking one of the Holy Laws, then we are guilty of breaking them all. We would not understand at all the humblness that MUST come with knowing that there is NO WAY that WE, in and of ourselves, could EVER come close to being holy and righteous enough to obtain salvation on our own. We would never know that without the writings of Paul. It is Paul's writings that takes the spotlight OFF of us, and puts it on Jesus and what His work on the cross did for us, and how we have obained new Life in the Body of Christ.

So please, understand this, my dear friend. I have already done quite alot of research on the four gospels. I understand that Luke, in particular, was not even a Jewish man. I also understand that He was Paul's companion until the very end of his life (as far as we can tell from what we have of Paul's last letters recorded.) Most likely because he was a physician, and Paul probably needed him for that reason if for no other.

In opening up my Bible to read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, I can immediately tell that Jesus was born a Jew, under Jewish law, for the Jewish people FIRST, and then the Gentile (the times hadn't changed that part yet) And the people to whom Jesus spoke were all Jewish, and being such, Jesus spoke to them concerning thier own teachings and traditions. There were NO Christians in the crowd, whatsoever. Therefore, I cannot assume that I should follow that law that Jesus taught to His Jewish followers is for me....not when #1...Jesus was in the process of fulfilling that very law. #2....Jesus DID fulfill that very law. #3....Jesus, through the apostle Paul, instructed that we are not under that law, because He fulfilled it for us.
Now, just because there is no more Jew nor Greek, does not mean that we, as Gentiles are to adopt that Jewish system of belief. It means just what it says: There is NOW no Jew nor Greek. We are all NOW at the same level. When Jesus walked the earth, we were not. Had GRACE not been given to the gentiles, the ground would not be level. It is not until Paul, that the way unto salvation by grace ALONE was given. I cannot find anywhere that salvation is by grace through faith alone anywhere other than Paul's writings. As I said before, we can take other scriptures, and assume that the writer was trying to say this, but that's only speculation. I do not like speculation where the Bible is concerned.

Now, let's go back and look at that scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16:
"ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is PROFITABLE....."

Now, we can stop at that word "profitable" and you should be able to understand my position in part. I can profit from ALL scripture, so can anyone, regardless of who it is written to. But how do I profit?

"...for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Now, were in that scripture am I told that all scripture is written for my SALVATION? It doesn't say that. You'll see in the verse above, that Paul is telling Timothy to hold fast to those scriptures that he has known since his early childhood (grandmother taught him the jewish scriptures...I'm sure you know this) and this is what has made him wise UNTO his salvation in Jesus Christ. For this reason, he understood who Jesus was, what he came to do, and the person of Jesus Christ was validated in the eyes of Timothy, as well as anyone else who believed with the knowledge of the Jewish scripture. Jesus was a Jewish prophecy fulfilled. And this GRACE given to the Gentiles was something that was ALSO prophesied by the prophets in the old testament.

-One question, concerning one of your statements....Where is Paul recorded to have said to "Love God with your whole heart?" Paul states the second of those two commandments, (love thy neighbor) however, I do not see him stating the first of the two.

Sorry to have troubled you. And I see no need to argue, though I have no problem explaining what I believe, and how we differ, I will not call you "wrong" if you disagree. If the Bible cannot show a person if and when they are wrong, then who am I to do so on my own? All I can do is point to the truths. How you percieve it is completely up to you. (or anyone who reads)
 
Diogenes
Comments: 373
Joined: 01/31/2006
07/01/2008 12:09:05 PM
Grace,

I have been a bit troubled lately over a response you recently made to someone else about the appropriateness of the book of John for a new Christian, and it brings back some points I have long wanted to discuss with you, but have been reluctant to do so because of your adamant belief that the Four Gospels were not written for us "Gentiles".

I am not concerned over your choice to believe this way, because you obviously have found sufficient truth in the writings of Paul, but I am just as sure that the whole New Testament was written for us Christians, with no difference made as to whether a Christian was a Jewish or Gentile believer.

So, the task before me is to find a way to talk about this without it becoming an argument about who is right.

Here is how I see it.

Much of Paul's work was focused on a reconciliation between the Jewish, and Gentile "brothers". His last efforts were in the delivery of a large sum of money to the Jewish believers in Jerusalem. This money was collected from offerings made by the believers among the churches he ministered to in the Diaspora. These "brothers" were a combined group composed of Jewish "brothers" (like him), and a majority of "Gentile" brothers. The purpose behind the tremendous efforts he made in this project was an attempt to unify the separate factions of Jewish and Non-Jewish brothers, for he saw them both as brothers in Christ.

I've said before that many have found their way to the Lord with nothing more than Paul, many also have found the same path through the other gospels, and even many through the deliberate exclusion of Paul.

You have noted many times, there are differences between the mortal ministry of Jesus, as recorded in the gospels, and the writings of Paul. Jesus was teaching first person, and Paul's writings were mostly corrective efforts instructing those gatherings on the teachings of Jesus.

There are a lot of mistaken ideas about the four gospels. Most people have wrong ideas about who wrote them, when they were written, and even why they were written. The letters of Paul are likely the oldest surviving account of Jesus, and the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written decades later, but in my humble opinion, they all have the same roots, the same message, and the same goal.

Jesus, and Paul, both taught the same simple truths. Love God with your whole heart, and Love your neighbor as yourself. These two "commandments" satisfy all the others.

John taught God is Love, God is Righteous, and God is Light. Paul did also.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, all taught that Jesus is the only way to salvation, as did Paul.

Man, with his various religions, has largely obscured, complicated, and hidden, these simple truths.

It is through man's fallen nature, we get a "religion" driven by guilt, fear, and punishment. A religion based on external observances, behaviors, and works.

A religion which often obscures the very essence of our Creator. The Love, Joy, and Grace of the true God.

A religion that can overshadow the truth Jesus brought us.

The guilt, fear, and punishment, are from the collective mind of fallen man, who rightly feels guilt, and fear, and constantly dwells on the punishment his nature calls for.

Justification by external observance of the laws, ended on Calvary.

Our justification is through our faith in Jesus Christ. This is God's grace. It is to be found in any of the four Gospels as well as the writings of Paul.

Before responding again that the four gospels were not written for us, please do some research. Take the book of Luke for an example. Pay careful attention to who it is addressed to, find out when it was written and why. Find out who Luke was, and who his teacher was.

Luke is a good place to start, since we have two major works of his.
 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 746
Joined: 07/13/2007
07/01/2008 10:24:36 AM
Maggie,
Ditto on the metabolism issue! I have just never lost what I gained from carrying the baby...er...uh, I mean 6 year old. LOL.

Seems I've been procrastinating for a few years about getting rid of that "baby fat."

I don't really have a problem cutting down or abstaining from certain foods for any diet. I think my problem is more of not getting enough excercise (telling myself that doing housework is staying active. haha!) and from not eating when I should. I have a tendancy to not want to eat all day, then get hungry in the evenings, which is the opposite of what I should be doing.

I need all the prayer and encouragement I can get! lol.
 
maggie
Comments: 1273
Joined: 01/08/2006
06/30/2008 05:18:31 PM
I have good intentions of working at it, but I sure like to eat and I just can't get it into my mind that my metabolism isn't what it was when I was in my 20's!!!!!! I always could eat whatever I wanted and never gained, not even when I had my babies, other than the normal amount that I quickly lost. So frustrating now to not be able to do the same. Also amazing how it just creeps up on you, but it sure is hard to get rid of!!!! We shall have to pray for and encourage each other in our endeavor to lose weight.
 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 746
Joined: 07/13/2007
06/30/2008 04:23:47 PM
lol. maggie!

10 sounds wonderful. lol.
one step at a time.....I'm working on it, but not nearly as hard as I should be. :/
 
maggie
Comments: 1273
Joined: 01/08/2006
06/30/2008 03:26:36 PM
Hi Grace, Diogenes, Familymom, Diogenes, loved the joke and so very true!!! You know, Grace, you said it well, so many people don't see there own sins, for looking at others. People also tend to, and I have been quilty of this one, rate sins as not so bad and really horrible, but in God's eyes, sin is sin. That was hard for me when I was younger, still is sometimes, because how can a lie be as bad as murder, but it is. I also used to have a hard time understanding how someone who had committed what I thought was a horribe sin, such as murder, could come to know Jesus as his/her savior and go to heaven. In my young mind, that just didn't seem fair, when I lived what I considered a basically sin-free life, yet that person was horrible and still went to heaven. As I matured in my faith though, I realized that my sins are just as bad and I am going to heaven, because I am forgiven, not because I haven't committed a "big sin".

Works don't gain us salvation, but salvation should lead to works. In other words, because we are saved, we should joyfully do the Lord's work here on earth until His return. I also think some people think they have to do something huge in this area as well, but you know, just showing someone kindness is doing God's work. You don't have to become a missionary to some obscure 3rd world country to share the word. There is plenty to do right here in our own back yards.


Grace, I would be happy to get back down to a size 10 or 12!!!!!!!!!
 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 746
Joined: 07/13/2007
06/30/2008 02:45:05 PM
lol, Diogenes!

but if a pentecostal goes by himself, he'd bring his own. haha. the Word of Faith believer would "faith" the beer into a soda... and, what does it matter anyway? They can just all refer to 1 John 1:9 and it's then as if none of it ever happened!

(just to be clear....I'm being terribly sarcastic here. I don't believe in applying 1 Jn. 1:9 as to say that God needs our asking in order to provide us with forgiveness. It's already given whether we ask or not.)
 
familymom
Comments: 157
Joined: 11/29/2007
06/30/2008 02:16:55 PM
That's funny! thanks for the laugh today...I needed it:-)
 
Diogenes
Comments: 373
Joined: 01/31/2006
06/30/2008 01:44:25 PM
Grace,

Reminded me of a joke.

If you just take one Baptist fishing with you, he'll drink all the beer, but if you take two or more, they won't drink any.
 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 746
Joined: 07/13/2007
06/30/2008 11:59:41 AM
Very well put, Diogones.

I also think that many people do not realize exactly what SIN consists of. If we REALLY considered just how sinful we are, then it would not be nearly as easy to judge the actions of others while trying to justify our own.

For example: It's easy to gawk at the person sitting at the bar in O'Charleys having a drink, from our secluded booth off to the side, while we pay no attention to our own gluttonous eating habits. For some reason, that sin has become "acceptable." But the drinking -which I do not believe is sinful unless done in excess to cause drunkenness - is always the "sure sign" for those who judge to assume that the one having a drink could definately not be a Christian. Then that same judgmental person goes to their table, sits down, and eats until they can barely move.

 
Diogenes
Comments: 373
Joined: 01/31/2006
06/30/2008 11:34:05 AM
Grace and Maggie,

It seems we all have a similar view of Salvation. It is always a challenge when speaking to someone who believes in a works based salvation. When I say good works have nothing to do with salvation, that does not mean I think it is okay to continue sinful living.

I will never be without sin in this life, but I do strive to live righteously, I do consciously try to do "good works", but I don't see any of my actions as being a requirement of salvation.

I think a lot of the issue is due to confusion between "Justification" and "Sanctification".

I think our "works", good or bad, are not nearly as significant as most believe them to be.


 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 746
Joined: 07/13/2007
06/30/2008 10:51:28 AM
Maggie,
whew! I'm glad. I hope that I am always clear, but for you to say that, perhaps I havn't been very clear in the past. I'll take that into consideration from now on.

Regarding the size 8 comment: ROFLOL! Me too, but I hope I make it back there before I enter the pearly gates as well! LOL.
 
maggie
Comments: 1273
Joined: 01/08/2006
06/27/2008 03:47:14 PM
Grace, I think you explained your beliefs better today, then you have before. You were, I am sure always saying the same thing, just it is more clear today. I think what so many people get wrong, is they think acting righteous equals being a Christian. So wrong, scripture tells none of us are righteous. I think non-Christians think Christians are perfect and never make mistakes or do anything wrong, again WRONG. As you say and as it is, we are saved by grace, not by anything we do. I think so many have the misconception that once you ask Jesus to be your savior, that automatically you become this person who gives up doing anything wrong ever again. Well, that is also wrong. We all mature differently as people and the same is true as a Christian. New Christians, just as you did, often beat themselves up, because they still do things, which others may perceive as wrong, for instance having a drink with dinner. I don't see anything wrong with that, but others might, but you know what, I am not accountable to other humans, just to my heavenly father. Scripture even tells us and I don't have time right now to find it, but Paul tells us that he wants to do what is right, but still does what is wrong. We are human and no amount of goodness will save us, that is why Christ died for us. Scripture also tells us that even thinking about an action is also a sin and while I have never murdered anyone, I sure have thought about some people that I would like too, so I have sinned in that capacity, but my sin is forgiven. I have believed in God for as long as I can remember and gave my life to him at 17. I didn't have a dramatic conversion and sometimes in my walk, I wondered if I was really a Christian, because I didn't have this drastic change in my life. I have read amazing stories of people who were so immersed in sin and then were saved and changed in huge ways, so I guess I felt kind of cheated. But, my walk has, I guess been more of a quiet and steady pace and as I have matured as an adult, so has my faith. Am I perfect, no. Do I still sin, yes, I do and I guess as long as there is breath in my body, I will. We are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God, but someday when we are in heaven, we will be perfect and sin free. I also hope I will once again be a size 8!!!!!!!!!
 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 746
Joined: 07/13/2007
06/27/2008 12:37:41 PM
Rome: "everyone scolded me saying that a "true" Christian would LIVE like a Christian........................your post seems to disagree with that........."

not to keep rambling....but I've yet to have anyone tell me just HOW a "true" Christian is supposed to live. What does that look like? And how do you know that their actions are not lying to you? Unsaved people are PLENTY capable of "living" just as good as a "true" Christian. So WHO has set te standard for what a true Christian is "supposed" to look like?

And PLEASE- do not answer that question with "Jesus." He came to do what we cannot, so we aren't supposed to be going around here saying "What would Jesus Do?" We can't do what Jesus did, and to say that we can cheapens His diety. Besides, Jesus was Jewish, born under the law of Moses. All who believe that we are now under that law should read Acts 15.

The reason so many people "give up on God" is because those 'true" christians that jumped on you for your statement, also try to put a yoke of bondage on that new christian that was never intended for any of us to bear - who are saved by grace.

If you know a little about the Mosaic law, and traditionalism, usually, you can find out rather quickly, if these who are passing judgement on the soul according to actions, or lack thereof, are even "saved" by using their own standards. They cannot live up to what they preach. There IS a reason for that.
 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 746
Joined: 07/13/2007
06/27/2008 12:03:46 PM
rome,
though I don't quite remember that and don't know if I was around...I hope I wasn't one of the ones that jumped on you for saying that!

I have believed this way for quite some time, and MANY disagree with me. There are some on this board who already have.

If I've ever said otherwise to you, then I apologize. It must have been when I was deluded by false teaching. lol.

That being said, for me, it's more than just an innoculation against hell. But I can't say that it would affect everyone the same as me. I do believe that I CAN do whatever I want, and still go to Heaven. Ironically, since I know that, I have never murdered, hated, stolen, etc. as most people assume that a person who believes that way I do would.

Used to, I'd beat myself up if I did ANYTHING that is looked down on by traditional christianity. I would have long periods of time in my life (before I was married and had kids, of course) that I would decide, well I must not be a christian, or maybe God doesn't love me right now, just because I decided to go out with friends and have a few drinks. I used to smoke. I thought I had to ask for forgiveness everytime I lit up, else I wouldn't make it to heaven if I died. When I told a lie, and I did, I would feel so guilty about it because I thought that God was angry at me. Nevermind about the person I lied to. Nevermind about what I was actually doing to myself. I was only guilty because I thought God would turn his back on me and I'd go to hell. Yet I could not resist being "bad" from time to time. I was miserable.

Then I learned something. The words in my Bible were true. When it says in Ephesisans that salvaion is "BY grace THRU faith, NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast." That's EXACTLY what it means. When it says that we already HAVE forgiveness, that is what it means. When it says that the righteousness of CHRIST is imputed in all that TRUST in His sacrifice for the payment of ALL sin, that's what it means.

God isn't sitting up there making a checklist of all my sin. My fleshly body is full of sin. But my spirit does not sin, because I have the spirit of Christ, the one WITHOUT sin. When God looks at me, He sees his Son, NOT me. Not my failures. Not my faults. He only sees Jesus. He's not holding my sins against me anymore.

So sure, I can do whatever I want. The amazing thing is, mostly, all I want to do is to try to live a good moral life, and to try to be a good example- without judging others who may ALSO be trying to do the same....some, perhaps, without much success. But now, what I want to do the MOST, is not go have a few drinks, smoke, lie, cheat, steal...etc. What I want to do the MOST, is tell others what I know, what I have learned. -so that they may be set free from traditionalism and condemnation as well.

Now, many will disagree, as they have before. But I will not waiver from what I know to be the truth. In order for me to go back, I would then have to quit believing my Bible. I see no reason to do that, especially NOW since I finally really understand it. If people would quit trying to spiritualize every portion of the Bible that does not make sense to them, then we wouldn't have these WORKS SALVATION doctrines going around.
That is what you would have encountered with your statement. People who would believe that your works are essential to your salvation. This is a false doctrine for today- and it's also one that I once believed. So, again, if I was deluded by that and said anything contrary to this post to you, I do apologize. We have GRACE...the definition of that is UNmerited favor. If we are doing things to try to deserve it, or trying NOT do do things that would make us undeserving, then it would be MERITED favor. That's the opposite of grace. In Romans, we find that if you mix works with grace, then it is no longer grace. So, if you mix works as a part or all of your salvation, then you don't HAVE salvation...because salvation comes by GRACE thru faith. How could what we do or do not do EVER come into that equation and the Bible STILL be true? It cannot...and if we believe otherwise, then we simply DON'T believe the Bible. Period.

So, I agree with your statement about innoculation, if you remove the "nothing more" because it has become MORE to me, and I would hope that it would become more to others who recieve salvation ss well. -but I cannot guarantee that.

If you do posess salvation, I do hope that it is "more" to you than that.
If it is not, I would not, however, be convinced that you lack salvation, especially if your spoken testimony shows that you posess it.

Hope that makes sense.
 
romegasir
Comments: 1605
Joined: 03/14/2007
06/27/2008 11:26:53 AM
grace, then we probably agree.............................however, that goes with a statement I made months ago, and got jumped on about, that Christianity allows people to "become" Christians, then do ANYTHING they want, and still go to heaven............it's like an innoculation against hell and nothing more.....................everyone scolded me saying that a "true" Christian would LIVE like a Christian........................your post seems to disagree with that.........
 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 746
Joined: 07/13/2007
06/27/2008 11:16:12 AM
rome,

It's like my 17 year old immediately looked at me and said as soon as we both heard the news report: "If you believe in a god, doesn't that mean you'd no longer be an athiest?"

It's like saying "3 out of 4 Christians are antichrists."

I guess where the "irony" comes in for me is that I believe that Christians know each other by the words of their testimonies, not the way they live. So, from my standpoint, you'd think the same for an athiest. How does an athiest "behave" like an athiest? Truth is, he may (and I'm sure many do) behave BETTER than the person who is a Christian. What I believe, according to the Bible, is not that you would be able to "tell" by looking if someone is a Christian, however, you would know that they are by the words that come out of their mouth. Those words being an explanation of WHY they know they are saved. If they explain it CORRECTLY according to the Bible, then they will go to Heaven when they die. If they get it wrong, start using some man-made terms about how they "asked Jesus in their heart" and "MADE Him Lord of their life" then chances are, they ain't got it. It's all about what you believe or don't believe, not about what you DO.

That being said, again I ask, how does an athiest behave? What is it they DO that makes you look at them and say "That guy's an athiest?" Likewise, what is it that makes you look at a Christian's behavior and say, "That's a Christian?"

Actions may "speak louder than words" but those actions may not always be speaking the truth.
 
romegasir
Comments: 1605
Joined: 03/14/2007
06/27/2008 10:15:39 AM
and a lot of Christians "change their mind" when confronted with an opportunity for pleasures of the flesh.............................that means nothing that someone who claims to be atheist or christian act different at some times in their lives..........

The atheist being shot at might have felt "heck, I might as well pray JUST IN CASE", but I don't thinkt that's what Christians would call faith
 
Diogenes
Comments: 373
Joined: 01/31/2006
06/27/2008 09:46:57 AM
That is a hoot, could just be a new denomination, for the 21st Century. Their god is probably electronic.

My uncle, who fought in WWII and Korea, said many Athiests changed their mind, and started praying, when being shot at.

Might be a little hard to work that method into mission work though.

 
BigShiggy
Comments: 386
Joined: 01/19/2006
06/26/2008 07:23:09 PM
Or that supose maybe a supervisor thought it was ok to air that there was a power higher than their authority.....uh oh, maybe that cost them their
job.....
 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 746
Joined: 07/13/2007
06/26/2008 05:11:27 PM
Wanted to post a new "poll result" that I heard on the evening news last night.

Did you know that 1 in 5 Athiests believe that there is a god, or higher power?

What a hoot! I can't believe someone actually reported that....seriously...on the air!
 
Diogenes
Comments: 373
Joined: 01/31/2006
06/26/2008 12:09:34 PM
Grace,

It is often very difficult for an outsider to understand what they really believe or teach about salvation.

A lot of the below is just my opinion, or speculation, but so far it is the best understanding I have of this.

I do know that by even suggesting they don't believe in salvation by grace alone, you may hurt a Mormon's feelings. If you ask, they will almost all tell you they do.

Out of the LDS quad, If you read only what the Book Of Mormon says about salvation, you will find something that seems close, on the surface, to the Methodist doctrines.

That is if you ONLY read the BOM.

Joseph Smith actually joined the Methodist church once, which may have influenced this, but his version seems to confuse doctrines pertaining to Justification, Salvation, and Santification.

I think the confusion about this is largely due to a difference in our definition of terms. For example, they may earnestly, and honestly, state they believe in "salvation through grace alone", and not understand how we think they don't.

After all, it is what is clearly stated in both the BOM and in the Joseph Smith "inspired" version of the bible. Smith even added the word "alone", in his version.

This may be a bit difficult for some of us to reconcile with other LDS teachings about the importance of works, but it I think I can understand how they can reconcile it, even if I don't agree with them.



I think it is because they may see "salvation" as an entirely separate issue from their beliefs about "exaltation". It is a fine line of distinction, but a simplification may be that "Salvation" is by Grace through Faith, but "Exaltation" requires work.

It seems they believe that "Salvation" by Grace, through faith, merely means one will spend eternity in a certain level of "Heaven". "Exaltation", which is earned through works, determines which "Kingdom", and level, or station, the person earns for eternity.

In the LDS view of the afterlife, one will become either a servant, a master of the household, or even a god of a different world, all depending upon how valiant one was in their works of righteousness during their Earthly level of existence.

Now all this will get very confusing if one does any deep study of the topic, by reading any of the other LDS materials.

Particularly confusing if one studies what the LDS "Prohpets" have said.

Joseph F. Smith wrote - "There will not be such an overwhelming number of the Latter-day Saints who will get there. President Francis M. Lyman many times has declared, and he had reason to declare, I believe, that if we save one-half of the Latter-day Saints, that is, with an exaltation in the celestial kingdom of God, we will be doing well. Not that the Lord is partial, not that he will draw the line as some will say, to keep people out. He would have every one of us go in if we would; but there are laws and ordinances that we must keep; if we do not observe the law we cannot enter" (Doctrines of Salvation 2:15).

There is a loophole.

Joseph Smith Jr. wrote - "Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God." (Doctrine and Covenants 137:7).

So, wonder which one was right ?
 
bygracethrufaith
Comments: 746
Joined: 07/13/2007
06/25/2008 12:32:05 PM
Diogenes,
Perhaps they believed that they agreed to some things, however, the topic of water baptism came up...they definately do not believe the same true of that work as we do, and admitted such at first. But they flipped over to our side by the end of that conversation. We believe that there is no need for it, they believe that it is essential. However, they were nodding in agreement to everything that we said. I knew they didn't agree. I would rather someone just say, "NO, I disagree."than to just sit and nod for the sake of being in agreement. I would rather people be REAL about what they believe. That is why many times I come to this forum to discuss things with others. People tend to just sit and nod to your face, for fear that an arguement may arise out of disagreement. Here, anonymously, people will tell you what they really think for the most part, because they have no fear of disagreeing with a person that they cannot see.
No, I don't think they agreed at all. We didn't get anywhere into thier deep rooted doctrine, we only spoke of salvation being by grace through faith alone, without any works whatsoever. The basics... and I know that we disagree on that.
It i