Jesus On Faith And Works

[Theophilus]

Catholic Guy,

See my reply to "Why Me".

Everyone, this thread is not about Roman Catholicism.

If you want to discuss Roman Catholicism, please start your own thread.

Thank you.

Theophilus

[revelation]

Theophilus- I replied to your post above. I think we posted at the same time so could you go back and read it?

Cougarfan:

I don't buy it. If the Lord tells me to obey the commandments, I believe the He expects me to obey. I take Him at his word.

Of course God wants you to obey him, you misunderstand Theophilus.

What theophilus is trying to explain is that obedience comes AFTER coming into the family of God, not before.

Let me see if I can simplify:

Do you have children of your own? If so, do you put them out of your house and have them live somewhere else and tell them they can't live with you until they first obey you? No, right?

So then you agree that firstly your children live with you, in your home and then you raise them up in unconditional love and as a result of that love, they are obedient to you because they love you.

So too here. God gives us the celestial kingdom, we have that gaurentee now apart from our obedience. We know and gather from this that God loves us unconditionally and in turn, we love him back because we are safe and sound in a secure relationship that includes knowing we already have the celestial kingdom.

[Catholic Guy]

Catholic Guy,

See my reply to "Why Me".

Everyone, this thread is not about Roman Catholicism.

If you want to discuss Roman Catholicism, please start your own thread.

Thank you.

Theophilus

Theophilus,

I never claimed the thread was about Roman Catholicism, I was adding to why me's response to your statement!

Peter was never in charge of the church.

Christ has always been.

Catholic Guy

[Theophilus]

So we learn two things:

1) No one will be justified by the Law;

2) The purpose of the Law was to teach us of sin.

I don't buy it. If the Lord tells me to obey the commandments, I believe the He expects me to obey. I take Him at his word.

You don't buy Rom. 3:19-20?

That is unfortunate.

After all, that was what I was basing my comments on (and I'm pretty sure I cited it originally).

And of course, I said absolutely nothing about not "obeying", so where you get that from, I have no idea.

Theophilus

[BCSpace]

You don't buy Rom. 3:19-20?

That is unfortunate.

Fortunately, LDS buy any Bible verse you care to quote.

After all, that was what I was basing my comments on (and I'm pretty sure I cited it originally).

Yet you still don't seem to understand that this is speaking of the law of Moses, not just any law.

[revelation]

Theophilus

I replied to your earlier post. You can find my reply at 12:25 PM > we posted at the same time and my post got in just before yours so you may have missed it.

Fortunately, LDS buy any Bible verse you care to quote.

Yet you still don't seem to understand that this is speaking of the law of Moses, not just any law.

The law of moses includes the 10 commandments. Would it be possible for you to clarify what you mean?

[Theophilus]

Theophilus

I replied to your earlier post. You can find my reply at 12:25 PM > we posted at the same time and my post got in just before yours so you may have missed it.

The law of moses includes the 10 commandments. Would it be possible for you to clarify what you mean?

Revelation,

I already read your reply. There is no need to remind me of posts (which is why I don't like the "bump" tradition, which implies people are incapable of finding threads they want to respond to).

I have found that in discussion groups in general, and this one in particular, people are more interested in arguing their viewpoint, than they are studying an issue, or learning about the beliefs of others. I have no wish to "argue" viewpoints. I find that when one is on a discussion group, one usually does not tend to fully "listen" for understanding, but simply already starts getting counter-arguments ready in their mind. If one reads (or listens to) a one-way resource, they availability of "argument" is taken away, since it's not a dialog situation, and so (hopefully) the reader is more open to listening and understanding.

If you would like to learn about Reformed theology, there are many good sources you can find. I recommend monergism.com as an excellent resource, as well as the works of John Calvin, Martin Luther, Charles Spurgeon, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, and James White.

I hope that helps.

Theophilus

[Zeta-Flux]

Revelation,

I already read your reply. There is no need to remind me of posts (which is why I don't like the "bump" tradition, which implies people are incapable of finding threads they want to respond to).

I have found that in discussion groups in general, and this one in particular, people are more interested in arguing their viewpoint, than they are studying an issue, or learning about the beliefs of others. I have no wish to "argue" viewpoints. I find that when one is on a discussion group, one usually does not tend to fully "listen" for understanding, but simply already starts getting counter-arguments ready in their mind. If one reads (or listens to) a one-way resource, they availability of "argument" is taken away, since it's not a dialog situation, and so (hopefully) the reader is more open to listening and understanding.

If you would like to learn about Reformed theology, there are many good sources you can find. I recommend monergism.com as an excellent resource, as well as the works of John Calvin, Martin Luther, Charles Spurgeon, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, and James White.

I hope that helps.

Theophilus

Dear Theophilus,

There are a whole bunch of threads where I've tried to engage you to both learn about your belief system, discuss the scriptures, and teach you about what I believe. In a few, you taught me a thing or two. For example, on one you convinced me that a particular reading of the Bible was inconsistent with the verb tense. But lately they have all ended with me asking you about how you read certain scriptures, or how you fit what the scriptures are saying with your beliefs, and you cease participating, This new stance of starting a discussion, asking for responses to scriptures, and then refusing to dialogue, seems a little weird. Just a few days ago you were claiming that LDS were not willing to engage you on the scriptures, and that their actions spoke louder than their words, and that this signified our lack of belief in the Bible. But now that I tried doing so, and asked you questions about how your beliefs square with them, you are deciding not to respond because you feel some of us are being confrontational. What do you want from us? If we don't respond, you accredit us with unbelief in the scriptures. If we do respond, we are just looking for arguments.

I just can't understand how you can look at a post asking you questions about your beliefs and view it as confrontational. Please explain this to me, and what you expect from posters.

[revelation]

Revelation,

I already read your reply. There is no need to remind me of posts (which is why I don't like the "bump" tradition, which implies people are incapable of finding threads they want to respond to).

I have found that in discussion groups in general, and this one in particular, people are more interested in arguing their viewpoint, than they are studying an issue, or learning about the beliefs of others. I have no wish to "argue" viewpoints. I find that when one is on a discussion group, one usually does not tend to fully "listen" for understanding, but simply already starts getting counter-arguments ready in their mind. If one reads (or listens to) a one-way resource, they availability of "argument" is taken away, since it's not a dialog situation, and so (hopefully) the reader is more open to listening and understanding.

If you would like to learn about Reformed theology, there are many good sources you can find. I recommend monergism.com as an excellent resource, as well as the works of John Calvin, Martin Luther, Charles Spurgeon, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, and James White.

I hope that helps.

Theophilus

Martin Luther would never agree with the reformed theology.

[Theophilus]

Martin Luther would never agree with the reformed theology.

Again, I suggest you read Bondage of the Will (written by Martin Luther).

Then you will understand why your assertion above is in error.

Theophilus

[revelation]

Revelation,

I already read your reply. There is no need to remind me of posts (which is why I don't like the "bump" tradition, which implies people are incapable of finding threads they want to respond to).

I have found that in discussion groups in general, and this one in particular, people are more interested in arguing their viewpoint, than they are studying an issue, or learning about the beliefs of others. I have no wish to "argue" viewpoints. I find that when one is on a discussion group, one usually does not tend to fully "listen" for understanding, but simply already starts getting counter-arguments ready in their mind. If one reads (or listens to) a one-way resource, they availability of "argument" is taken away, since it's not a dialog situation, and so (hopefully) the reader is more open to listening and understanding.

If you would like to learn about Reformed theology, there are many good sources you can find. I recommend monergism.com as an excellent resource, as well as the works of John Calvin, Martin Luther, Charles Spurgeon, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, and James White.

I hope that helps.

Theophilus

Sorry for the reminder of my post that I gave you, please except my sincere apologies..., I never intended at all to impy that you are incapable in any way. I was thinking of myself. If someone posted at the same time as me and my post was in last, I would never go back because when I check posts I go from my last post and read forward.

[revelation]

Again, I suggest you read Bondage of the Will (written by Martin Luther).

Then you will understand why your assertion above is in error.

Theophilus

Thanks for the reccomends, I will ask my Pastor if he has a copy, I am sure he does. Like I said earlier, I am eager to learn and understand everyone's viewpoints. I desire to be in the truth more than anything.

It's the only safe place to be!

In the meantime, by the title, I would think that the book would be about the depravity of man, which I agree with.

I would think that the book would be about man being unable to choose God, which I agree with, I would think the book was about not having free will, which I agree with. Is this basically what the book is about?

[why me]

If you are a Protestant, Revelation, have you read Luther's "Bondage of the Will"?

(Actually, with all due respect, I would not call you a "Protestant", but a "non-Catholic", since your beliefs don't seem to be based on Reformation principles.)

Theophilus

It is here that catholicism came up and allowed me to respond. However, my other reason for responding is the Reformation itself. From the words of the Protestant converts to the Catholic faith were their conclusion that the reformation was man based and had nothing to do with biblical texts. And upon further investigation, discovering truth in the catholic faith...and not finding suitable answers to their questions from protestant scholars, in many respects who were their former colleagues, they converted to catholicism.

In the words of Paul Thigpen, a former penecostal: 'At the same time, I saw how Rome has remained the spiritual center of gravity for the churches that have separated from her. However much they try to distance themselves, they keep finding their way back: When the arid,rigid predestinationism of Calvin grew at last intolerable, they turned to Wesley for a more human----and more catholic---view. In the Holiness movement they recaptured something of the catholic traditions of asceticism and works of mercy; in the Penecostal movement they recovered a sense of sacramental and mystery.'

And as Chesterton pointed out, protestants no longer have a confessional and yet, our societies rapidly accept the psychologists' couch without the security of the confessional. And as Thigpen stated simply: 'As even the oldest denominations (in protestantism) have succumbed to the spirit of the age on one critical issue after another, the Catholic Church has remained firm----the sanctity of life, on the nature of sexuality, on the supernatural foundations of faith, on the essence of God and the identity of Christ.'

And so if the Reformation had no foundation, then various Protestant sects also lack foundation. Hence, they are adrift. Hence, they move with the current. And I might add that in the Luthern country in which I live the impulse of the church is: just believe in Christ and all will be well regardless of how you live your life...just don't stop believing and you will be saved.

Sorry, but I cannot accept such doctrine of the new worldly Reformation which some protestant sects are now a part of.

[why me]

why me,

I will add to your scriptural proof with these 50:

Matthew 16:18: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

The "rock" (Greek, "petra") referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who "builds." The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men (see, for example, 1 Pt 2:5). Today, the overwhelming consensus of the great majority of all biblical scholars and commentators is in favor of the traditional Catholic understanding. Here St. Peter is spoken of as the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family of God - that is, the seed of the doctrine of the papacy. Moreover, "Rock" embodies a metaphor applied to him by Christ in a sense analogous to the suffering and despised Messiah (see 1 Pt 2:4-8; Mt 21:42). Without a solid foundation a house falls. St. Peter is the foundation, but not founder of the Church; administrator, but not Lord of the Church. The Good Shepherd (Jn 10:11) gives us other shepherds as well (Eph 4:11).

Matthew 16:19: "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

Why me wrote:

I think that in any discussion about Protestantism, the Catholic Church needs to play apart. For after all, all major protestant sects have their roots in Catholicism even if they did break away. I have discovered that in a debate with a catholic theologician, the protestant theologican usually comes off on the losing end and with your lengthly response you have proved my point. Thank you for your contribution.

[revelation]

Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who "builds." The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men

The church is built on Christ and not on living men:

1 Corinthians 3 :11 "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ"

"Peter" is "petros" and "rock" is "petra"

The rock is Peter's confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Verse 16 "...you are the Christ, the son of the living God"

The greek "petros" is basically a "pebble" and the greek word "petra" a "solid rock"

Here St. Peter is spoken of as the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family of God - that is, the seed of the doctrine of the papacy.

It is not Peter who is the foundation of the church. The church for which Jesus speaks is not visible to the eye. The true church is found in the hearts of those who believe Jesus is the Messiah. The Catholic church resisted the teaching of salvation by faith alone but the true church still existed in the hearts of those who believed in Salvation by faith alone. Thus, the gates of Hell never overcame it. And thus, the reason for the reformation: the true church, in the hearts of true believers came to restore visibly what was lost visibly in the Catholic Church.

Jesus is the foundation of the church and anyone who puts himself in the position as the foundation of the church has put himself in place of God. The defintion of "anti" in the word antichrist is: "in place of"

Without a solid foundation a house falls. St. Peter is the foundation

You are right that without a foundation the house falls. The Catholic Church has its foundation in the Papacy (a pebble) and the Lutheran Church has its foundation in Christ.(a solid rock) Which one do you think is more solid?

[Son]

If the righteous scarcely are saved what is to become of the ungodly and sinners

[why me]

The Catholic Church has its foundation in the Papacy (a pebble) and the Lutheran Church has its foundation in Christ.(a solid rock) Which one do you think is more solid?

As I have said on a different thread, the luthern church is the state church in the country that I live in. And I can assure you that it is not having its foundation in christ. The basic philosophy is: How a person lives life does not matter as long as you believe in Christ, a person is saved.

Sorry I cannot buy into that philosophy. The catholic church in my country is doing wonders to bring Luthern young adults a more structured god-like life with the Eucharist as an example and God's word as a guide. The Luthern Church swims with the current in my country. No structure is offered.

[revelation]

As I have said on a different thread, the luthern church is the state church in the country that I live in. And I can assure you that it is not having its foundation in christ. The basic philosophy is: How a person lives life does not matter as long as you believe in Christ, a person is saved

Where there is truth being taught, there also is Satan trying to hide that truth. Yes?

While it is quite possible that the Lutheran Church you speak of is a false church. If it is state run, that wouldn't surprise me. I can't say for sure, I would have to study thier teachings. I myself attend a Lutheran Church, and how you live your life, once you are saved is of utmost importance! While I don't believe that I am saved by my works, now that I am saved, I cannot help but do good works! I have a new heart and a new man in me! It is impossible for me not to do good works because of the profound love I have for God in saving me and loving me unconditionally.

On the other hand, perhaps you just ran into a few hypocrytical Lutheran Christians who possibly aren't really saved yet, despite correct teaching in the church where you live or perhaps they are saved but need to grow in their knowledge. Or, perhaps you misunderstand what they mean when they say it doesn't matter how a person lives his life. Perhaps they simply mean this: "how we live our life has nothing to do with our salvation" which would be correct because we don't obey to gain salvation. We obey because of the Salvation already given to us. Perhaps next time they say that to you, ask them if that means they can just go on sinning now that they are saved . And see what they then say. If they say yes, then they are wrong. If they say no, then listen and see what they are trying to tell you.

I myself believe there are apostate Lutheran Churchs. One church I attended when I was young now believes that God approves of Gay relationships. I believe this is in contradiction to the Bible.

I also believe there are lutheran Church bodies that disagree on some areas of doctrine. That is why they no longer practise fellowship.

Our responsibility in all of this is to do like the Bereans in the book of Acts and examine the scriptures every day to see if what anyone or any church teachs is correct.

I think your focus is in the wrong place. You look at the people instead of looking at the teaching.

If you go to a football game and some people who go there really don't like football, do you refrain from going to the game because of them?

The catholic church in my country is doing wonders to bring Luthern young adults a more structured god-like life with the Eucharist as an example and God's word as a guide. The Luthern Church swims with the current in my country. No structure is offered.

Well be careful at looking at the outward, even Satan masquerades as an angel of light. Go back and read my post again and do like the noble bereans who searched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true.

Go back and read the scriptures and see if what I said is true. Clearly the foundation in the Catholic Church is the Papacy. Clearly the Bible says Jesus is the foundation.

The whole idea even of purgatory means that Catholic's reject the Sufficiency of Jesus to pay for our sins in full! That means they deny Jesus. And Jesus said if you deny me before men, I will deny you before God. (not trying to be harsh but honest)

[Theophilus]

Why Me,

This is the second time you have tried to derail this thead.

If you want to talk about the Catholic church, start your own thread.

If you want to talk about the Lutheran church, start your own thread.

Do I have to close this thread, to prevent you from continuing off-topic posts?

Theophilus

[why me]

Why Me,

This is the second time you have tried to derail this thead.

If you want to talk about the Catholic church, start your own thread.

If you want to talk about the Lutheran church, start your own thread.

Do I have to close this thread, to prevent you from continuing off-topic posts?

Theophilus

Excuse me Theo but you are encouraging people to read Martin Luther. And 'revelation' is a member of the luthern church and mentioned that the luthern church is in christ and the catholic church is in the papacy...

I am afraid that it becomes a part of the thread once Luther was mentioned and this comment was posted.

And yes, both the lds and the catholics depend on grace and works. And so why shouldn't I bring in the catholics?

Where there is truth being taught, there also is Satan trying to hide that truth. Yes?

While it is quite possible that the Lutheran Church you speak of is a false church. If it is state run, that wouldn't surprise me. I can't say for sure, I would have to study thier teachings. I myself attend a Lutheran Church, and how you live your life, once you are saved is of utmost importance! While I don't believe that I am saved by my works, now that I am saved, I cannot help but do good works! I have a new heart and a new man in me! It is impossible for me not to do good works because of the profound love I have for God in saving me and loving me unconditionally.

On the other hand, perhaps you just ran into a few hypocrytical Lutheran Christians who possibly aren't really saved yet, despite correct teaching in the church where you live or perhaps they are saved but need to grow in their knowledge. Or, perhaps you misunderstand what they mean when they say it doesn't matter how a person lives his life. Perhaps they simply mean this: "how we live our life has nothing to do with our salvation" which would be correct because we don't obey to gain salvation. We obey because of the Salvation already given to us. Perhaps next time they say that to you, ask them if that means they can just go on sinning now that they are saved . And see what they then say. If they say yes, then they are wrong. If they say no, then listen and see what they are trying to tell you.

I myself believe there are apostate Lutheran Churchs.

Thanks for this balanced reply. This was my point in mentioning the state church of my country. Yes, I do think that a state church creates a problem for many churches and not just the luthern church. Thanks again!

[Theophilus]

Excuse me Theo but you are encouraging people to read Martin Luther. And 'revelation' is a member of the luthern church...I am afraid that it becomes a part of the thread once Luther was mentioned.

And yes, both the lds and the catholics depend on grace and works. And so why shouldn't I bring in the catholics?

Moderators,

Since "Why Me" refuses to refrain from making off-topic posts, please close this thread.

Theophilus

[Son]

As I have said on a different thread, the luthern church is the state church in the country that I live in. And I can assure you that it is not having its foundation in christ. The basic philosophy is: How a person lives life does not matter as long as you believe in Christ, a person is saved.

Sorry I cannot buy into that philosophy. The catholic church in my country is doing wonders to bring Luthern young adults a more structured god-like life with the Eucharist as an example and God's word as a guide. The Luthern Church swims with the current in my country. No structure is offered.

Even the devils believe and they tremble.

Belief is not enough, to fulfill all righteousness

[revelation]

Belief is not enough, to fulfill all righteousness

But Jesus is enough to fulfill all righteousness. And in turn, he credits that righteousness to us by faith alone:

Romans 1:17 "For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last"

Faith from first to last. In other words by faith, period. In other words, not more than faith such as in adding works

Romans 3:22 "This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe"

Here it shows that our righteousness comes FROM God ( a gift) through faith alone.

[cougarfan]

Cougarfan:What theophilus is trying to explain is that obedience comes AFTER coming into the family of God, not before.

We agree to the extent that accepting the commandments is required to obey them. Simply living the commandments outside of the law is not the same. I believe the Lord expects us to bend to His commands, and the blessings of obedience can only come by bending our desires to His will.

But again, I believe that obedience comes from man's agency and not by the Lord's compulsion.

[revelation]

We agree to the extent that accepting the commandments is required to obey them. Simply living the commandments outside of the law is not the same. I believe the Lord expects us to bend to His commands, and the blessings of obedience can only come by bending our desires to His will.

But again, I believe that obedience comes from man's agency and not by the Lord's compulsion.

What do you mean by living the commandments outside the law? For me, living the commandments is obeying the law.

I agree that the Lord's blessings come by bending our desires to his will. But the blessings are in the here and now. The blessings don't include the celestial kingdom in exchange for obeying the commandments.

What do you mean when you say obedience doesn't dome from the Lord's compulsion?

I believe that we lost our free agency in the fall of Adam and Eve.