Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Then you don't "give a flip" about truth.

A question implies nothing. The suggestion that it does is antithetical.

I broached the subject? You broached the subject when you started this this thread and its predecessor. Or do you regard this thread as a religious service where only believers are welcome?

There is only one source of objective, absolute truth. And that will not be found with finite, fallible men.

But I'm glad to see that you're no longer an atheist and have come over from the dark side. Your question had me fooled completely. It led to me believe you were one of those nasty things.

[boxcar]

By the way, Doc, here is more irony about justification by faith only. Again, from the same Romans epistle, Paul makes it abundantly clear that obedience proceeds from [God's gift of] faith, which I have always maintained and just stated earlier this morning. Read carefully, please, this long sentence:

Rom 1:1-7
Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles, for His name's sake, 6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; 7 to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
NASB

Or as the NIV renders v. 5:

Rom 1:5
Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.
NIV

This, I believe, is the more accurate translation due the supremacy that scripture gives to the virtue of faith. For example, we know it's impossible to please God without faith (Heb 11:6). There will be plenty of "moral" people in hell who did "good works" -- even in Jesus' name -- but never believed God (Mat 7:21-23). (And if this is the case with professing Christians, how many more non-professors will be there with them!?)

And when Jesus was asked what [good] works God would have them do, he replied:

John 6:28-29
28 They said therefore to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."
NASB

Notice carefully, the very different mindsets of the questioners and Jesus. Those who asked were thinking in terms of multiple works, e.g. keeping the Law of Moses. But Jesus was thinking in terms of only ONE work -- faith.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The Church is not the authority of truth or the authoritative source of truth. The church is the repository of truth. The Church has been entrusted with the truth. The authoritative source of all truth is God and as stated previously, scripture interprets itself.

Now you're off on a tangent about love -- but what does love have to do with justification by grace and faith? James never taught that a person is justified by faith AND works -- but rather wrote what he did as a sober warning to those who professed to be believers that if they're going to boast about their faith without works, they're on very shaky spiritual grounds. True, biblical faith (itself a divine gift!) always issues forth in faithfulness, i.e. obedience -- good works. In fact, the emphasis in James 2 is faith -- "show me your faith without works, and I'll show you my faith with works".

Hab 2:4
4 "Behold, as for the proud one,
His soul is not right within him;
But the righteous will live by his faith.
NASB

"Now you're off on a tangent about love -- but what does love have to do with justification by grace and faith?"...

You won't read the statements of former Reformed Christians, but at least consult the diagram. Which image depicts the inner dynamic life of the Persons of the Trinity, their relation to each other and therefore us?... the inner life of the Trinity being the source of all else...

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/201...the-atonement/

Here's the best Reformed attempt at a description of the inner life of the Trinity I can find to date...

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/artic...d-the-trinity/

Still somewhat cosmetic and abstract, not really getting at the heart of the inner dynamic, of which Frank Sheed penetratingly does when leaning heavily on Aquinas and centuries of contemplation...e.g., the reason for the use of "Logos", "Word" (Jn 1:1), etc...

http://www.katapi.org.uk/TandS/Ch7.html

You may have the last word. I've been ignoring the ponies, my fantasy baseball team has been on autopilot, and it's Sunday.

Have a great day today.

"Doc"

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

"Now you're off on a tangent about love -- but what does love have to do with justification by grace and faith?"...

You won't read the statements of former Reformed Christians, but at least consult the diagram. Which image depicts the inner dynamic life of the Persons of the Trinity, their relation to each other and therefore us?... the inner life of the Trinity being the source of all else...

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/201...the-atonement/

Here's the best Reformed attempt at a description of the inner life of the Trinity I can find to date...

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/artic...d-the-trinity/

Still somewhat cosmetic and abstract, not really getting at the heart of the inner dynamic, of which Frank Sheed penetratingly does when leaning heavily on Aquinas and centuries of contemplation...e.g., the reason for the use of "Logos", "Word" (Jn 1:1), etc...

http://www.katapi.org.uk/TandS/Ch7.html

You may have the last word. I've been ignoring the ponies, my fantasy baseball team has been on autopilot, and it's Sunday.

Have a great day today.

"Doc"

I don't do rabbit holes, Doc. As interesting as the "inner dynamic" of the triune Godhead may be, the discussion was justification -- and whether or not justification is by Faith + Works or by Grace through Faith alone. Does the Muslim (in your hypothetical example), who saved a Christian schoolgirl but has no personal relationship with God through Christ, have something of which to boast when he stands before God to be judged? I think not!

John 8:24
24 "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I AM , you shall die in your sins."
NASB

And,

John 3:35-36
35 "The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. 36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God [right now!] abides on him."
NASB

Don't miss the nuance between "believes in the Son" and "does not obey the Son". Don't miss it because your very life could depend upon what the apostle is saying here and whether or not you believe him. How does one "obey the Son"? By trusting in him wholly and solely for his salvation. By having genuine, biblical faith in the Son of God.

Do you really think that the entire human race fell in Adam and legally participated in his sin and came to ruin just because he ate a piece of fruit from a tree? Since when is eating fruit from a tree a sinful act? Did I miss something in the 10 commandments? Or somewhere else in the Law of Moses? Or perhaps in the Law of Christ? Yet, scripture labels Adam's sin as transgression -- the most grievous form of sin. How can this be? How can eating a piece of fruit from a tree be a sin, let a lone a transgression!?

I know you know the answer to this. But you won't like the implications to the only right answer.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Pain is unnatural. God never intended for pain to enter this world. Pain and death entered due to Adam and Eve's sin.

Pain is not the greatest teacher in the world. Jesus Christ is through the Holy Spirit who teaches his people God's Word.

Ummm. How can I put the obvious.

Jesus is our "savior" Savior from what? Our pain. Without pain, there would be no need for a savior.

In other words if Adam and Eve stayed in the Graces of God, there would be no need for Jesus to manifest.

Furthermore, the pain caused by Adam and Eve against God was NECESSARY in order to create the conditions for Jesus to save us and for us to grow.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

Ummm. How can I put the obvious.

Jesus is our "savior" Savior from what? Our pain. Without pain, there would be no need for a savior.

In other words if Adam and Eve stayed in the Graces of God, there would be no need for Jesus to manifest.

Furthermore, the pain caused by Adam and Eve against God was NECESSARY in order to create the conditions for Jesus to save us and for us to grow.

Your premise is off-the-wall, bat-crazy.

First of all, Jesus didn't come to save us from pain. He came to save us from our sins -- which is ultimately the cause of all the world's ills. SIN!

Secondly, if Adam and Eve had not sinned, they, along with all their progeny, would have dwelt with God in the Garden blissfully for all eternity.

Thirdly, in that pristine Garden paradise, there would have been no need for a savior. So, congrats. You finally have something right. This is the good news.

But fourthly, the bad news is that no savior would have been necessary for spiritual growth, since Adam would have passed the moral/spiritual test. Adam, if he had resisted the temptation, would have been perfected in righteousness immediately -- just as all the saints at the end of this age at the resurrection will be perfected in righteousness for all eternity. In the eternal, visible Kingdom of God, there won't be any need for growth! All the saints will be as perfect as their heavenly Father is perfect -- and whatever is perfect cannot be improved upon, otherwise the person or thing was never perfect.

You keep forgetting that the third and final aspect to salvation is Glorification which entails complete freedom from the presence of sin. Since there will be no sin in heaven either from within the saints or from without them, there will be no need to grow spiritually. All the saints will have arrived spiritually!

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Your premise is off-the-wall, bat-crazy.

First of all, Jesus didn't come to save us from pain. He came to save us from our sins -- which is ultimately the cause of all the world's ills. SIN!

Secondly, if Adam and Eve had not sinned, they, along with all their progeny, would have dwelt with God in the Garden blissfully for all eternity.

Thirdly, in that pristine Garden paradise, there would have been no need for a savior. So, congrats. You finally have something right. This is the good news.

But fourthly, the bad news is that no savior would have been necessary for spiritual growth, since Adam would have passed the moral/spiritual test. Adam, if he had resisted the temptation, would have been perfected in righteousness immediately -- just as all the saints at the end of this age at the resurrection will be perfected in righteousness for all eternity. In the eternal, visible Kingdom of God, there won't be any need for growth! All the saints will be as perfect as their heavenly Father is perfect -- and whatever is perfect cannot be improved upon, otherwise the person or thing was never perfect.

You keep forgetting that the third and final aspect to salvation is Glorification which entails complete freedom from the presence of sin. Since there will be no sin in heaven either from within the saints or from without them, there will be no need to grow spiritually. All the saints will have arrived spiritually!

Your tone is so authoritative when you talk about these things...is there even the slightest chance that you might be wrong? I mean...who can tell what the conditions in heaven will be...or whether the saints will all be "perfect", or not? I know that you place a lot of faith on the literal interpretation of the bible...but isn't it there where it says that the earth is the "center of the universe"? Could some "speculation' have somehow worked its way into all that bible "fact" that you swear by?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Your tone is so authoritative when you talk about these things...is there even the slightest chance that you might be wrong? I mean...who can tell what the conditions in heaven will be...or whether the saints will all be "perfect", or not? I know that you place a lot of faith on the literal interpretation of the bible...but isn't it there where it says that the earth is the "center of the universe"? Could some "speculation' have somehow worked its way into all that bible "fact" that you swear by?

Read the Book of Revelation. Then most, if not all, your questions will be answered.

Further, the conditions in heaven will be perfect because God is perfect and he can dwell with no one who is not.

[thaskalos]

God may be perfect...but his creations sure are not.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

There is only one source of objective, absolute truth.

That is definitely a claim. The burden of proof is yours.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

God may be perfect...but his creations sure are not.

One of his official spokesmen may be a bit of a concern. I'm sure god must have a transcendent sense of humor.

דער מענטש טראַכט און גאָט לאַכט

Der mentsh trakht un Got lakht.

Man plans and God laughs.

He must be rolling on the floor

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

That is definitely a claim. The burden of proof is yours.

Sure, I'll tackle that as soon as you tell us that you're no longer an atheist.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

God may be perfect...but his creations sure are not.

But Christians are his new creation. The old things have passed away; all things are new. Therefore, I'm perfect in Christ.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Sure, I'll tackle that as soon as you tell us that you're no longer an atheist.

Sure. I'm an agnostic. Atheist was/is your label. I can point to the exact post wherein you labeled me such. I merely stated that I do not find the term offensive and I do not claim to be able to prove the issue either way.

Your turn.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Sure. I'm an agnostic. Atheist was/is your label. I can point to the exact post wherein you labeled me such. I merely stated that I do not find the term offensive and I do not claim to be able to prove the issue either way.

Your turn.

No, you're not you're lying. You have always claimed God doesn't exist. And you have made the alternate claim that there is no evidence for God's existence. Agnostics don't make these kinds of claims. Agnositcs basically claim they don't know if God exists. Or if God exists, he cannot be known, etc.