Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What are the essentials of the genuine Christian faith?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    (BTW - I'm in Adelaide.)
    I'm in Sydney. southern end of Punchbowl...

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by apostoli View Post
      I think it was the 3rd century father, Cyprian, that condemned those Christians who attended the non-gladiatorial games (think athletics, boxing, wrestling etc and/or the ancient equivalents of football, baseball, cricket etc) and exhalted the athletes to a godlike status. He also had a dig at those that attended the theatre (mainly because the theatre then exhalted the gods! or historic heros as if they were gods). Hate to see what he would have thought of those modern Christians who venerate sports people, musicians, actors etc...
      Considering some of the activities Christians participate in today I'd imagine the reaction wouldn't be too good.

      Originally posted by apostoli View Post
      According to Revelation 20:13 those that are judged in the 2nd Resurrection are judged according to their works "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works"

      As for Jesus' sacrifice: that was for the whole world = 1 John 2:2; 4:14 "And he [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world". Romans 5:18 "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life".
      I do agree that everyone will be judged and since God is just the only thing they could be judged on are their works (what they have done throughout their lives good or bad). And having been judged everyone would be worthy of the second death but for those who fall under the sacrifice of Jesus they will escape it (meaning that while Jesus died for the world, not everyone is saved). So if the only factor involved was works nobody would be saved.

      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      The "for us" is by no means insignificant. In Koine Greek, your bolded point can be interpreted to mean "no such thing as an idol" - it can also mean "an idol is nothing". If interpreted to mean the former, the affirmation - "indeed there are many gods" makes the sentence self contradictory. "There is no such thing as ..... (an idol, Santa Claus, just war, etc) means that the nominated object does not exist. Idols most certainly do exist, and the fact was quite evident to the author - therefore "idols are nothing" is the more acceptable interpretation. The statement, "(To me/Ultimately), they are nothing," does not indicate that "they" do not exist, only that "they" are beneath notice.

      Quite so - other gods are beneath notice: they play no role in a Christian's life.
      I don't think this means Paul is accepting other gods as having ontological status. Even if we ignore the part that said "there is no God but one" and just focus on the reading that says "an idol is nothing" that would at best be an agnostic view of gods and not a positive affirmation of their existence. There would be no reason to not affirm monotheism. However, something else occurred to me while thinking about this--how would that even work if it was true? The God of the Bible is an absolute eternal ultimate being and as a result would be the only entity worthy of worship. This means that other people are wrong to worship anyone but God. In polytheistic systems while there are some gods that are higher or lower than others all the gods largely are worthy of worship in those systems to some extent (there are probably exceptions). So someone could be henotheistic in a polytheistic system and not worship other gods but also not have anything to say to others that do worship those gods. So I don't think you can have henotheism with a god like the God of the Bible.

      Now this might be getting into the subject of terminology but could an entity be called a god if it can't or shouldn't be worshiped and is finite? If there are other spiritual beings distinct from God Himself and the angels wouldn't they inhabit a third category and subsequently not be divine? I mean, if as you said "They are beneath notice" doesn't that make them categorically speaking not gods? Again, it may be I am quibbling on terminology but it is an interesting question to consider when you look at the scope of God's existence.

      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      accepted.

      In the absence of information to the contrary, it would be reasonable to assume the possibility that "Justified by blood" and "justified by belief" implies not by works of any kind. In point of fact - the only works specifically stated to be not involved in justification are works of the (Old Testament) law.


      James is discussing here the interplay between faith and works.
      James 2:18
      But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
      Paul preached, not a gospel that promised ultimate salvation based on belief, but on action commensurate with belief - declaring "first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance." (Acts 26:20)

      Just that Christians are not required to produce good works, perhaps?

      It would seem that Peter doesn't quite agree:
      Act 10:34-35
      34Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.


      The body of evidence is quite compelling, and summed up by
      Rom 8:3-4
      3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
      Verse 3 - Of and by itself, the law was insufficient to achieve justification - the underlying "sin in the flesh" could not be dealt with until sin was condemned.
      Verse 4 - (Sin was condemned in the flesh) so that it would be possible for us to meet the righteous requirement of the law.


      Gal 2:16
      “knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
      All up: we are not commanded to adhere to works of the law, but we are commanded to adhere to the requirement (ultimate aim) of the law.
      You know I agree largely with your response insofar as works relate to the Christian life. It probably didn't come across in my post since I was discussing the primacy of faith but I also believe quite strongly that Christians shouldn't be spiritually lazy. Paul indicated in Romans that just because we have freedom in Christ doesn't mean we have a license to sin. In Hebrews it discusses how those who abandon the faith through disloyalty are now outside the faith--you can throw away your salvation. We must, as Jesus commanded, endure.

      However, I think there are two sides to this issue--the grounding of salvation and the endurance of faith. Now speaking to the former, I see Jesus's sacrifice as being effective against our corrupt human nature (sin nature/flesh/etc) and the sin debt (one's lifetime record of sins). You mentioned in your response the concept of "sin in the flesh" and how once this is dealt with obedience to the law becomes possible and also when quoting Galatians the notion that no flesh is justified by the law. One of the reasons the law can't save us is because even if you devote your entire life to doing good you'll still have on your record some sins and those good works don't negate them. Nor do the good works actually bring about a spiritual transformation that would allow you to live a life without sin. God would be completely justified in condemning the entire world to eternal separation because everyone has on their record sins. We can't pay off our sin debt and we can't change our nature.

      That being said, you demonstrated quite well that Christians are supposed to be obedient and I agree wholeheartedly. I just think that speaks to the latter aspect of salvation--endurance. We are to endurance or maintain our faith through obedience to Jesus and a failure to do so will result in a loss of salvation. Now where there is some debate on this is that some Christians believe that so long as you don't denounce Jesus you're enduring while other Christians believe that the endurance is much more active. You've argued quite persuasively that works do matter and I think in this aspect, active endurance, they matter. I just don't think good works are the active power behind our spiritual transformation or the cause for the erasure of our sin debt.
      Last edited by Paula; 08-29-2015, 06:58 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        However, I think there are two sides to this issue--the grounding of salvation and the endurance of faith. Now speaking to the former, I see Jesus's sacrifice as being effective against our corrupt human nature (sin nature/flesh/etc) and the sin debt (one's lifetime record of sins). You mentioned in your response the concept of "sin in the flesh" and how once this is dealt with obedience to the law becomes possible and also when quoting Galatians the notion that no flesh is justified by the law. One of the reasons the law can't save us is because even if you devote your entire life to doing good you'll still have on your record some sins and those good works don't negate them. Nor do the good works actually bring about a spiritual transformation that would allow you to live a life without sin. God would be completely justified in condemning the entire world to eternal separation because everyone has on their record sins. We can't pay off our sin debt and we can't change our nature.

        That being said, you demonstrated quite well that Christians are supposed to be obedient and I agree wholeheartedly. I just think that speaks to the latter aspect of salvation--endurance. We are to endurance or maintain our faith through obedience to Jesus and a failure to do so will result in a loss of salvation. Now where there is some debate on this is that some Christians believe that so long as you don't denounce Jesus you're enduring while other Christians believe that the endurance is much more active. You've argued quite persuasively that works do matter and I think in this aspect, active endurance, they matter. I just don't think good works are the active power behind our spiritual transformation or the cause for the erasure of our sin debt.
        No argument at all.

        Highlighted - "my food is to do the will of the one who sent me." I am satisfied that it applies as much to the Christian as to Christ himself. No works = starve to death.
        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
        .
        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
        Scripture before Tradition:
        but that won't prevent others from
        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
        of the right to call yourself Christian.

        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Paula View Post
          I do agree that everyone will be judged...
          In scripture there is no indication that those who participate in the 1st Resurrection undergo judgement. According to A.Paul some will simply be taken up...

          Originally posted by Paula View Post
          ...since God is just the only thing they could be judged on are their works (what they have done throughout their lives good or bad).
          Guess Abraham who attempted to prostitute his sister, who was his wife and King David are doomed...or as the prophets say God covers our transgressions when he wants, so they may have a chance...

          Always remember there are two resurrection. The first is limited and occurs before the tribulation, the 2nd occurs after the tribulation and includes those found righteous and those found unrighteous. What I find interesting is that Jesus says (and he'll be in charge until death is conquered) that he judges no one. I understand our judge is ourselves (the holy Spirit knows our mind/spirit).

          Originally posted by Paula View Post
          And having been judged everyone would be worthy of the second death
          Not necessarily Imu it is what was your knowledge of "sin" and your motivation.

          Originally posted by Paula View Post
          ...but for those who fall under the sacrifice of Jesus...
          According to the NT that is everybody on earth whether they know about Christ or not...

          Originally posted by Paula View Post
          And having been judged everyone would be worthy of the second death but for those who fall under the sacrifice of Jesus they will escape it (meaning that while Jesus died for the world, not everyone is saved). So if the only factor involved was works nobody would be saved.
          What happens to babies, New Guinea & Amazon tribesmen who have yet to encounter white men, all the millions of people that have lived that never had the opportunity to learn about Christ? Remember Columbus didn't discover America until 1492 (actually he didn't even get anywhere near America) and Australia wasn't settled until 1788 and "lost tribes" are still being discovered in jungles and mountain ranges.

          Originally posted by Paula View Post
          So if the only factor involved was works nobody would be saved.
          Have a read of A.Paul's personal testimony at Philippians 3:7-11. Even he in his own opinion, wasn't guaranteed of a resurrection, and he had done some powerful works. So I agree with you that works aren't the be all and end all. True faith has a lot going for it... and as A.James noted "faith without works is dead". Imu, motivation is the key to attaining eternal life. Have a think on 1 John 3:16. Are you prepared for that type of decisive action?
          Last edited by apostoli; 08-30-2015, 11:26 AM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by apostoli View Post
            In scripture there is no indication that those who participate in the 1st Resurrection undergo judgement. According to A.Paul some will simply be taken up...

            Guess Abraham who attempted to prostitute his sister, who was his wife and King David are doomed...or as the prophets say God covers our transgressions when he wants, so they may have a chance...

            Always remember there are two resurrection. The first is limited and occurs before the tribulation, the 2nd occurs after the tribulation and includes those found righteous and those found unrighteous. What I find interesting is that Jesus says (and he'll be in charge until death is conquered) that he judges no one. I understand our judge is ourselves (the holy Spirit knows our mind/spirit).
            I was actually referring to God's impartiality in regards to those who are judged. That is what I meant when I said "since God is just the only thing they could be judged on are their works". I was emphasizing God's justice and the application of an objective criteria (i.e. morality).

            Originally posted by apostoli View Post
            Not necessarily Imu it is what was your knowledge of "sin" and your motivation.
            Originally posted by apostoli View Post
            What happens to babies, New Guinea & Amazon tribesmen who have yet to encounter white men, all the millions of people that have lived that never had the opportunity to learn about Christ? Remember Columbus didn't discover America until 1492 (actually he didn't even get anywhere near America) and Australia wasn't settled until 1788 and "lost tribes" are still being discovered in jungles and mountain ranges.
            Unless there is a specific verse I overlooked there doesn't appear to be anything in the Bible that directly addresses the mentally incompetent (babies, mentally handicapped) or those who are unaware. Maybe I have missed something, let me know if I have. That being said, it might be argued that one can only be judged morally if one has committed a moral act (by moral I don't mean a "good" act, but rather an act that has moral content to it). Perhaps infants are incapable of moral acts.

            Now as for those who don't know Jesus, given that they would have committed immoral acts they would also be worthy of the second death. Morality might be nuanced but it is objective. However, as in the case of Christians, just because someone is worthy of separation doesn't mean God won't take into consideration other factors. Now there doesn't appear to be anything in the Bible to really substantiate my view on this either but my position on them is that God takes into consideration the amount of "light" (as its been called by others) they have received. Again, above all, God is just so we can be absolutely confident that whatever He decides to do will be righteous.

            Now I might be wrong, right now I am just reasoning on the issue. What are your thoughts on this?

            Originally posted by apostoli View Post
            According to the NT that is everybody on earth whether they know about Christ or not...
            True, Jesus did die for the world. But unless universalism is true then the sacrifice isn't applied to everyone.

            Originally posted by apostoli View Post
            Have a read of A.Paul's personal testimony at Philippians 3:7-11. Even he in his own opinion, wasn't guaranteed of a resurrection, and he had done some powerful works. So I agree with you that works aren't the be all and end all. True faith has a lot going for it... and as A.James noted "faith without works is dead". Imu, motivation is the key to attaining eternal life. Have a think on 1 John 3:16. Are you prepared for that type of decisive action?
            My position is that Jesus's sacrifice is what ultimately grants you eternal life. In order to receive this gift you must accept it through faith (loyalty/trust) in Jesus (although there might be exceptions). You can betray this faith and be pulled outside the faith and we are assessed on our works (good or bad) but ultimately it isn't anything we do that allows us to partake of eternal life with God. It is God's grace. When you start thinking about this subject it really isn't as straightforward as it would seem because there are various factors involved (Jesus Himself, His death and resurrection, one's faith, one's works, etc). I can understand why Paul and the the New Testament writers (like James) discussed it at length.
            Last edited by Paula; 09-01-2015, 08:54 PM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Apostles' Creed. Ecumenical Councils. Salvation by faith.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Paula View Post
                Unless there is a specific verse I overlooked there doesn't appear to be anything in the Bible that directly addresses the mentally incompetent (babies, mentally handicapped) or those who are unaware. Maybe I have missed something, let me know if I have. That being said, it might be argued that one can only be judged morally if one has committed a moral act (by moral I don't mean a "good" act, but rather an act that has moral content to it). Perhaps infants are incapable of moral acts.

                Now as for those who don't know Jesus, given that they would have committed immoral acts they would also be worthy of the second death. Morality might be nuanced but it is objective. However, as in the case of Christians, just because someone is worthy of separation doesn't mean God won't take into consideration other factors. Now there doesn't appear to be anything in the Bible to really substantiate my view on this either but my position on them is that God takes into consideration the amount of "light" (as its been called by others) they have received. Again, above all, God is just so we can be absolutely confident that whatever He decides to do will be righteous.

                Now I might be wrong, right now I am just reasoning on the issue. What are your thoughts on this?
                Consider Romans 5:13 "...sin is not imputed when there is no law".

                Theologians have often discussed the issues over the centuries. In about the 13th century the RCC came up with the idea of Limbo. Though it was commonly taught, it never became church doctrine. In fact: officially the idea was completely discarded this year (though its teaching has been actively discouraged since at least the 1980s).

                Several scriptural revelations influence my thinking "salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22), a father's sins are not attributable to a son (Ezekiel 18), God and his "law" is observable from nature (Romans 1:20; 1 John 4:14), God has never had any desire for sacrifices or worship/adoration (John 4:23-24; Mt 9:10-13; 12:17; Psalm 51:16; Hosea 6:6; Gen 8:20-21).

                Basically, I have a conservative view (as I know it) eg: if the norm is to throw one's firstborn into a fire (an ancient means of population control) and those that observe the practice understand they are doing right according to the social norms then they will be judge according to their social norms. Imo, just as the Jew who observes Moses' ordinances will be judged according those social norms (Romans 2:12). Romans 8 causes me to raise an interesting thought: mankind has a set of intrinsic rules eg: murder is disdained by all peoples, yet nations/tribes/gangs go to war and murder people. Such is justified numerous ways but at the judgement would a German soldier et al be judged differently from an American soldier et al? I think not.

                Originally posted by Paula View Post
                True, Jesus did die for the world. But unless universalism is true then the sacrifice isn't applied to everyone.

                My position is that Jesus's sacrifice is what ultimately grants you eternal life...
                Universalists hold that ultimately most persons (if not all) who have ever lived will attain eternal life (cp. Dan 12:2). Imo, philosophically that is a defendable proposition, albeit I haven't as yet found any scriptural support for the idea.

                That Jesus' sacrifice was for the benefit of everybody and anybody is 100% supported by the NT - its purpose was to free everybody from the penalty imposed on all mankind because of Adam's disobedience (Rom 5:19) ie: we have been made responsible for our own actions.

                If you follow scripture, salvation is exclusive to the Jews "salvation is from the Jews" by right, but has been "extended" to the Gentiles Various "C/christian"denominations now claim salvation is exclusive to them. The truth is that salvation is universal but eternal life isn't. A.Paul speaks of the "free gift", one has to receive and accept a gift...see the difference (ie: salvation is not an intrinsic right gained by being a member of a religious club, it is 100% a personal matter).

                From Revelation 22, eternal life is restricted to those with access to the Tree of Life. Which seems to be restricted to those included as the Bride of Christ.

                Originally posted by Paula View Post
                My position is that Jesus's sacrifice is what ultimately grants you eternal life. In order to receive this gift you must accept it through faith (loyalty/trust) in Jesus (although there might be exceptions).
                Largely we are in agreement but I doubt there are any exceptions. And one has to define faith. I define faith as being seen to walk in the footsteps of Christ (I could get very political here - think Medicare, paying employees a living wage, not carrying a gun etc).

                Originally posted by Paula View Post
                You can betray this faith and be pulled outside the faith and we are assessed on our works (good or bad) but ultimately it isn't anything we do that allows us to partake of eternal life with God. It is God's grace.
                You seem to have conflict in your thinking. Above you said "In order to receive this gift you must accept it". I agree the onus is on us. The gift "God's grace" has already been extended...

                Originally posted by Paula View Post
                When you start thinking about this subject it really isn't as straightforward as it would seem because there are various factors involved (Jesus Himself, His death and resurrection, one's faith, one's works, etc). I can understand why Paul and the the New Testament writers (like James) discussed it at length.
                Thinking about the if, and & buts will give you a massive migraine . As best as I can, I try to apply the KISS principle.
                Last edited by apostoli; 09-03-2015, 04:01 AM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                  Consider Romans 5:13 "...sin is not imputed when there is no law".

                  Theologians have often discussed the issues over the centuries. In about the 13th century the RCC came up with the idea of Limbo. Though it was commonly taught, it never became church doctrine. In fact: officially the idea was completely discarded this year (though its teaching has been actively discouraged since at least the 1980s).

                  Several scriptural revelations influence my thinking "salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22), a father's sins are not attributable to a son (Ezekiel 18), God and his "law" is observable from nature (Romans 1:20; 1 John 4:14), God has never had any desire for sacrifices or worship/adoration (John 4:23-24; Mt 9:10-13; 12:17; Psalm 51:16; Hosea 6:6; Gen 8:20-21).

                  Basically, I have a conservative view (as I know it) eg: if the norm is to throw one's firstborn into a fire (an ancient means of population control) and those that observe the practice understand they are doing right according to the social norms then they will be judge according to their social norms. Imo, just as the Jew who observes Moses' ordinances will be judged according those social norms (Romans 2:12). Romans 8 causes me to raise an interesting thought: mankind has a set of intrinsic rules eg: murder is disdained by all peoples, yet nations/tribes/gangs go to war and murder people. Such is justified numerous ways but at the judgement would a German soldier et al be judged differently from an American soldier et al? I think not.
                  That is an interesting view of how God deals with the unaware. I also find those verses to be compelling. Although I am not sure how that would be reconciled with objective morality. My approach to this is more that God shows mercy to the unaware, not that the behaviours are right because they are right for that person's culture. For example, I think some of the wars in the Old Testament provide some evidence that God is concerned with the moral conduct of the unaware.

                  Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                  Universalists hold that ultimately most persons (if not all) who have ever lived will attain eternal life (cp. Dan 12:2). Imo, philosophically that is a defendable proposition, albeit I haven't as yet found any scriptural support for the idea.

                  That Jesus' sacrifice was for the benefit of everybody and anybody is 100% supported by the NT - its purpose was to free everybody from the penalty imposed on all mankind because of Adam's disobedience (Rom 5:19) ie: we have been made responsible for our own actions.

                  If you follow scripture, salvation is exclusive to the Jews "salvation is from the Jews" by right, but has been "extended" to the Gentiles Various "C/christian"denominations now claim salvation is exclusive to them. The truth is that salvation is universal but eternal life isn't. A.Paul speaks of the "free gift", one has to receive and accept a gift...see the difference (ie: salvation is not an intrinsic right gained by being a member of a religious club, it is 100% a personal matter).

                  From Revelation 22, eternal life is restricted to those with access to the Tree of Life. Which seems to be restricted to those included as the Bride of Christ.
                  I think we might be talking about the same thing but are defining our words differently. You see salvation extended to all and eternal life achieved by some, correct? I see eternal life as included within salvation--salvation is both the moral perfection attained when God transforms us completely, a restored relationship with God, and eternal life with God and other believers forever. The offer of this gift is given to all people but not everyone receives this gift. So there are two senses to salvation--the universal call and the limited attainment. To use a mundane example, if an email is sent to the entire world with a message to receive free cake not everyone who receives the message will respond to it. But only those who respond will get cake.

                  Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                  Largely we are in agreement but I doubt there are any exceptions. And one has to define faith. I define faith as being seen to walk in the footsteps of Christ (I could get very political here - think Medicare, paying employees a living wage, not carrying a gun etc).
                  I also doubt there are exceptions but I will grant its at least possible.

                  Faith can be like that, but I also see it as a loyalty/trust response of a committed follower of Jesus.

                  Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                  You seem to have conflict in your thinking. Above you said "In order to receive this gift you must accept it". I agree the onus is on us. The gift "God's grace" has already been extended...
                  Not a conflict, a recognition of the nuanced nature of salvation. The actual work of the gift is done entirely by God (meaning the erasure of our sin debt and the eventual transformation of our spirits). But at the same time in order to receive this gift you have to claim it through faith, which is an action we take. But receiving a gift through faith doesn't make the gift itself our work. We don't have the power to effectively change our sinful nature nor are we the ones to actually forgive the sin debt.

                  Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                  Thinking about the if, and & buts will give you a massive migraine . As best as I can, I try to apply the KISS principle.
                  Can't argue with you there, it can get very convoluted, but I still think its beneficial to explore these concepts.
                  Last edited by Paula; 09-06-2015, 04:03 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Paula View Post
                    That is an interesting view of how God deals with the unaware. I also find those verses to be compelling. Although I am not sure how that would be reconciled with objective morality. My approach to this is more that God shows mercy to the unaware, not that the behaviours are right because they are right for that person's culture. For example, I think some of the wars in the Old Testament provide some evidence that God is concerned with the moral conduct of the unaware.
                    This is in part addressed by my response to the next section.
                    I think we might be talking about the same thing but are defining our words differently. You see salvation extended to all and eternal life achieved by some, correct? I see eternal life as included within salvation--salvation is both the moral perfection attained when God transforms us completely, a restored relationship with God, and eternal life with God and other believers forever. The offer of this gift is given to all people but not everyone receives this gift. So there are two senses to salvation--the universal call and the limited attainment. To use a mundane example, if an email is sent to the entire world with a message to receive free cake not everyone who receives the message will respond to it. But only those who respond will get cake.
                    Nice analogy. Care needs to be exercised in the interpretation of "receive" (usually translated from δεχομαι, dechomai) - when used in relation to persons: "give warm reception to" (receiving honoured guests), when used of objects: "reach out to take what is offered."

                    Faith can be like that, but I also see it as a loyalty/trust response of a committed follower of Jesus.
                    The translators of the Septuagint, themselves Hebrew Scholars, saw (Habbakuk 2:4, thrice cited in the New Testament) "the just/righteous shall live by faith" as meaning "the just/righteous shall live by God's faith." And the Hebrew word translated as "faith" (πιστις pistis) means "trustworthiness/loyalty".


                    Not a conflict, a recognition of the nuanced nature of salvation. The actual work of the gift is done entirely by God (meaning the erasure of our sin debt and the eventual transformation of our spirits). But at the same time in order to receive this gift you have to claim it through faith, which is an action we take. But receiving a gift through faith doesn't make the gift itself our work. We don't have the power to effectively change our sinful nature nor are we the ones to actually forgive the sin debt.
                    Regardless of the nuance of "the righteous/just shall live by faith - the question is answered: just WHO shall live by faith? both in the foregoing and the following.
                    According to Peter (Acts 10:34-35)
                    God shows no partiality “But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him."
                    The question answered: "Just whom does God accept?"
                    According to Jesus (Matthew 7:21)
                    “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
                    The question answered: "Just who will enter heaven?"
                    Last edited by tabibito; 09-06-2015, 10:23 PM.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Not a conflict, a recognition of the nuanced nature of salvation. The actual work of the gift is done entirely by God (meaning the erasure of our sin debt and the eventual transformation of our spirits). But at the same time in order to receive this gift you have to claim it through faith, which is an action we take. But receiving a gift through faith doesn't make the gift itself our work. We don't have the power to effectively change our sinful nature nor are we the ones to actually forgive the sin debt.
                      And on review, I note that I failed to address this in full:
                      1 John 3:2
                      we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. 3 And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.

                      Verse 3 addresses the question: Who purifies the person?

                      Philippians 2:12-13
                      12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
                      Verse 12 addresses the question: Who works out a person's salvation?
                      Verse 13 needs a side trip through a dictionary of Koine Greek before it can be addressed. "works" followed by "in you" (dative "in" and "you"). "Works" is translated from "energeō" - I am active or assisting:
                      Strong's
                      1. intransitive, to be operative, be at work, put forth power: followed by ἐν with the dative of person, Matthew 14:2; Mark 6:14; Ephesians 2:2; followed by the dative of advantage (dative commodi; (cf. Lightfoot on Galatians, as below)), to work for one, aid one,
                      Helps
                      energéō (from 1722 /en, "engaged in," which intensifies 2041 /érgon, "work") – properly, energize, working in a situation which brings it from one stage (point) to the next, like an electrical current energizing a wire, bringing it to a shining light bulb.
                      13 for God is working in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
                      The questions addressed by verse 13:
                      Who wills and does God's good pleasure?
                      By what means is this achieved?
                      Exercise - State Philippians 2:12-13 in your own words.

                      Romans 8:13
                      For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
                      The questions addressed:
                      Who puts the deeds of the flesh to death?
                      By what means is this achieved?
                      Last edited by tabibito; 09-07-2015, 09:41 AM.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Romans 8:13
                        For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
                        The questions addressed:
                        Who puts the deeds of the flesh to death?
                        By what means is this achieved?
                        . . . But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. . . . For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. . . The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: . . . . -- Romans 8:9, 14, 16 and context. By the indwelling Spirit of God. [1 John 5:12.]
                        Last edited by 37818; 09-08-2015, 07:48 AM.
                        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Paula View Post
                          I think we might be talking about the same thing but are defining our words differently. You see salvation extended to all and eternal life achieved by some, correct?
                          Yep!

                          I think of Jesus' sacrifice as the rebirth of the whole of humanity. Humanity is no longer hostage to the birthright handed down from Adam, we are all a new creation in a "restart" position, and 100% responsible for our own transgressions (albeit our personal responsibility is weighed according to our moral enlightenment.). In my view, the seeking of eternal life is a personal rebirth,. The attainment, as A.Paul suggests at Philippians 3, is out of our hands.

                          Think on Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus at John 3 - "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God...Nicodemus answered and said to Him: How can these things be? Jesus answered and said to him: Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?" The reality is that philosophically "to be born again" is a universal teaching that pre-dates Christ (the Jews had/have seven definitions that relied on circumstance. Nicodemus had achieved all but one. Not being of the royal line he could not become king. No wonder he was perplexed by Jesus' words. What was he missing?).

                          Originally posted by Paula View Post
                          I see eternal life as included within salvation
                          Yes and no. For those who aspire to walk in the footsteps of Christ they are inter-linked. In my eyes, they give justification, encouragement and guidance. Again I refer you to 1 John 3:16 "By this we know love, because [Jesus] laid down His life for us. We also ought to lay down our lives for our (brothers & sisters)". Are you prepared to take such decisive action?

                          Originally posted by Paula View Post
                          salvation is both the moral perfection attained when God transforms us completely, a restored relationship with God, and eternal life with God and other believers forever.
                          I find that a very severe judgement call. Scripture tells us "God is love" so I see him as helping us with our "baby steps" in our walk towards perfection (nb: Unless Genesis lies, we are intrinsically already morally perfect, albeit we allow our mortality to suppress the inclination. The hope in the promise of immortality frees us!). The Parakletos was sent (John 14:26; 15:26-27; 16:7-15) to guide us on our journey. As A,Paul tells us at Romans 8:27-28 "...the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses..." From scripture we learn that even in our imperfection, Jesus' sacrifice has made it possible for us to develop a personal, direct relationship with God the Father (which is the Christian objective).

                          Augustine in his Montanist dualism is the cause of the pessimism of many christians. Calvin slavishly followed Augustine's ideas, and, imo, exaggerated them, thus clouding what the scriptures actually teach which, imo, are optimistic.

                          Originally posted by Paula View Post
                          The offer of this gift is given to all people but not everyone receives this gift.
                          I would say "not everyone accepts this gift".

                          Originally posted by Paula View Post
                          So there are two senses to salvation--the universal call and the limited attainment. To use a mundane example, if an email is sent to the entire world with a message to receive free cake not everyone who receives the message will respond to it. But only those who respond will get cake.
                          in my view, to use your metaphor: the email is salvation extended, receiving the cake is just being polite but eating the cake is acceptance.
                          Last edited by apostoli; 09-13-2015, 09:24 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                            Augustine in his Montanist dualism
                            A species of Manicheism? Do you have a list of citations of Augustine's publications to support that opinion?
                            The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                            [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                              A species of Manicheism?
                              I thankyou for your subtlety. I stand corrected. Of course Augustine was associated with the Manichees not the Montanists before his conversion to the Roman church.

                              Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                              Do you have a list of citations of Augustine's publications to support that opinion?
                              It is no secret that Augustine's critics within his own time and since have accused him of preserving ideas he gleaned during the nine years he associated with the Manichaeans. The EOC considers him a doctor of the church but one often in error. No secret about that either. You should have no trouble accessing the info you requested. EOC & ROC theologians are a treasure chest of information on the matter. As generalisations concerning Augustine's teaching consider the following...

                              As a general argument to rationalise Augustine's errors, it is suggested that Augustine was working from a bad translation of the original Greek. For instance: Augustine misunderstood Romans 5:12 because in the Latin manuscripts the last four Greek words were translated as "in quo omnes peccaverunt" (“in whom [Adam] all men have sinned”)...

                              Here is an article from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America that might be of interest to you...
                              http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8153

                              "For the last several decades, not just his theology but Augustine himself has been regarded as heretical by some theologians in the Orthodox Church. An attack on his person has been made by several theologians, excluding him from the list of saints. Meanwhile, others have called upon Orthodox theology to reevaluate and reinstitute Augustine to his rightful place as a great theologian*-philosopher of the universal Church.

                              In order to clarify where Augustine stands in regard to Greek Orthodoxy, my thesis in this paper is that he has been a "saint" of the Church and has never been erased from the list of saints. It is true that some of his teachings were highly criticized and branded as heretical, but this occurred after his death. The most important doctrinal controversy surrounding his name is the filioque. Other doctrines that were unacceptable to the Church are his view of original sin, the doctrine of grace, and predestination..."


                              Here is another that I think is a little outdated in its presentation of RCC teaching, but still highlights the defects in Augustine's ramblings...
                              http://www.orthocuban.com/2010/02/ro...-original-sin/

                              The Orthodox Church does not teach that all are born deserving to go to hell, and Protestant doctrines such as Predeterminism that derive from the Augustinian understanding of original sin are not a part of Orthodox belief.

                              And another. This one is definitely worth a read...
                              http://pemptousia.com/2011/11/origin...ine-or-heresy/
                              Last edited by apostoli; 09-14-2015, 12:31 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                                Yep!

                                I think of Jesus' sacrifice as the rebirth of the whole of humanity. Humanity is no longer hostage to the birthright handed down from Adam, we are all a new creation in a "restart" position, and 100% responsible for our own transgressions (albeit our personal responsibility is weighed according to our moral enlightenment.). In my view, the seeking of eternal life is a personal rebirth,. The attainment, as A.Paul suggests at Philippians 3, is out of our hands.

                                Think on Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus at John 3 - "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God...Nicodemus answered and said to Him: How can these things be? Jesus answered and said to him: Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?" The reality is that philosophically "to be born again" is a universal teaching that pre-dates Christ (the Jews had/have seven definitions that relied on circumstance. Nicodemus had achieved all but one. Not being of the royal line he could not become king. No wonder he was perplexed by Jesus' words. What was he missing?).

                                Yes and no. For those who aspire to walk in the footsteps of Christ they are inter-linked. In my eyes, they give justification, encouragement and guidance. Again I refer you to 1 John 3:16 "By this we know love, because [Jesus] laid down His life for us. We also ought to lay down our lives for our (brothers & sisters)". Are you prepared to take such decisive action?
                                I think Jesus's sacrifice resulted in a universal call of salvation to humanity (so everyone could be saved) but the actual rebirth only takes place with those who respond to it (so only some are saved). Paul talks in Colossians about the believers having been dead in their sins and how God made them alive with Him and forgave their sins. This sounds like a rebirth or at the very least the start of a rebirth.

                                Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                                I find that a very severe judgement call. Scripture tells us "God is love" so I see him as helping us with our "baby steps" in our walk towards perfection (nb: Unless Genesis lies, we are intrinsically already morally perfect, albeit we allow our mortality to suppress the inclination. The hope in the promise of immortality frees us!). The Parakletos was sent (John 14:26; 15:26-27; 16:7-15) to guide us on our journey. As A,Paul tells us at Romans 8:27-28 "...the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses..." From scripture we learn that even in our imperfection, Jesus' sacrifice has made it possible for us to develop a personal, direct relationship with God the Father (which is the Christian objective).
                                God requires perfection from us (Matthew 5:48) but I take this to mean that we will eventually be transformed into morally perfect people. And this state will only be attained after death. The state of sinless perfection doesn't seem attainable in this life as Paul in Romans talks about the conflict between the flesh (our sinful nature) and the spirit (our reborn nature in Christ). And this sounds like an everyday struggle, not something he left behind. Not to mention if it was something that has been left behind I don't know what we are to make of the instructions on church discipline (why would there be a need if we are all sinless?). The Holy Spirit does guide and help us but I think its safe to say that Christians still have to deal with sin at least in this life.

                                I certainly agree with you that Jesus's sacrifice makes a relationship with God possible.

                                I am not really sure what you meant by "we are intrinsically already morally perfect, albeit we allow our mortality to suppress the inclination". Are you saying that people are already naturally good but that our impending deaths influence us to sin?

                                Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                                I would say "not everyone accepts this gift".
                                I essentially meant that, but I do agree that the active emphasis of your wording is more fitting.

                                Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                                in my view, to use your metaphor: the email is salvation extended, receiving the cake is just being polite but eating the cake is acceptance.
                                To explicate my view: the email sent is salvation extended, everyone getting the email in their inbox is everyone receiving the universal call, responding to the email that you'd like cake is conversion, and finally eating the cake is the eventual "complete" transformation. The part where this metaphor breaks down is the lack of any part of the metaphor to stand for sanctification between conversion and eventual perfection.
                                Last edited by Paula; 09-19-2015, 08:06 PM.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X