Losing faith in "faith alone"

[FireDragon76]

So, how do you know Jesus even existed then?

No serious scholar doubts it. Even Bart Ehrman says Jesus mythicism is intellectually bankrupt.

Secular people really don't hate Jesus. They hate the Church. And rightly so.

 

[HypnoToad]

Nope. I'm talking about talking snakes, not sun gods. I think people attributed divinity to Christ because he expanded their horizons of what it meant to be human. He expanded their sense of compassion in a world that was often pittiless and oppressive. I also do believe in the resurrection, in the sense that the Christian community experienced his presence after the crucifixion.

I am not a jesus mythicist.

Ah, so Jesus wasn't actually God, and didn't actually rise from the dead. Ok.

 

[amariselle]

No serious scholar doubts it. Even Bart Ehrman says Jesus mythicism is intellectually bankrupt.

And yet it seems you see Scripture as a collection of “fanciful tales” and “myths” written by men over the centuries, and not the inspired word of God that contains absolutely accurate and trustworthy accounts of history and the very things Jesus did and said.

So, at best you’re left with a vague notion that there was some kind of notable, historical figure who lived around 2,000 years ago, but not much else.

Why bother caring about Him in that case? If you can’t trust that the Bible accurately records that Jesus said He was God, then you also cannot trust that it accurately records any of His other teachings.

Talk about nihilism.....

 

[FireDragon76]

Ah, so Jesus wasn't actually God, and didn't actually rise from the dead. Ok.

Your words, not mine.

I'm more likely to say traditional Christians have a false view of divine transcendence. Jesus is the embodiment of the hope of the prophets of Israel. That makes him "God" in the sense we can understand it, because he did the things only YHWH could do.

 

[FireDragon76]

[Staff edit].

I'm saying that Jesus embodies God but he doesn't circumscribe God. That's very Trinitarian. We don't believe Jesus was God in a human suit. He was a fully human, divine life.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

It's not a figure of speech. I see no evidence to assume that. Should we assume the virgin birth or resurrection is just a metaphor as well? Now you are in 19th century liberalism territory. Which proves my point. When things get tough, we drum up the metaphorical reading.

I think you have a point in that it does not have to be taken as a metaphor, in the same way the LORD spoke through a donkey is not a metaphor, and considering the LORD made man from dust, yeah stuffing a serpent with dust would be no problemo for the Almighty.

 

[FireDragon76]

[Staff edit].

Belief in a zombie Jesus corpse is hardly the essence of the resurrection. The essence of the ressurection is faith that Jesus conquered death. How it happened, I do not pretend to know. That's why it's a miracle. What you want is a nuts and bolts view of that, and I refuse to acknowledge it as the only orthodox explanation.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think you have a point in that it does not have to be taken as a metaphor, in the same way the LORD spoke through a donkey is not a metaphor, and considering the LORD made man from dust, yeah stuffing a serpent with dust would be no problemo for the Almighty.

I have autism so the literal meaning always jumps out at me first. I really don't get how people can be so comfortable with metaphors, it's never clicked with me. That bit of religion just seems like mystical mumbo-jumbo now days.

I'm more into the stories about Jesus and his wisdom, than trying to parse out esoteric meanings from ancient stories. I think there are alots of folks like me. We are show me kinds of people (I think that's why I like the story of Thomas so much).

 

[Basil the Great]

I have always been taught growing up that we are justified before God by faith alone, and not works. However, the more I read James 2, the more I believe the Catholic Church is correct in its soteriology as opposed to Anglican/Lutheran soteriology.

James 2:21 following:
21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend.24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

It literally says "...considered righteous by what they (you) do and not by faith alone".

I've heard that this passage refers to how the Church can tell if one has genuine faith, as opposed to faith/justification before God. Where is this distinction found in the text? It seems that you have to read more into the text than is there to arrive at that conclusion.

Here's a second, even more clear translation:

James 2:24: Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.

I consider myself a Protestant, but I do believe that the Catholics and Orthodox are more correct than Protestants on the faith alone vs faith and works controversy. The problem is that Protestants got their faith alone doctrine from Paul's writings, not from the words of Jesus ! Jesus made it clear that many people who call him "Lord, Lord" will NOT make it to Heaven. Rather, feeding the poor and healing the sick is the route that Jesus emphasized to get to Heaven. Faith is important, obviously. However, many people believe in Jesus and yet they refuse to help the less fortunate. I wonder how far their "faith alone" doctrine will get them when they die?

 

[112358]

We didn't get that from the Bible, we got that from science.

This statement you have exactly backwards. Science is nothing more than the discovery and application of God’s immutable natural laws. Satan is not a serpent, even though he appeared to Eve in that form. His curse should not be taken literally for that reason. More likely it’s a reference to his banishment to the earthly realm, where he is being held in chains reserved for final judgment and hellfire. But none of this matters if you have dismissed the creation account as a myth. There is no discussion to be had about understanding biblical truth unless we can agree that the Bible is actually true.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I have autism so the literal meaning always jumps out at me first. I really don't get how people can be so comfortable with metaphors, it's never clicked with me. That bit of religion just seems like mystical mumbo-jumbo now days.

I'm more into the stories about Jesus and his wisdom, than trying to parse out esoteric meanings from ancient stories. I think there are alots of folks like me. We are show me kinds of people (I think that's why I like the story of Thomas so much).

Despite my artistic/philosophical tendencies, when reading I have literal tendencies but the more I’ve read and studied the Scriptures, the more aware I have become of the different Hebrew/Greek meanings behind the English transliterations. I remember back in college days eighteen or so years ago, hearing from a professor that some Hebrew/Greek words do not translate well if at all into English and how disturbing it was to hear at the time. How incredibly bizarre it seemed me to learn the Hebrew language is written not left to right, but right to left, and without spaces! So many challenges in translating from one receptor language into another. For a person like me, Bible study can be challenge enough, because to give the attention deserved is truly a labor, but a labor of love.

 

[FireDragon76]

Despite my artistic/philosophical tendencies, when reading I have literal tendencies but the more I’ve read and studied the Scriptures, the more aware I have become of the different Hebrew/Greek meanings behind the English transliterations. I remember back in college days eighteen or so years ago, hearing from a professor that some Hebrew/Greek words do not translate well if at all into English and how disturbing it was to hear at the time. How incredibly bizarre it seemed me to learn the Hebrew language is written not left to right, but right to left, and without spaces! So many challenges in translating from one receptor language into another. For a person like me, Bible study can be challenge enough, because to give the attention deserved is truly a labor, but a labor of love.

That's cool.

I guess metaphor while a double edged sword, is not all bad. It permits us to reinterpret texts that are no longer relevant in their more literal sense. At one time, an origins story about a naughty snake was relevant to peoples lives (its interesting that interpretation persists into the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, where the serpent, not Satan, is mentioned as the cause of the fall). Then we see spiritual meaning in it. But we lose sight that other people do the same with other story's imagery, and they are no less powerful for doing so.

 

[FireDragon76]

[Staff edit].

I trust that Jesus, in some way, lives through his Word, even if that Word is written by humans and full of silly stories, and that his Spirit is present in his gathered community interpreting it.

Basically, I like my church and I trust the people there, in non-religious jargon. Take your pick.

The biggest mistake we make is thinking God cares so much about our religious choices. Catholic vs. Protestant? It really makes no difference. What matters is what's inside your heart, in the end. I find the only way to live Christianity is in a middle-of-the-road Lutheran church. You may be different.

 

[expos4ever]

Ephesians 2 brings it all together --

The complete quote --

"8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

In context, the "works" here are the works of the Law of Moses. And only Jews could do those works. The author here is telling us being Jewish (doing the works of the Law of Moses) is not salvific. So the author here is not denying that how one lives does not affect salvation.

 

[godenver1]

We have a winner here folks, read Don's post.

That is interpretation is sound, but why then mention Abraham? Who was he being justified before when when sacrificing Isaac? Why did he need to perform the 'work' to justify his faith? Couldn't God see Abraham's faith?

 

[HypnoToad]

I trust that Jesus, in some way, lives through his Word,

But how do you know what parts are even "His Word" to begin with? The "silly" parts can't be His Word. Your trust - it has to be based on something in the Bible - how do you know that the parts that lead you to trust Him aren't simply one of those "silly" parts?

 

[amariselle]

That is interpretation is sound, but why then mention Abraham? Who was he being justified before when when sacrificing Isaac? Why did he need to perform the 'work' to justify his faith? Couldn't God see Abraham's faith?

Abraham was justified in the sight of man by his willingness to offer up Issac. He had already been justified andin the sight of God and declared righteous by his faith years earlier when He believe God’s promise.

 

[redleghunter]

DID ANY CHURCH FATHERS TEACH SOLA FIDE? RESPONSE TO A CLAIM

The author of that apologetics site is wrong. He is basically saying "even though they state what they do, it just can't be true." Which amounts to a giant "ah nah."

Within the context of the texts provided Chyrsostom clearly interpreted the Pauline epistles properly to conclude we are justified by faith alone. You can dig up other works of Chrysostom to show his emphasis that Christians are called to holy living and good works and that would not be a contradiction. In fact that would be in keeping with Pauline doctrine:

Ephesians 2:8-10
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

What I think is being suggested by Roman Catholics is that the only Grace which is not given by our merits is the forgiveness of sins. Which of course St Augustine refuted:

When, however, the Pelagians say that the only grace which is not given according to our merits is that whereby his sins are forgiven to man, but that that which is given in the end, that is, eternal life, is rendered to our preceding merits: they must not be allowed to go without an answer. If, indeed, they so understand our merits as to acknowledge them, too, to be the gifts of God, then their opinion would not deserve reprobation. But inasmuch as they so preach human merits as to declare that a man has them of his own self, then most rightly the apostle replies: Who makes you to differ from another? And what have you, that you did not receive? Now, if you received it, why do you glory as if you had not received it? 1 Corinthians 4:7 To a man who holds such views, it is perfect truth to say: It is His own gifts that God crowns, not your merits, — if, at least, your merits are of your own self, not of Him. If, indeed, they are such, they are evil; and God does not crown them; but if they are good, they are God's gifts, because, as the Apostle James says, Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights.James 1:17 In accordance with which John also, the Lord's forerunner, declares: A man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven John 3:27 — from heaven, of course, because from thence came also the Holy Ghost, when Jesus ascended up on high, led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men. If, then, your good merits are God's gifts, God does not crown your merits as your merits, but as His own gifts. (Augustine, On Grace and Free Will Ch. 15)​

CHURCH FATHERS: On Grace and Free Will (St. Augustine)

 

[FireDragon76]

But how do you know what parts are even "His Word" to begin with? The "silly" parts can't be His Word. Your trust - it has to be based on something in the Bible - how do you know that the parts that lead you to trust Him aren't simply one of those "silly" parts?

Sorry man, you will never make fundamentalism look remotely appealing to me by trying to appeal to skepticism.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

That is interpretation is sound, but why then mention Abraham? Who was he being justified before when when sacrificing Isaac? Why did he need to perform the 'work' to justify his faith? Couldn't God see Abraham's faith?

Well God stopped him from going through with it, and God provided the lamb sacrifice. What we see in Abraham is faith put to the test and faith in action, Abraham reasoned that even if he sacrificed Isaac, God could raise him from the dead. God did see Abraham's faith, and Abraham could look back at the times where he had faith, where he trusted in the Lord, to times where the Lord spoke to him, to times where God manifested his presence to him through Angles or messengers. A key verse, is "Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness." (Genesis 15:6). Abraham's righteousness was not the result of works, rather faith led to imputed righteousness which both resulted in works pleasing to the Lord.