What's the use of faith alone?

[Fervent]

Yes, but historically they have been both--both competing factions and unified expressions of Christ's Gospel.

The point is that Scripture cannot be neatly separated from the tradition that birthed it. Pitting them against each other creates a false dilemma.

 

[fhansen]

I don't disagree with how you've worded it here, but it's extension of your theology on it that I take issue with. You are saying that "we remain in the Vine by "continuing" to walk in faith with Christ", and I'm saying it's not our walking, continuing or faithfulness that engrafts us in the Vine. People have misapplied "abide", it's meaning is a Location, not an effort. "Abide in Me as I abide in you..".. well, "As He abides" is an eternal indwelling, not a conditional "if". Rebirth is a threshold experience, not a doorway in and out. Once born again, there is no going back.. there is no "escape", there's no refund. It's ETERNAL. So, this is where we have a divergence of understanding.

Yep, this is where we have a divergence .

If you remain [abide] in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. John 15:5-6

"You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either." Rom 11:19-21

 

[Fervent]

The Bereans weren't denounced for their scrupulous interpretation, and much is made of 2 Thess 2:15, that is specifically citing evangelism by the Apostles themselves.. not an institution of Talmudic like gatekeeping. Apples and oranges. We are absolutely called to study for ourselves, and be led by the Spirit as our ultimate Guide in all things. This doesn't discount the value of human teachers or guidance.. but it states their place.

No one opposes examining the Scriptures, it is the extrabiblical protestant doctrine like perspicuity of the Scriptures and the sui generis nature of Scriptures that create the issue, and there's no reason to prefer those extrabiblical commitments over the historic understanding.

 

[XrxrX]

No one opposes examining the Scriptures, it is the extrabiblical protestant doctrine like perspicuity of the Scriptures and the sui generis nature of Scriptures that create the issue, and there's no reason to prefer those extrabiblical commitments over the historic understanding.

Coining a phrase to voice a biblical truth isn't necessarily "extra biblical", like say.. "The Bible", or "The Trinity", or "omniscient, omnipotent"...same for "perspicuity of scripture", 2 Timothy 3:15, Deuteronomy 30:11-14, Psalm 119:105, John 8:31-32.

 

[Fervent]

Coining a phrase to voice a biblical truth isn't necessarily "extra biblical", like say.. "The Bible", or "The Trinity", or "omniscient, omnipotent"...same for "perspicuity of scripture", 2 Timothy 3:15, Deuteronomy 30:11-14, Psalm 119:105, John 8:31-32.

None of those proof texts demonstrate perspicuity of the scripture. There's a reason that it didn't become an issue until the 16th century.

 

[RandyPNW]

No, I'm talking about our participating in the life of Christ through the sacraments.

It's not about "rebuilding" it's about becoming involved in the historical events. As you yourself said, the sacraments are gifts from Christ

You're making false comparisons. Statues and other artifacts don't invite us into participation.

The sacraments aren't simply "religious rituals", and they were instituted by Christ. Treating them as optional observances robs Christianity of much of its content.

A lot of that is because of philosophical beliefs that shouldn't be held among Christians and a lack of education on what the sacraments are.

One of the things about such rituals is they foster a sense of unity that is largely missing outside of liturgical churches. The sacraments bind the congregation in worship rather than just being a collection of individuals worshiping in the same place.

Okay, I understand your point of view. Fine. I don't agree that these are even to be called "sacraments"--they have become the object of a lot of religious disagreement and trouble. That alone doesn't mean they need to be excluded, but replacing the worship of God with the worship of "forms" is what disturbs me.

You argue that these forms are the reality, and I'm arguing that they are not necessarily "sacraments" in the sense of religious requirements like the Law of Moses. We both agree that what they represent is vital.

I don't think the "form" is vital, but that the thing they represent can be had in other forms. To represent a "form" can be a form of religious idolatry, making the "image" more important than the God being depicted.

I don't personally need a material intermediary in order to find an experience with God. I don't need a blessed handkerchief to receive my healing, nor do I need a priest to bless me in ministry. The only intermediary I need is from heaven, and he is Christ.

The "sacraments" are not, in my view, an intermediary between God and us, but rather, tools to undergird a relationship we've already entered into and secured. For example, the Eucharist is, for me, a "remembrance" and not the actual connection with God it was intended to represent.

Since what the "sacraments" represent can be found in other forms today "rebuilding them" can render them a redundancy or a hollow religious exercise, at the extreme even an exercise in renaissance entertainement.

We can get baptized in a creek, bay, or bathtub, if it is done with the utmost love and respect for God and for the intended purpose of making a complete public commitment to Christ. To rebuild an ancient or medieval form of baptism is rendering sacred a "form" and not the thing it intended to represent.

I trust you'll understand that we're talking about the difference between exercises you call "sacraments" and what I'm calling incidental "forms" of those exercises intended to be focused not as much on the particular ritual itself, but really on spiritual realities that transcend them?

 

[XrxrX]

Yep, this is where we have a divergence .

If you remain [abide] in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. John 15:5-6

"You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either." Rom 11:19-21

Yes, this is widely misunderstood. It is nuanced.. and therefore, chronically mishandled. It's clearly evangelistic. He's using a smaller audience to speak of the wider issue.. some there were of faith, some not so He's generalizing Jew vs Gentile, like Paul does later in Romans. "If you abide in me" "Remain in Me".. similarly to Hebrews, that speaks of "believers" that 'believed for a time", this "gray area" of so called "believers" are not Born Again, indwelled Believers. There are hordes of people that 'entertain' salvation, hedge their bets.. and they don't truly "believe in their heart". Such are not the Saved. And through the Gospels and Epistles, there are appeals to these people to "endure", "remain", continue etc, UNTIL... they are Indwelled. This is a more nuanced part of scripture, that is poorly taught if taught at all. It's understandable, but often neglected.

 

[Fervent]

Okay, I understand your point of view. Fine. I don't agree that these are even to be called "sacraments"--they have become the object of a lot of religious disagreement and trouble. That alone doesn't mean they need to be excluded, but replacing the worship of God with the worship of "forms" is what disturbs me.

You argue that these forms are the reality, and I'm arguing that they are not necessarily "sacraments" in the sense of religious requirements like the Law of Moses. We both agree that what they represent is vital.

I don't think the "form" is vital, but that the thing they represent can be had in other forms. To represent a "form" can be a form of religious idolatry, making the "image" more important than the God being depicted.

I don't personally need a material intermediary in order to find an experience with God. The "sacraments" are not, in my view, an intermediary between God and us, but rather, tools to undergird a relationship we've already entered into and secured. For example, the Eucharist is, for me, a "remembrance" and not the actual connection with God it was intended to represent.

Since what the "sacraments" represent can be found in other forms today "rebuilding them" can render them a redundancy or a hollow religious exercise, at the extreme even an exercise in renaissance entertainement.

We can get baptized in a creek, bay, or bathtub, if it is done with the utmost love and respect for God and for the intended purpose of making a complete public commitment to Christ. To rebuild an ancient or medieval form of baptism is rendering sacred a "form" and not the thing it intended to represent.

I trust you'll understand that we're talking about the difference between exercises you call "sacraments" and what I'm calling incidental "forms" of those exercises intended to be focused not as much on the particular ritual itself, but really on spiritual realities that transcend them?

I agree with much of what you've said, there have been many errors within the development of our understanding of the sacraments and many of them have reified in ways that are unfitting. But we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and focus our opposition on the rigid insistence that they must be performed in a precise manner as if they were mechanical magical rites rather than mystical spiritual connections. To flatten them to mere symbols in many ways robs the faith of dynamism that recognizing their role in entering us into the mystery creates. They are not simply representative, they are participatory. They are not intermediaries, they are fundamental vehicles. They are as essential to the life of faith as prayer, not because of anything in the particulars but because of their role in our participation in the past. Just as the passover had to be eaten with walking stick in hand and sandals on the feet and the seder be told because they were recreating the moment and participating in the passover fresh not simply performing symbolic acts.

 

[XrxrX]

None of those proof texts demonstrate perspicuity of the scripture. There's a reason that it didn't become an issue until the 16th century.

Well, I think they do.. however, I'm not dogmatic about coined "isms" in theology.. and I'm happy to agree they are debatable. The verity of scripture isn't.

 

[Fervent]

Well, I think they do.. however, I'm not dogmatic about coined "isms" in theology.. and I'm happy to agree they are debatable. The verity of scripture isn't.

Admitting that its a matter of interpretation and debateable is denying the perspicuity of scripture...which is foundational for Protestant beliefs about the Bible.

 

[jas3]

Was not Origen universalist? Tertullian's "deathbed baptism"?

Origen and Tertullian aren't Church Fathers. There's a reason they aren't venerated as saints.

Irenaeus' Gnostic bent?

Even if he were gnostic, which is a ridiculous claim in and of itself since a significant amount of the main work he's known for is dedicated to opposing gnosticism, he can't be said to have "started" gnosticism.

Not to mention Augustine's .

Augustine's what? You deleted a reference to his time in Manichaeism before converting to Christianity, but Manichaeism was started by Mani, not St. Augustine.

So, the jab isn't unfounded despite the rationalizations.

It's completely unfounded, actually. You'd know that if you even knew who is and isn't a Church Father.

 

[XrxrX]

Origen and Tertullian aren't Church Fathers. There's a reason they aren't venerated as saints.
Even if he were gnostic, which is a ridiculous claim in and of itself since a significant amount of the main work he's known for is dedicated to opposing gnosticism, he can't be said to have "started" gnosticism.
Augustine's what? You deleted a reference to his time in Manichaeism before converting to Christianity, but Manichaeism was started by Mani, not St. Augustine.
It's completely unfounded, actually. You'd know that if you even knew who is and isn't a Church Father.

This claim that because a church father is retroactively anathematized means they "weren't" a church father is semantic tactic, not truth. But yes, my mistake on Irenaeus, mixed him up. Apologies.

 

[Aseyesee]

If you have faith and it is alone what is the use of it?

Faith is never alone ...

 

[Fervent]

This claim that because a church father is retroactively anathematized means they "weren't" a church father is semantic tactic, not truth. But yes, my mistake on Irenaeus, mixed him up. Apologies.

If any theological luminaries can be accused of introducing gnostic influences into the church, it's Luther and to a greater extent Calvin.

 

[XrxrX]

Admitting that its a matter of interpretation and debateable is denying the perspicuity of scripture...which is foundational for Protestant beliefs about the Bible.

Saying a maxim or moniker is debatable, is not "denying the perspicuity of scripture", the thrust of which is Not that there aren't difficult aspects of scripture, but that it's central Message of Salvation is understandable to ANYONE without the aid of hierarchical gatekeeping. It is essentially a refutation of "Gnosis", which you would think is something both Protestant and Catholic could agree on. It's telling that we can't.

 

[XrxrX]

If any theological luminaries can be accused of introducing gnostic influences into the church, it's Luther and to a greater extent Calvin.

Idk about Luther, but Calvin and "meticulous determinism" and fatalism.. yeah, happy to find a point of agreement with you.

 

[Fervent]

Saying a maxim or moniker is debatable, is not "denying the perspicuity of scripture", the thrust of which is Not that there aren't difficult aspects of scripture, but that it's central Message of Salvation is understandable to ANYONE without the aid of hierarchical gatekeeping. It is essentially a refutation of "Gnosis", which you would think is something both Protestant and Catholic could agree on. It's telling that we can't.

No, perspicuity of the scriptures is the notion that the scriptures require no interpretation and have a "plain" meaning that anyone with basic reading skills can grasp. It's the lynchpin of protestant understanding, and a key reason Protestantism is so fracturous.

 

[Fervent]

Idk about Luther, but Calvin and "meticulous determinism" and fatalism.. yeah, happy to find a point of agreement with you.

Both of them introduced an element of docetism in their portrayal of the flesh as malignant and opposed to the spirit.

 

[XrxrX]

No, perspicuity of the scriptures is the notion that the scriptures require no interpretation and have a "plain" meaning that anyone with basic reading skills can grasp. It's the lynchpin of protestant understanding, and a key reason Protestantism is so fracturous.

“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. Yet, those things that are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or another, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them” ... I think I described it accurately.

 

[XrxrX]

Both of them introduced an element of docetism in their portrayal of the flesh as malignant and opposed to the spirit.

Agreed, but Luther more in keeping with the same assertions of Paul as to the "war of the flesh and spirit", as opposed to Calvin's actual Docetism of the corporeal as malignant and the spiritual incompatible with it.