klutedavid
Well-Known Member
How are you ever going to receive persecution, if no one knows what you really believe?
Jesus wore His faith on His sleeve as an example for us!
Upvote
0
What does it mean when you say you believe in Jesus?
- Thread starter DeaconDean
- Start date
Jesus wore His faith on His sleeve as an example for us!
twin1954
Baptist by the Bible
If you walk by faith and do what is right persecution will come. There is no need to bring it with a loud mouth and a holier than thou attitude. Religion teaches you to point the finger of accusations at others but faith is seen in your walk not your words. The only ones the the Lord Jesus ever reprimanded was the religious hypocrites who wore their religion on their sleeve.
Upvote
0
klutedavid
Well-Known Member
How can they hear unless someone tells them?
Jesus reprimanded Peter.
Everyone undergoes discipline.
Upvote
0
- Jul 19, 2005
- 22,183
- 2,677
- 61
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
All I'm doing is comparing apples to apples.
And of course I agree fully with: "all were written by the inspiration of the Spirit for us today". No disagreement whatsoever.
I just do not see where any of the disciples were present, except maybe John (who I consider to be "the beloved disciple).
Does that mean that the Holy Spirit could not have "inspired" Matthew to include his narrative?
No sir.
Its for sure that Luke was not a disciple, but the Holy Spirit, and Peter where his primary sources. But yet Luke's gospel is included in the Synoptic Gospels.
Its also like saying that we should, by way of "inspiration" include the last nine verses of Mark 16.
All I'm saying is, we can deduce, by way of scripture, the "only" disciple that was present "for sure" at the cross, may very well have been John who nearly all accept as "the beloved disciple".
But if you say I'm wrong, I'll accept your rebuke.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Upvote
0
- Jan 12, 2014
- 7,218
- 5,563
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
We don't take one verse David, and stand on it without taking into consideration other verses that are contextually attached. In this case, we are indeed saved by grace through faith but, faith without works is dead being alone. There is no faith without works, period! That doesn't mean we are saved by works... nothing but God's grace... His willingness to extend a hand of mercy when we don't deserve it... is what saves us. But the idea of faith without works is taking from Scripture.
Upvote
0
twin1954
Baptist by the Bible
you are not wrong my brother. We do know that John was there both at His trial and crucifixion. My point was that we must compare accounts to arrive at the whole. That is why I pointed out that Matthew'ss account had information the others did not.
I am in no way rebuking you but simply adding to what you have already pointed out.
Upvote
0
twin1954
Baptist by the Bible
Again, your best witness is not with your mouth but with your life of faith.
God has called some men to preach the Gospel of the free and sovereign grace of God in Christ Jesus alone. He prepares and equips them for this calling, which isn't a job or vocation but a calling, and sends them out to do what He has called them to do.
If you want someone to hear the Gospel then do all you can to see to it that they hear a God called preacher. The Spirit works by the preaching of the Word. Rom. 10 is very clear on this.
Upvote
0
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,433
- 4,604
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
Even the demons believe that it is an historical fact that Jesus rose from the death, so just saying that we need to believe in Jesus is worthless without understanding what we should be believing about him and what that means for how we should therefore live our lives. For example, we can't believe that Jesus is Lord while refusing to submit to him as Lord. If we believe that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, then we should become zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Law.
Upvote
0
- Jul 19, 2005
- 22,183
- 2,677
- 61
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I beg to differ.
You guys always point to the book of James and take that as "proof positive" that we must, must, supply works.
You really should read Romans, Genesis, and James together.
"“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone.” –Jas. 2:24 (KJV)
Martin Luther wrote in his preface to James and Jude: “James does nothing more than drive a man to the Law and its works.” And this is apparent in some faiths teachings. However, Luther also admits that James wanted to guard against those who relied on faith exclusively but wasn’t quite up to the task.
During the first century, it is commonly held that James was the bishop of the church in Jerusalem. And Paul was a missionary. History dictates that during the early church, two viewpoints developed early on. Paul is well known for his battles with “legalists.” They were the type who said faith in God was correct, but what was also required was a submission to the “Law.”
Luther also was quick to point out that James called the “Law” a “perfect law of liberty.” (cf. Jas. 1:25) Paul viewed it as a Law that brings slavery, (Gal. 5:3) wrath, (Rom. 4:15) sin, (Rom. 7:7) and death (Rom. 7:10).
When men are turned away from their own self-efforts, the next step is to run in the complete opposite direction. If they cannot trust in their own self-righteousness, if they cannot be justified by their own works, then it is just a minor shift to reject works of any kind, and there is no such thing as ungodly living or ungodly practice. This is the door which leads down the path to antinomianism. They turn the grace of God into lasciviousness. (Jude 1:4) And this is very apparent in what it was spreading during the early church.
It has been argued that Paul and James are not contradictory, but rather, complimentary. This can be seen by the statements by these men in that Paul says you are justified by faith, verse James’ teaching that you are justified by works and not by faith alone. Arthur W. Pink wrote:
“Unless the subject and scope of James’ Epistle be clearly seen, the apprehension of many of its statements can only issue in God-dishonoring, grace-repudiating, soul-destroying error. To this portion of the Word of God, more than any other, have legalists appealed in their opposition to the grand truth of justification by grace, through faith, without works. To the declarations of this Epistle have they turned to find support for their Christ-insulting, man-exalting, Gospel-repudiating error of justification by human works. Merit-mongers of all descriptions cite James 2 for the purpose of setting aside all that is taught elsewhere in Scripture on the subject of justification. Romanists, and their half-brothers the Arminians, quote "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (v. 24), and suppose that ends all argument.”[7]
What is maintained is, that Paul addresses the fact of how a man can be justified before God, and James addresses how a man can be justified before man. Paul addresses our justification of persons, while James addresses our justification of profession. The one is by faith alone, while the other worketh by love and produces obedience. (Pink)
Both men use Abraham as an example. And the supposition that James addresses the empty profession rests on the fact that when James says:
“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?” –Jas. 2:21 (KJV)
Whereas Paul says:
“For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” –Rom. 4:3 (KJV)
A fact that most seen to overlook at are the differences between what Paul is quoting from, and what James quotes, rather, bases their statements on. Paul uses Gen. 15:6 as his basis in Romans 4, and James uses Gen. 22:1-19 for his basis. Abraham was seventy-five years old when he believed God in Genesis 15. However, Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born. (cf. Gen. 22:6) Tradition has it that Isaac was around twenty-five when Abraham took him to the mountain for the sacrifice. If the Catholics and Arminians are correct, then it logically means that Abraham had to wait fifty years in order to actually be justified! No! We merely point out that the offering of his son, gave evidence to Abraham’s faith in God.
Professing to be a Christian when one is not may secure a standing before men, it may improve his moral and social prestige, he may be able to join a church, and help promote his commercial interests, but can it save him? What is the use to fein to be charitable when works of charity are withheld? What good does it bring to calling oneself a Christian when empty stomachs are met with good words? How can a person claim to be a Christian and clothe the naked by good wishes? What does it profit to profess to be a believer when there is no true piety?
Neither can a person be saved by a mere empty hollow confession of the Gospel. To say that I am a Christian and am unable to appeal to any good works and spiritual fruits as proof of it, profits neither the person nor those who listen. Without the essential element of “faith worketh by love” (cf. Gal. 5:6), no matter how much reading or studying, no amount of head knowledge, no amount of preaching and teaching one can do, they are no more than “sounding brass and tinkling symbol.” Without love, those professors will be the ones pleading their works but will be told: “Depart, I never knew ye.”
A Study on the Baptist Position on Justification, By: DeaconDean, 2007
The fact remains, Abraham believed God in Genesis 12, and not only was Abraham saved, he was declared righteous, and was justified.
It wasn't when He offered Isaac. That only gave evidence of Abraham's faith.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Upvote
0
- Jul 19, 2005
- 22,183
- 2,677
- 61
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I am only pointing that you may have missed my point.
In todays world, its not merely enough to say I believe Jesus, but in doing so, you must also mean that you believe ALL that scripture says about our Lord too.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jul 19, 2005
- 22,183
- 2,677
- 61
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Here again brother, what "works" can the thief on the cross point to?
There is one person here who evidently reads scripture backwards.
Fact, Jesus never said one word to the thief on the cross prior to his confession. There was an exercise of faith, based on the work of the Holy Spirit. But yet, one member here seems that Jesus' response to him was where the faith part come in. (So it seems to me)
It staggers the mind, or it does me.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Upvote
0
- Jul 19, 2005
- 22,183
- 2,677
- 61
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
This is a situation where we both are right.
Here is what we know.
"Gospel of Matthew
According to this gospel, the various witnesses included Roman soldiers, Jewish officials, passersby who mocked Jesus, and two men crucified at the same time. The only reference to followers of Jesus is found in Matthew 27:55-56, which says that many women were "watching from a distance", and specifically names "Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons." Unlike male followers, these women would probably have been allowed to watch without being arrested, provided that they didn't try to interfere.
Gospel of Mark
The account in this gospel is very similar to that in Matthew. In fact most biblical scholars believe that Matthew copied most of his account from Mark. In any case, Mark 15:40-41 also says that many women watched from a distance and specifically mentions "Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome."
Gospel of Luke
The author of this gospel also apparently copied most of his account of the crucifixion from Mark. The only mention of Jesus' followers is in Luke 23:49, which says that some of them watched from a distance, but doesn't give any names.
Gospel of John
The account in this gospel differs considerably from the other three. It says that several women and one disciple stood "near the cross", and that Jesus spoke to them from the cross. The women are identified as Jesus' mother Mary, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clophas (or Cleophas), and Mary Magdalene. The disciple is identified only as "the disciple whom Jesus loved".
Source
And this: "It says that several women and one disciple stood "near the cross", and that Jesus spoke to them from the cross." Is why I tend to give more credence to John's account than the others, not that there is anything wrong about them, but from the fact that John may well have been the only one of the Disciples to personally eye witness what happened at the cross.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Upvote
0
klutedavid
Well-Known Member
Hello Ken.
Of course, faith without works is not a genuine faith, yet we are saved by Grace.
Grace precedes everything else in understanding the scripture.
Acts 15:11
But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.
Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Upvote
0
Apologetic_Warrior
Pilgrim
- Oct 21, 2003
- 6,793
- 3,289
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
My my, even God cannot save infants or paralyzed people unable to do "works". Sad day in paradise.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
klutedavid
Well-Known Member
With the gospel authors supposedly copying one another, why are the resurrection accounts all different from one another?
Upvote
0
Apologetic_Warrior
Pilgrim
- Oct 21, 2003
- 6,793
- 3,289
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Yet, with subtle differences, they are harmonious. Harmonies of the Gospels are available and demonstrate this.
Upvote
0
klutedavid
Well-Known Member
I prefer the minor differences in the gospel accounts, it lends more weight to the validity of the Gospel. We know for sure that they are not copies of just one single account.
Luke's gospel tells us that he used eyewitness accounts, what more does anyone want?
Upvote
0
- Jan 12, 2014
- 7,218
- 5,563
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
That one is hard for some to appreciate but once you catch on to that, it really does strengthen the points. God inspired them, He didn't mind control them. So, you have 4 humans... spirit led? of course! But 4 humans that basically are telling the same exact story, through their own eyes and using their own words and methods of writing. It is a far greater collection of witnesses than had they written the same exact thing as if controlled to do so.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
klutedavid
Well-Known Member
Yes Ken, once you see the point, four separate witnesses with slightly different accounts. What a beautiful and power packed message the gospel becomes.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
