ExTiff

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2018
481
99
78
Southampton
✟41,282.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Obedience is vital.
There are 26 instances in the KJV of Jesus requiring 'faith' of people he met while on earth but not even one single instance of Him requiring 'obedience' from anyone.

Before you get the notion however that I am suggesting that obedience is unnecesary I agree that it is important to be obedient to Christ. However, if we are to take it that Jesus spoke mostly about what He thought most important, even 'vital' then 'faith' must therefore be at least 26 times more 'vital' than obedience in Jesus's estimation.

The two are synonymous though. Rom.16:26. Eph.6:5.

Where is that in the Bible?? So keep the feast with sincerity and truth. Nothing about what you claim.

I claim that we must be sincere in faith, our conduct must be unfeigned; genuine; free from pretence; the same in reality as in appearance; truthful; pure. i.e. sincere.

Where did I say that? I said people have wicked hearts. You disagree? People lie to themselves. You think they don’t?

I think we are all less sincere than we think ourselves to be and most certainly a lot less obedient to God than we credit ourselves for. (The Pharisees were expert at crediting themselves with obedience). I bet you have no idea how many times a day you are disobedient to God's directing, but 'faith' can put that right, if you possess it. That's why Jesus talked so much about 'faith' and not even oncel about 'obedience'. He knew obedience was too much to ask of human beings and even struggled with it himself at least one time. Luke 22:44.

Obedience is required. Sincerity is cheap. Harder to fake obedience to God. Jesus equates those who did nothing with going to hell.

You can't fake sincerity with God. Only a fool would try. Sincerity is by no means cheap. Sincerity of heart is highly praised by Apostolic authority. 1 Tim.1:5; 1 Pet.1:22.

Btw, Everyone claim to be sincere. No one says they’re insincere.

Many claim to be 'obedient' too but they are not, (if they are sincere about themselves). Ps.139:23. Many claim to be 'faithful' and they are not, (if they are sincere about themselves). Such is the human condition.

Why else would we need a Savior?
.
 
Upvote 0

ExTiff

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2018
481
99
78
Southampton
✟41,282.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
However....."Sincerity" does not save anyone.

All over the world we hear it said...…..
“It does not matter if you believe in Jesus, Buddha, or Mohammed, as long as your belief is sincere. What more could God want than a sincere heart?”

Who said it does? Sincerity is not equivalent to enthusiasm. Sincerity is as I defined it earlier and is approved of by apostolic authority. I certainly did not suggest however that it is more essential than 'faith'. Now that is an essential with respect to salvation, but faith in what, we may ask. Faith in God's promises, His ability and His integrity. The one primary requirement spoken of by Christ concerning salvation, is 'faith in God' and a sincerely repentant heart.

We do not choose our doctors, our babysitters, or our accountants on the basis of their sincerity because we know that sincerity is not enough. In the same way, sincerity is not sufficient for salvation. All religions make general claims about reality and particular claims about salvation. Our primary concern should be the truth or falsity of those claims. God either exists or he doesn’t, we are either born again or we are not, but the sincerity of our beliefs does nothing to change the fact of the matter.

A person can be the most sincere and loving and friendly person in Alabama, but if they do not accept Jesus as the Christ they are lost on hell bound.

I don't doubt that sincere belief can lead even those who sincerely believe Jesus is the Christ into being lost and hell bound. There are probably many KKK members in Alabama who accept Christ's divinty with great sincerity, but are nevertheless bound for the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
.
 
Upvote 0

Dorothy Mae

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2018
5,657
1,017
Canton south of Germany
✟75,214.00
Country
Switzerland
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There are 26 instances in the KJV of Jesus requiring 'faith' of people he met while on earth but not even one single instance of Him requiring 'obedience' from anyone.
Does he require love? Do you know the measure of loving God? “If you love me...”
Before you get the notion however that I am suggesting that obedience is unnecesary I agree that it is important to be obedient to Christ.
Why it is important in your view? You’ve certainly downgraded it to an optional extra. So why obey at all?
However, if we are to take it that Jesus spoke mostly about what He thought most important, even 'vital' then 'faith' must therefore be at least 26 times more 'vital' than obedience in Jesus's estimation.
If we don’t obey, we don’t have faith. Jesus judges a tree by its fruit, not by what the tree tells itself it is.
The two are synonymous though. Rom.16:26. Eph.6:5.
The words are different, look different and one can easily believing is merely giving mental agreement.
I claim that we must be sincere in faith, our conduct must be unfeigned; genuine; free from pretence; the same in reality as in appearance; truthful; pure. i.e. sincere.
Everything except obedience to God. What you have done is select put the cheap easy bits that occur only in the mind, never the hands, feet and mouth. Obedience to God is costly. What you require above is very cheap, just an internal attitude.
I think we are all less sincere than we think ourselves to be and most certainly a lot less obedient to God than we credit ourselves for.
In my experience few point to their obedience to God at all but prefer to talk
about internal feelings about Jesus.
(The Pharisees were expert at crediting themselves with obedience)
They’re dead and gone.
. I bet you have no idea how many times a day you are disobedient to God's directing, but 'faith' can put that right, if you possess it.
He tells me so I know. That’s what a relationship with God means.
That's why Jesus talked so much about 'faith' and not even oncel about 'obedience'. He knew obedience was too much to ask of human beings and even struggled with it himself at least one time. Luke 22:44.
And yet he judges how much faith a person has by the out working in what men can actually see. He judges our love for God, the most important command, by our obedience, not our faith. And obeying is not that difficult when you’ve developed a lifetime of doing so. And Jesus never struggled to obey God. He asked if there was another way.
You can't fake sincerity with God. Only a fool would try. Sincerity is by no means cheap. Sincerity of heart is highly praised by Apostolic authority. 1 Tim.1:5; 1 Pet.1:22.
Which man does Jesus promise the father will come and live in, the sincere man or the man who keeps his teaching living it out?

Sincerity is very cheap and anyone can easily fool themselves telling themselves they are sincere. It’s much harder to fool yourself thinking you’re obedient although that is also possible. And no it’s not dangerous to do so, at least immediately. God doesn’t squash a man for trying to fool God. This is quite commonly done.
Many claim to be 'obedient' too but they are not, (if they are sincere about themselves). Ps.139:23.
Actually quite few. Many think being sincere is enough.
Many claim to be 'faithful' and they are not, (if they are sincere about themselves). Such is the human condition.
Actually few
Why else would we need a Savior?
.
This is the problem, believers are taught they just need a savior, they don’t need to move on from salvation to sonship and so remain infants in their faith believing for salvation and nothing beyond.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,592
66
Northern uk
✟561,189.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Just to let you know, I think the appeal to someone who was taught by John as an authority shows a weak position. Judas was taught by Jesus himself and that didn’t insure he got the truth.

There is so much wrong with your statement , it is hard to know where to start.

So I will pick a few...
1/ Jesus sent the apostles to go out and teach. ( not judas, who he tolerated for short term purpose) and gave them power to " bind and loose" aka give definitive interpretation of doctrine,

2/ The necessity of being sent : " how can they teach if they are not sent" so those that are sent, can teach!
3/ Jesus promises the gates of hell will not prevail against his church. So he will not allow false doctrine...in HIS church...
4/ if you don't trust John. You don't trust the gospels!
5/ because Jesus appointed a succession , is why the first fathers urge us all to listen to bishops.
6/ Paul tells you to stay true to what is taught by word of mouth and letter, tradition, paradosis faith handed down,

And so on,


But above all is a matter of authority:
You are asking me to believe your personal interpretation, ( symbolic) which didn't exist pre reformation, over that of an apostle appointed and taught by Jesus , and which interpretation ( real flesh, sacramental) all believed in the first millenium...so who appointed YOU?

So my final quote is
" the foundation of truth is the church, which is the household of God" not surprising when the apostles and successors were given the power to " bind and loose" i.e. Give definitive interpretation on matters of faith, without which you would not have a New Testament.

The upshot, if you don't trust apostles , or that Jesus would ensure his faith was passed on, there is nothing you can rely on, including the newtestament canon,
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ExTiff

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2018
481
99
78
Southampton
✟41,282.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Does he require love? Do you know the measure of loving God? “If you love me...”
I certainly have an estimation of God's love for me, and measure the extent of God's requirement of my love for God and others using that yardstick. "If you love me you will keep my commandments", and His commanment is that we "Love one another as He has loved us". Jn.13:34. He is our example. Jesus was no law letter follower though and no hypocritical Pharisee either, so neither should we be.

Why it is important in your view? You’ve certainly downgraded it to an optional extra. So why obey at all? If we don’t obey, we don’t have faith. Jesus judges a tree by its fruit, not by what the tree tells itself it is.

I have 'downgraded' nothing. It is you who have placed 'obedience' above everything else. I have upgraded 'faith' Rom.3:28; 1 Thes.1:3, and am now upgrading 'love', for without 'love' we are nothing. 1 Cor.13:2-3.

Everything except obedience to God. What you have done is select put the cheap easy bits that occur only in the mind, never the hands, feet and mouth. Obedience to God is costly. What you require above is very cheap, just an internal attitude. In my experience few point to their obedience to God at all but prefer to talk about internal feelings about Jesus.
Then your experience is lacking, you clearly have been mxing with the wrong people.

[Pharisees] They’re dead and gone.
Phariseeism is alive and well, especially in 'the visible church' and especially in those churches which are the most condemnatory of the disobedient.

He judges our love for God, the most important command, by our obedience, not our faith.
Obedience follows faith, it does not precede it. Rom.4:3; Rom.4:5.

And obeying is not that difficult when you’ve developed a lifetime of doing so.
And this sentence seems to indicate exactly who is enabling your salvaton in your estimation.

And Jesus never struggled to obey God. He asked if there was another way.
I bet you have never yet sweated blood when confronted with a hard choice between doing God's will or doing your own. Heb.12:4.

Which man does Jesus promise the father will come and live in, the sincere man or the man who keeps his teaching living it out?
The one who loves sincerely. Without sincerity even love would not be (unfeigned; genuine; free from pretence; the same in reality as in appearance; truthful and pure).

Sincerity is very cheap and anyone can easily fool themselves telling themselves they are sincere. It’s much harder to fool yourself thinking you’re obedient although that is also possible. And no it’s not dangerous to do so, at least immediately. God doesn’t squash a man for trying to fool God. This is quite commonly done.
God does not squash anyone for their trespasses, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them. 2 Cor.5:19.

Many think being sincere is enough. [ ] This is the problem, believers are taught they just need a savior, they don’t need to move on from salvation to sonship and so remain infants in their faith believing for salvation and nothing beyond.
We need a Savior and that Savior must be acknowledged as our Lord and Master if we are to receive His Spirit and walk in faith, being reconcilied with God. This is the process of Sanctification without which none can see God. 1 Thes.4:7; Heb.12:14.
.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dorothy Mae

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2018
5,657
1,017
Canton south of Germany
✟75,214.00
Country
Switzerland
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There is so much wrong with your statement , it is hard to know where to start.

So I will pick a few...
1/ Jesus sent the apostles to go out and teach. ( not judas, who he tolerated for short term purpose) and gave them power to " bind and loose" aka give definitive interpretation of doctrine,
Where ist he scripture that says Judas was NOT sent out? The disciples did not know WHO would betray him, by the way. Did not seem that Judas was singled out for exclusion by any of the gospels. I think you do not like the idea that Jesus personally taught Judas and he did not learn. It happens. Ask teachers of all kinds. So, first thing wrong with your post dealt with.
2/ The necessity of being sent : " how can they teach if they are not sent" so those that are sent, can teach!
Where does it say that those who are sent will be 100% successful in everyone who hears them learns? The Pharisees and so on heard Jesus quite a bit. Did they learn? Was Jesus sent? I recall a verse that sends something about God sending his to people who will not listen....hummmmm
3/ Jesus promises the gates of hell will not prevail against his church. So he will not allow false doctrine...in HIS church...
The gates of hell are stationary, not moving. Gates don't move. So when the church marches against the enemy, we prevail. This does not say there will never be wolves among the sheep. Paul mentioned he expected false teachers to come into the church by the way. Hmmmmm
4/ if you don't trust John. You don't trust the gospels!
Those who supposedly learned from John are not necessarily like John. Judas Iscariot was not Jesus although he learned from him.
5/ because Jesus appointed a succession , is why the first fathers urge us all to listen to bishops.
Can I please have the scripture where it is recorded Jesus appointing a succession? I recall he gave the apostles authority over scorpions and snakes. Not describing the church we can assume. So where is the description of the ceremony where he did this?
6/ Paul tells you to stay true to what is taught by word of mouth and letter, tradition, paradosis faith handed down,
Ah, all the cults today had teaching by word of mouth and letter and tradition (a very big one) and so on. All of them. If you will not listen to scripture as the authority but everyone who claims the above, you will never arrive at the truth. By the way, the Holy Spirit, not word of mouth, letter, tradition, etc is promised to lead us into truth. He can use all of that but he is the source, not someone who was taught by someone who was taught by someone who knew John, we hope.
But above all is a matter of authority:
You are asking me to believe your personal interpretation, ( symbolic) which didn't exist pre reformation, over that of an apostle appointed and taught by Jesus , and which interpretation ( real flesh, sacramental) all believed in the first millenium...so who appointed YOU?
OK, I see I have awakend the Catholic spirit defending the popes and so on. I leave you to your religion with only a few more answers.
So my final quote is
" the foundation of truth is the church, which is the household of God"
You edited that for you own purposes. The whole things reads;
"if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth. Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory." Jesus is the foundation of truth, not the RCC.
not surprising when the apostles and successors were given the power to " bind and loose" i.e. Give definitive interpretation on matters of faith, without which you would not have a New Testament.
If the RCC had had its way, we would not have the New Testament or the old or inbetween. In any case, all believers are given the power to bind and loose. Done it many times myself. We have that authority.
The upshot, if you don't trust apostles , or that Jesus would ensure his faith was passed on, there is nothing you can rely on, including the newtestament canon,
I trust God. I trust Jesus. I do not speak to any of the apostles so I cannot say on that. The Bible, the inspired word of God I trust. The pope I do not trust for good reason. But you do so we are likely to just disagree. I wish you well.
 
Upvote 0

Dorothy Mae

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2018
5,657
1,017
Canton south of Germany
✟75,214.00
Country
Switzerland
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I certainly have an estimation of God's love for me, and measure the extent of God's requirement of my love for God and others using that yardstick. "If you love me you will keep my commandments", and His commanment is that we "Love one another as He has loved us". Jn.13:34. He is our example. Jesus was no law letter follower though and no hypocritical Pharisee either, so neither should we be.
If you read what Jesus taught, he said more than one sentence on what obeying God means. You have made it into some kind of warm feeling sans action. And Jesus followed the law and specifically said he did not come to do away with the law. He had something very unpleasant to say about people who considered themselves and acted lawless. It was not good. Jesus actually gave a new law too. He did not dislike the law of God. He did not think much of the law of man at points though. But otherwise lawless ones are not welcome in the Kingdom of God. David loves God's law, by the way.
I have 'downgraded' nothing. It is you who have placed 'obedience' above everything else. I have upgraded 'faith' Rom.3:28; 1 Thes.1:3, and am now upgrading 'love', for without 'love' we are nothing. 1 Cor.13:2-3.
I can see that you will not see the point. Obedience is costly. Warm fuzzies like "love" and "sincerity" and "faith" one can tell oneself one has and feel good about oneself. One cannot tell oneself one has obeyed if one hasn't and feel good so easily. But when you do, the difference between mere sincerity and action is amazing.
Then your experience is lacking, you clearly have been mxing with the wrong people.
Let us test your theory. Please point to me a few people here who claim they obeyed God. If it is as common as you say, it should be easy. Just link us into those here who claimed they obeyed God and share the details.
Phariseeism is alive and well, especially in 'the visible church' and especially in those churches which are the most condemnatory of the disobedient.
So you like the churches who condone the disobedient? Openly disobedient? Those are your kind? I mean what else am I to think.
Obedience follows faith, it does not precede it. Rom.4:3; Rom.4:5.
So you obviously consider yourself having faith, what was your obedience to the living God in the last week?
And this sentence seems to indicate exactly who is enabling your salvaton in your estimation.
Wrong. Where do I say who? God himself said his commands are not that difficult to obey. You think otherwise? I prefer to think what He thinks of the matter.
I bet you have never yet sweated blood when confronted with a hard choice between doing God's will or doing your own. Heb.12:4.
Have you ever had to make that choice at all, hard or not, between obeying GOd and disobeying where obeying won? Do you know what He wants of you? (Just for you to think about, no need to answer me.)
The one who loves sincerely. Without sincerity even love would not be (unfeigned; genuine; free from pretence; the same in reality as in appearance; truthful and pure).
Alright, be content looking inside and telling yourself you are sincere. That is not how God is measuring but it is a lot easier than how He does.

We need a Savior and that Savior must be acknowledged as our Lord and Master if we are to receive His Spirit and walk in faith, being reconcilied with God. This is the process of Sanctification without which none can see God. 1 Thes.4:7; Heb.12:14.
.
So where are you in the sanctification line? Most people I read who talk about salvation and then sanctification and say nothing real about sanctification haven't left babyhood Christianity. They don't know what sanctified looks like. They can only talk about salvation as that is all they know. Obedience is still in the future for them... maybe.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,592
66
Northern uk
✟561,189.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I will not go blow for blow.

Excep to say
First - scripture is ambiguous - which is why sola scriptura churches fracture on every aspect of doctrine, when they lose the faith handed down. So the question is which opinion of meaning, handed down should christians choose? You name it, sola scriptura churches disagree on it profoundly. Why so if scripture can stand alone.

So we believe in scripture passionately, but we beleiev unless you have the true meaning handed down (which is paradosis, tradition) , you dont have the word of God. Take OSAS, saved and can lose it, or not saved till the end, are opposites held equally passionately by groups of sola scriptura christians! How can it be? Or do you have the authority to choose?

Second - you seem think your opinion on scripture trumps the meaning both what the first apostles taught ( I illustrated with the eucharist), and the church believed for the next 1500 years - including all those who chose your canon - indeed most of the church has believed ever since
. Only a (relatively) few since reformation have believed "symbolic" only eucharist.

The problem with the groups that believe such things is they dont want to abolish the pope or magisterium...they want to BE the pope without appointment or authority, and is why the reformation churches all splinter and splinter again. Too many popes, equally convinced only they are right.

I think you should study
1/ Where your bible came from - it didnt drop out of the sky.
2/ What the first fathers thought it meant, including those who decided the cannon.
3/ The authority by which the canon and creed can be assumed infallible - since they were decided by men.


I also think you should study the meaning of some of the phrases.
1/ Phrases Like "bind and loose" - which is the authority to give definitive intepretation on matter of law and doctrine. Thats how we know what is true. And the apostles in acts are seen to appoint successors. We can trace some of them!

2/ Phrases Like "tradition" which is the greek word paradosis - it means "faith handed down" - which was the mechanism the faith was passed for the early centuries. The canon didnt exist yet. And it would be another 1800 years before most could own and read a bible.
3/ Like "foundation of truth is the church, which is the household of God" - we know from old testament , household of God meant Physical church

I also think you should study the early christian documents, from didache, to such as iraenus.
Discover your views are the oddity, the early church was very consistent in opposition to your views.

So by what authority do you claim you are right and the overwhelming majority of christians of history are wrong?
That is a "bold" place to be. It also implies a lack of faith in Jesus to keep his church on track. That is the original and biggest one that has believed the same things from the earliest christian times. Putting aside small differences we have with orthodox, you are very well outnumbered!

Are all of them wrong but you?

Start with a question. Answer me this.
Let me point out the FIRST canon Iraneus says was rejected by the church at Rome as heretical, (history refers to it, Marcions) so we do not use it. If you dispute the authority of the church at Rome. How do you dispute that canon? If any canon is just as good why do you not use that instead. Did the church get it right or wrong?

Converesely...Why do you not also select the protoevangelium of James as canonical? The reason your bible does not contain it , was a decision of men. What was both in and out of the canon were decisions of the church over hundreds of years. Do you agree with them. If not why not?


The point I make is if you do not trust the authority of the church, nor can you trust your bible....


Where ist he scripture that says Judas was NOT sent out? The disciples did not know WHO would betray him, by the way. Did not seem that Judas was singled out for exclusion by any of the gospels. I think you do not like the idea that Jesus personally taught Judas and he did not learn. It happens. Ask teachers of all kinds. So, first thing wrong with your post dealt with.
Where does it say that those who are sent will be 100% successful in everyone who hears them learns? The Pharisees and so on heard Jesus quite a bit. Did they learn? Was Jesus sent? I recall a verse that sends something about God sending his to people who will not listen....hummmmm
The gates of hell are stationary, not moving. Gates don't move. So when the church marches against the enemy, we prevail. This does not say there will never be wolves among the sheep. Paul mentioned he expected false teachers to come into the church by the way. Hmmmmm
Those who supposedly learned from John are not necessarily like John. Judas Iscariot was not Jesus although he learned from him.
Can I please have the scripture where it is recorded Jesus appointing a succession? I recall he gave the apostles authority over scorpions and snakes. Not describing the church we can assume. So where is the description of the ceremony where he did this?
Ah, all the cults today had teaching by word of mouth and letter and tradition (a very big one) and so on. All of them. If you will not listen to scripture as the authority but everyone who claims the above, you will never arrive at the truth. By the way, the Holy Spirit, not word of mouth, letter, tradition, etc is promised to lead us into truth. He can use all of that but he is the source, not someone who was taught by someone who was taught by someone who knew John, we hope.
OK, I see I have awakend the Catholic spirit defending the popes and so on. I leave you to your religion with only a few more answers.
You edited that for you own purposes. The whole things reads;
"if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth. Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory." Jesus is the foundation of truth, not the RCC.
If the RCC had had its way, we would not have the New Testament or the old or inbetween. In any case, all believers are given the power to bind and loose. Done it many times myself. We have that authority.
I trust God. I trust Jesus. I do not speak to any of the apostles so I cannot say on that. The Bible, the inspired word of God I trust. The pope I do not trust for good reason. But you do so we are likely to just disagree. I wish you well.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ExTiff

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2018
481
99
78
Southampton
✟41,282.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
If you read what Jesus taught, he said more than one sentence on what obeying God means. You have made it into some kind of warm feeling sans action. And Jesus followed the law and specifically said he did not come to do away with the law. He had something very unpleasant to say about people who considered themselves and acted lawless. It was not good. Jesus actually gave a new law too. He did not dislike the law of God. He did not think much of the law of man at points though. But otherwise lawless ones are not welcome in the Kingdom of God. David loves God's law, by the way.
Jesus avoided preaching salvation by obedience to the law, and so did the Apostles. Jesus is the fulfilment of the law for those who have faith. We get our morality directly from Christ in the form of The Holy Spirit. We love the law, the law is good Rom.7:12-21, but it is no longer our Master, Gal.3:24, it is our guide to Wisdom, Insight and Sanctification.

I can see that you will not see the point. Obedience is costly. Warm fuzzies like "love" and "sincerity" and "faith" one can tell oneself one has and feel good about oneself. One cannot tell oneself one has obeyed if one hasn't and feel good so easily. But when you do, the difference between mere sincerity and action is amazing.
If you are 'merely sincere' about serving God and obeying Christ, then surely you are not yet sincere. Sincerity is about being seriously committed to something. If you think sincerity is something to be avoided or can be dispensed with in your loyalty and service to Christ, then clearly the service and loyalty lacks sincerity, surely? Is that not logical?

Let us test your theory. Please point to me a few people here who claim they obeyed God. If it is as common as you say, it should be easy. Just link us into those here who claimed they obeyed God and share the details.
Surely, humility is expected by Christ in His disciples. Any declaring their obedience openly or making comparisons between themselves and others, would fail the test of 'humility'. I don't doubt that many true disciples of Christ from Apostloic times until today have been and are sincerely obedient to God, (not that many can be absolutely certain exactly what God expected of them in every situation and circumstance). Just as you yourself cannot know the mind of God on every matter under every circumstance. That is why we need 'faith' and why 'faith' is our only means of securing salvation, not works of the law or supposed obedience. Most of the time we are quite unaware of how dissobedient we actually are to the promptings of The Holy Spirit, but God understands that and has made allowances for it. We are only judged on what truth we have knowingly rejected, not on that of which we remain in ignorance. Luke.23:34; Matt.6:12-14; (Matt.18:34-35; In other words 'sincerely not grudgingly'), Luke 12:47.

So you like the churches who condone the disobedient? Openly disobedient? Those are your kind? I mean what else am I to think.
Philippians 4:8 perhaps? That would be a good start. Rather than starting from the assumption that I am condoning wickedness. I am a fellow believer after all. Obedience to Christ is quite high on my list of things to do with such life as God has left for me. I would rather not spend the rest of it either condoning or condemning those more ignorant than myself of God's love for them.

So you obviously consider yourself having faith, what was your obedience to the living God in the last week?
Having 'the faith' is being obedient to God. Rom.1:5; Rom.16:26; Acts 6:7.

And obeying is not that difficult when you’ve developed a lifetime of doing so.
Clearly you do not imply by what you have written that I have developed a lifetime of obedience. You don't even know who I am, so how could you make such an assessment? The only other person you could logically be referring to has to be yourself. Yet you then discount that possibility as follows:

Wrong. Where do I say who? God himself said his commands are not that difficult to obey. You think otherwise? I prefer to think what He thinks of the matter.
Are you claiming to know the mind of God? Or are you claiming that you successfully are keeping the whole of the law?

In order to have developed a lifetime of obedience it would be necessary to know the mind of God. Jesus Christ is the only human being to have ever done that. You, like the rest of us sinners, unfortunately frequently ignore what is in God's mind concerning what you should be doing. You should be concerned about that, not boasting about how easy his commands are to obey and how successfully you have developed a lifetime of doing so.

Have you ever had to make that choice at all, hard or not, between obeying God and disobeying where obeying won?
Frequently!

Do you know what He wants of you? (Just for you to think about, no need to answer me.)
Not often. I find written in the scriptures what God wants of me regarding my moral obligations to God and my fellow human beings. Knowing God's will the way Jesus did, I have always found most difficult, though I have not yet quite 'sweated blood', when faced with difficult choices.

Alright, be content looking inside and telling yourself you are sincere. That is not how God is measuring but it is a lot easier than how He does.
I feel I am a lot safer being sincere in 'faith' than believing I am obedient to law. I know my limitations as also does God, know my limitations. Ps.139:1-18. I believe that God is merciful and requires this of me: That I believe God in Christ no longer holds my trespasses against me, and has entrusted me with the message of reconciliation, which it is now my duty to promulgate to anyone who is willing to listen to it, and act upon it, and thus be reconciled with God.

So where are you in the sanctification line? Most people I read who talk about salvation and then sanctification and say nothing real about sanctification haven't left babyhood Christianity. They don't know what sanctified looks like. They can only talk about salvation as that is all they know. Obedience is still in the future for them... maybe.
I hope that my progress in Sanctification is satisfactory to the one who oversees it. I believe I shall stand. Rom.14:4; Eph.6:13; Revelation 6:17.
.
 
Last edited:
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

Dorothy Mae

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2018
5,657
1,017
Canton south of Germany
✟75,214.00
Country
Switzerland
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I will not go blow for blow.

Excep to say
First - scripture is ambiguous - which is why sola scriptura churches fracture on every aspect of doctrine, when they lose the faith handed down. So the question is which opinion of meaning, handed down should christians choose? You name it, sola scriptura churches disagree on it profoundly. Why so if scripture can stand alone.

So we believe in scripture passionately, but we beleiev unless you have the true meaning handed down (which is paradosis, tradition) , you dont have the word of God. Take OSAS, saved and can lose it, or not saved till the end, are opposites held equally passionately by groups of sola scriptura christians! How can it be? Or do you have the authority to choose?

Second - you seem think your opinion on scripture trumps the meaning both what the first apostles taught ( I illustrated with the eucharist), and the church believed for the next 1500 years - including all those who chose your canon - indeed most of the church has believed ever since
. Only a (relatively) few since reformation have believed "symbolic" only eucharist.

The problem with the groups that believe such things is they dont want to abolish the pope or magisterium...they want to BE the pope without appointment or authority, and is why the reformation churches all splinter and splinter again. Too many popes, equally convinced only they are right.

I think you should study
1/ Where your bible came from - it didnt drop out of the sky.
2/ What the first fathers thought it meant, including those who decided the cannon.
3/ The authority by which the canon and creed can be assumed infallible - since they were decided by men.


I also think you should study the meaning of some of the phrases.
1/ Phrases Like "bind and loose" - which is the authority to give definitive intepretation on matter of law and doctrine. Thats how we know what is true. And the apostles in acts are seen to appoint successors. We can trace some of them!

2/ Phrases Like "tradition" which is the greek word paradosis - it means "faith handed down" - which was the mechanism the faith was passed for the early centuries. The canon didnt exist yet. And it would be another 1800 years before most could own and read a bible.
3/ Like "foundation of truth is the church, which is the household of God" - we know from old testament , household of God meant Physical church

I also think you should study the early christian documents, from didache, to such as iraenus.
Discover your views are the oddity, the early church was very consistent in opposition to your views.
Ok, I won't go blow by blow either as you are right, it is rather tedious. Just a few breaks. First, I never claimed to have the only view on scripture as we have not really discussed my views on particular scriptures. If you want some I can give it. For example, authority to bind and lose was useful when I encountered demonic powers and told them to leave and they left. The most recent was the two occultic people living downstairs who decided to hold some kind of demonic event and were making very strange and loud noises. I got irritated and told those demons in the name of Jesus to leave. It got instantly silent as a tomb. They had left the building. I had bound them. So I am a rather practical person. I am not too interested in man theology but I am fascinated by God Himself and got a fair bit about what I think from Him personally. But because He trusts me, I will not reveal which bit is from Him. If I do, He won't trust me with any more information. Most of what I get is deeply personally edifying and shapes my activities and responses in life. I do not teach and I only share when He asks me to do so.

You asked about how Christians can claim sola scriptura and hold widely different views that are mutually exclusive. This is a fair question. The answer is not in the scripture but in the people. As God as explained himself to me, he has also explained the mind of man to me. I KNOW why these two different views are held. WHen I have applied what I thought He said on the matter to real live people, questioning them, the information He gave was 100% correct. So I know why there are different views. I understand man and God and what motives both. God is sweeter and more pleasant although a lot harder to satisfy.
So by what authority do you claim you are right and the overwhelming majority of christians of history are wrong?
Same reason Elijah was right and the overwhelming number of prophets of Baal were wrong. But you need to really be specific. I never said I was right on all the things I think or on all things, most of which I have never thought about and have no view.
That is a "bold" place to be. It also implies a lack of faith in Jesus to keep his church on track. That is the original and biggest one that has believed the same things from the earliest christian times. Putting aside small differences we have with orthodox, you are very well outnumbered!
Interesting that you admit that Christians hold opposite views and both sides claim scripture and yet you accuse me of not believing Jesus can keep his church on track. How come there are oppositve views if Jesus is responsible (to you) to keep the Christians on track? WHich is it? Does he or doesn't he and why are there opposite views in the church?
Are all of them wrong but you?

Start with a question. Answer me this.
Let me point out the FIRST canon was rejected by the church atRome as heretical, (history refers to it) so we do not use it..
If you dispute the authority of Rome. How do you dispute that canon? Did the church get it right or wrong?
The scriptures were written in the first century (NT) and passed on throughout the whole of the Christians in the known world. By the third century, when Constantine considered legalising it to control it (made himself first pope), the NT was too widely spread for them to have any real say whatsoever. I mean the JWS can call the Christian bible corrupted but it has no effect whatsoever on the Christian bible in the world as it is now really too wide spead. So it was in the 3rd century. It was a done deal and Rome had nothing to say about it. It was already acknowledged as inspired. It was, after all, several hundred years later.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Sure it is.

That is an incorrect statement and YOU know it.

Allow me to say again that PURGATORY is not found anywhere in the Bible and neither is it even a suggestion in the 66 books of the KJV of the Bible.

The only place it is found is Maccabees 12:43-46 …….
“Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from sin.”

YOU know that is NOT in the Bible.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Dorothy Mae
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,592
66
Northern uk
✟561,189.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
First study the actual history of the bible. Then let us talk You are way off base.

Marcions really was the first canon. Study it. And that Rome outlawed it. Read Irenaus. Why so if any canon will do? Early groups of books also include Shepard of Hermas. Others dont. Some the prooevangelium. It really was the church fathers who took the decisions of which were canonical! A decision not taken for centuries

And constantine had nothign to do with it. Other than to bring christianity out of hiding.

If you really want to learn about christianity in constantines time read "life of anthony" anasthasius, also study anasthasius writings. Which are catholic. WHich also shows nothing changed under constantine. Anasthasius (and council) also dismissed arianism, all at the time of the Creed. How so without authority?


Sola scriptura is an invention of reformationists.
Scripture without the right meaning attached is not the word of God.
So how is the meaning carried? Which is all about authority.

The scriptures were written in the first century (NT) and passed on throughout the whole of the Christians in the known world. By the third century, when Constantine considered legalising it to control it (made himself first pope), the NT was too widely spread for them to have any real say whatsoever. I mean the JWS can call the Christian bible corrupted but it has no effect whatsoever on the Christian bible in the world as it is now really too wide spead. So it was in the 3rd century. It was a done deal and Rome had nothing to say about it. It was already acknowledged as inspired. It was, after all, several hundred years later.
 
Last edited:
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

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,592
66
Northern uk
✟561,189.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It was in the one that Jesus quoted.
The septuagint. As archeology has shown...And the differences are enough to prove that is the version Jesus used on occasion.
And the "festival of lights" "feast of remebrance" that Macc celebrates which is known as "hannukah" is certainly in the gospels.

It is also what the jews prayed at the time. Why so? Why did Jesus never rebuke them?
Jesus came "not to abolish, but to fulfil"

That is an incorrect statement and YOU know it.

Allow me to say again that PURGATORY is not found anywhere in the Bible and neither is it even a suggestion in the 66 books of the KJV of the Bible.

The only place it is found is Maccabees 12:43-46 …….
“Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from sin.”

YOU know that is NOT in the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What do you mean? The scriptures are in the Bible.


From comment #92...……..
"Allow me to say again that PURGATORY is not found anywhere in the Bible and neither is it even a suggestion in the 66 books of the KJV of the Bible."

Then would you please stop telling us that it is and prove that it is.

By saying it is and not posting your proof, you are making yourself look childish.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,592
66
Northern uk
✟561,189.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
And we can repeat:
Macc was in the bible that Jesus quoted.
The septuagint. As archeology has shown...
And the differences are enough to prove that is the version Jesus used that on occasion.

And the "festival of lights" "feast of remebrance" that Macc celebrates which is known as "hannukah" is certainly in the gospels.

It is also what the jews prayed at the time. Why so? Why did Jesus never rebuke them?
Jesus came "not to abolish, but to fulfil"

So I am not sure you adding "childish" is helpful.

From comment #92...……..
"Allow me to say again that PURGATORY is not found anywhere in the Bible and neither is it even a suggestion in the 66 books of the KJV of the Bible."

Then would you please stop telling us that it is and prove that it is.

By saying it is and not posting your proof, you are making yourself look childish.
 
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