What's the use of faith alone?

Fervent · Tuesday at 1:33 PM

XrxrX said:
“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.

Even by that definition, it's clear that it isn't true given the massive soteriological disputes that all center on different passages being emphasized. But thank you for presenting this clarification, even if the underlying issue of its extrabiblical(or biblical) status remains in dispute.

fhansen · Tuesday at 1:37 PM

XrxrX said:
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.

And yet your's is nuanced speculation here, with no superior certainty or weight over other intepretations. The exhortations and warnings to strive, to endure, to persevere, to remain, to be vigilant, to overcome sin, have eternal life as their end. Indwelling can be a tenous operation and, if we're honest, a subjective experience and opinion anyway from our perspective until the end when God gives His perspective-and judgement.

Until then we can have a healthy while gaurded assurance supported by evidence of good fruit in our lives. But even an assertion of faith/trust requires a level of self-assessment that, unless supported by our actions, means little more than talk. To put it another way, until we're "perfected in love", presumably not entirirely completed until the next life when we meet "face to face", then we still aren't totally "sold out" to God, still with somewhat unclean hearts, and can therefore still stray from Him, can still opt for evil over good.

Grace is resisitable, The door can be opened and the door can be closed. We can "die again". We can "escape the pollution of the world by the knowledge of Christ" and then become embroiled back into the world, or "taste of the heavenly gift" and yet fall away. That's why we're warned not to do those things.

timothyu · Tuesday at 1:44 PM

RandyPNW said:
Some things would do well to be restored. Some things would do well to leave buried, except as a "memory."

We need to restore Jesus through a Hebrew perspective, what it meant at the time. Memories become traditions and end up overruling religious institutions. The Christ ends up being made over in a gentile perspective when seen through gentile eyes and the Kingdom of the Father is lost in a world of gentile making. Not only that, but we end up focused on meaningless religion rather than the messages revolving around the Kingdom of the Father, dwelling instead on the kingdoms of religion and their celebrities, lost in the fog of human philosophies.

The Liturgist · Tuesday at 1:50 PM

XrxrX said:
Irenaeus' Gnostic bent?

St. Irenaeus had no Gnostic bent - he is primarily remembered for writing a book Against Gnosticism, which is part of his larger book Against Heresies. He specifically deconstructed and exposed each Gnostic sect.

Accusing him of a Gnostic bent is like accusing Martin Luther of having a Zwinglian bent - it is not only false but the opposite of the truth.

Also, regarding St. Augustine, I already wrote a post addressing the falsehood of the accusation that St. Irenaeus was influenced by the Manichaen (Gnostic) religion, from which he converted.

You really need to get your facts straight, which makes your criticism of the early church Fathers even more offensive, for example, attacking St. Irenaeus, who is literally known as the primary anti-Gnostic polemicist of the 2nd century and accusing him of having a “Gnostic bent” is 180 degrees in opposition to the truth.

So you’re smearing a man who the Orthodox churches (and the Roman Catholics, the Assyrians and all other liturgical Christians that venerate the early church fathers) regard as holy for his opposition to Gnosticism by accusing him of having a “bent” towards the very thing he built his career around opposing, and wrote more polemics against than anyone else (even St. Epiphanios of Salamis, for while St. Epiphanios, who wrote the main polemics against later forms of Gnosticism like the Manichaean religion adhered to by St. Augustine before his conversion to Christianity, in writing his famed encyclopedia of heresies, the Panarion, depended on the coverage of Gnosticism provided by St. Irenaeus, since several of the Gnostic sects St. Irenaeus wrote about had faded from public view by the fourth century it was not certain whether or not they still existed or had supporters or were merely important in terms of historical context, whereas St. Irenaeus had directly contended with many of the older sects such as the Valentinians as the bishop of Lyons.

Also St. Irenaeus can be viewed as a person opposed to the idea of Papal supremacy, since when St. Victor attempted to compel a liturgical change in the church of Asia Minor, St. Irenaeus wrote him a letter rebuking him and pointing out he lacked jurisdiction in that region.

As for St. Augustine, accusations of crypto-Gnosticism on his part are unbelievably offensive, since he rejected Gnosticism, and the implicit suggestion in these accusations is that all converts remain influenced by their original religion, which is extremely problematic since it denies the reality of conversion to Christ and regeneration in Christ as promised in Scripture.

XrxrX · Tuesday at 2:06 PM

fhansen said:
And yet your's is nuanced speculation here, with no superior certainty or weight than other intepretations. The exhortations and warnings to strive, to endure, to persevere, to remain, to be vigilant, to overcome sin, have eternal life as their end. Indwelling can be a tenous operation and, if we're honest, a subjective experience and opinion anyway from our perspective until the end when God gives His perspective-and judgement.

Until then we can have a healthy while gaurded assurance supported by evidence of good fruit in our lives. But even an assertion of faith/trust requires a level of self-assessment that, unless supported by our actions, means little more than talk. To put it another way, until we're "perfected in love", presumably not entirirely completed until the next life when we meet "face to face", then we still aren't totally "sold out" to God, still with somewhat unclean hearts, and can therefore still stray from Him, can still opt for evil over good.

Grace is resisitable, The door can be opened and the door can be closed. We can "die again". We can "escape the pollution of the world by the knowledge of Christ" and then become embroiled back into the world, or "taste of the heavenly gift" and yet fall away. That's why we're warned not to do those things.

No, not speculation. You have to juxtapose your prooftexts with the totality of scripture describing what a Believer is, and what they Cannot be. What can happen to us, and what can't. For example, our heart.. "somewhat unclean hearts", God doesn't give a Born Again believer a "somewhat unclean heart". This cannot describe the new creation. "Tasting of the heavenly gift..", Judas did such, yet was an unbeliever. There are churches full of people that are witness to and "partakers of" the gift of corporate Spirit.. which also were many in ancient Israel, Yet....did not enter the Promised Land. You have to put these in context with All the scripture showing that once indwelled, it's a "Guarantee of our Inheritance..". Again, there's many audiences throughout the Gospels and Epistles, we are a Very specific one, never to be conflated with others.

XrxrX · Tuesday at 2:07 PM

The Liturgist said:
St. Irenaeus had no Gnostic bent - he is primarily remembered for writing a book Against Gnosticism, which is part of his larger book Against Heresies. He specifically deconstructed and exposed each Gnostic sect.

Accusing him of a Gnostic bent is like accusing Martin Luther of having a Zwinglian bent - it is not only false but the opposite of the truth.

Also, regarding St. Augustine, I already wrote a post addressing the falsehood of the accusation that St. Irenaeus was influenced by the Manichaen (Gnostic) religion, from which he converted.

You really need to get your facts straight, which makes your criticism of the early church Fathers even more offensive, for example, attacking St. Irenaeus, who is literally known as the primary anti-Gnostic polemicist of the 2nd century and accusing him of having a “Gnostic bent” is 180 degrees in opposition to the truth.

So you’re smearing a man who the Orthodox churches (and the Roman Catholics, the Assyrians and all other liturgical Christians that venerate the early church fathers) regard as holy for his opposition to Gnosticism by accusing him of having a “bent” towards the very thing he built his career around opposing, and wrote more polemics against than anyone else (even St. Epiphanios of Salamis, for while St. Epiphanios, who wrote the main polemics against later forms of Gnosticism like the Manichaean religion adhered to by St. Augustine before his conversion to Christianity, in writing his famed encyclopedia of heresies, the Panarion, depended on the coverage of Gnosticism provided by St. Irenaeus, since several of the Gnostic sects St. Irenaeus wrote about had faded from public view by the fourth century it was not certain whether or not they still existed or had supporters or were merely important in terms of historical context, whereas St. Irenaeus had directly contended with many of the older sects such as the Valentinians as the bishop of Lyons.

Also St. Irenaeus can be viewed as a person opposed to the idea of Papal supremacy, since when St. Victor attempted to compel a liturgical change in the church of Asia Minor, St. Irenaeus wrote him a letter rebuking him and pointing out he lacked jurisdiction in that region.

As for St. Augustine, accusations of crypto-Gnosticism on his part are unbelievably offensive, since he rejected Gnosticism, and the implicit suggestion in these accusations is that all converts remain influenced by their original religion, which is extremely problematic since it denies the reality of conversion to Christ and regeneration in Christ as promised in Scripture.

Yes, I misspoke on Irenaeus. Apologies.

fhansen · Tuesday at 2:13 PM

XrxrX said:
God doesn't give a Born Again believer a "somewhat unclean heart"

The born again remains somewhat ambiguous, still struggling against sin, still affected by concupiscence, still not totally faithful...yet. Otherwise sin would be impossible for him, totally excluded, overcome. That clean heart must be embraced, which involves a process.

"Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me
Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit." Ps 51:10-12

A sentiment worth our praying continously.

XrxrX · Tuesday at 2:20 PM

fhansen said:
The born again remains somewhat ambiguous, still struggling against sin, still affected by concupiscence, still not totally faithful...yet. Otherwise sin would be impossible for him, totally excluded, overcome.

Not ambiguous at all. How does sin sit with you? Enjoy it? No, we don't. A hardwired flesh, with "muscle memory", under attack by spiritual forces is not our heart, it's not our spirit, and it's not our will. We are new creations, that still struggle with this "tent", but our desire is God's will. Our spirit dwells with His, and it can't be at peace defying His. That's not a "normal man". We don't get absorbed into the "Borg" when Born Again.. we have autonomy. It's called a "New Creation" for a reason, there is nothing in Creation like us.. even angels don't quite get it. One Spirit with God... it's.. unfathomable. * And Psalm 51:10-12 is a testament to how our experience is completely different than pre Pentecost believers. Whole new deal.

The Liturgist · Tuesday at 2:28 PM

XrxrX said:
Yes, I misspoke on Irenaeus. Apologies.

Forgiven

fhansen · Tuesday at 2:47 PM

XrxrX said:
Not ambiguous at all. How does sin sit with you? Enjoy it? No, we don't.

Again, speculation here, with not so well supported assertions-and not going by experience, either, IMO. We sin because we will to sin, because the desire is strong enough to sit well enough to override any competing superior desires. We're now "equipped", by the Spirit, to make it happen, to overcome sin and God is patiently working with and within us towards that end. But the family tradition of rebellious pride intiated by Adam still holds sway as well. We can't predict whether or not we'll be poor soil in the end, whether or not we'll persevere.

XrxrX · Tuesday at 2:58 PM

fhansen said:
Again, speculation here, with not so well supported assertions-and not going by experience, either, IMO. We sin because we will to sin, because the desire is strong enough to sit well enough to override any competing superior desires. We're now "equipped", by the Spirit, to make it happen, to overcome sin and God is patiently working with and within us towards that end. But the family tradition of rebellious pride intiated by Adam still holds sway as well. We can't predict whether or not we'll be poor soil in the end, whether or not we'll persevere.

You either were or weren't good soil. That ship has sailed. As far as perseverance and endurance, yeah.. it's a marathon, not to "be saved", but to endure the trial of this life. Jesus overcame For Us. He conquered for us. We are overcomers and conquerors because He won for us. Enjoy the victory and be grateful.. don't try to win a war that has already been won.

timothyu · Tuesday at 3:02 PM

He won that war. We continue to be in conflict with ourselves, our will or His. That is all that matters. Religion gets in the way as the Adversary knew it would and as Jesus told the ruling rabbis.

fhansen · Tuesday at 3:07 PM

XrxrX said:
You either were or weren't good soil. That ship has sailed. As far as perseverance and endurance, yeah.. it's a marathon, not to "be saved", but to endure the trial of this life. Jesus overcame For Us. He conquered for us. We are overcomers and conquerors because He won for us. Enjoy the victory and be grateful.. don't try to win a war that has already been won.

The war is won when it's won-when He says it's won. if we're sinning away egregiously or producing no good fruit then we better question whether the war is over. A teaching I agree with:

409 This dramatic situation of "the whole world [which] is in the power of the evil one"makes man's life a battle:
The whole of man's history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil, stretching, so our Lord tells us, from the very dawn of history until the last day. Finding himself in the midst of the battlefield man has to struggle to do what is right, and it is at great cost to himself, and aided by God's grace, that he succeeds in achieving his own inner integrity.

XrxrX · Tuesday at 3:13 PM

timothyu said:
He won that war. We continue to be in conflict with ourselves, our will or His. That is all that matters. Religion gets in the way as the Adversary knew it would and as Jesus told the ruling rabbis.

There's conflict yes, but could it be more with spiritual attack than "ourselves"? I know what my "self" truly desires, and it's anything but the filth of sin. It seems more like deception, of influences and outside "forces" that make claims of "this will bring you joy" or "that will satisfy", and it's always a deception. Plus, I noticed that the Spirit actually does "take over" in critical moments, and literally changes you.. takes anger away, manifests this love that is supernatural, like a wave.. overwhelming and all consuming. You can tell it's God's love, not something you brought forth. It's a mysterious thing in many ways, and so beautiful. It's very real.. and it's exactly as scripture describes it.

ViaCrucis · Tuesday at 3:16 PM

fhansen said:
Yes, and to add some thoughts, FWIW. As to the Body and Blood, this brings to mind the reason for the “Do this in memory of Me" verse. Because the regular doing of the sacrament is for the purpose of keeping us reminded of our continuous need for Him and the nourishment implied simply in our freely partaking of Him. It isn't just some memorial service, IOW, but the fulfillment of a vital necessity. We need to know that we require this divine contact regularly, lest we forget, and begin slipping away into mundanity or worse.

And the sacraments have that as their purpose. They "cement" basic Christian theology into acts that can easily be understood and carried out. We must be baptized (the sacrament of faith) in order to enter God's fold. We can argue all day long about the thief on the cross and God's ability to forgo the necessity of any particular command being physically fulfilled and Scripture can sorta kinda be argued either way on this but we know what Jesus both modeled and commanded and we know what the early churches everywhere believed and practiced so there should be no real question as to what God gives as the normative way of coming to Him. In any case, come to Him we must and that sacrament makes this necessity clear, while serving as a definitive public profession of our faith as the way to do it.

The Eucharist is clearly enough described in Scripture as being central to the regular gathering of the church along with the reading of the sacred writings. And it was taken so seriously that one should not even partake without examining their consciences first (1 Cor 11:28-29). This demonstrates 1) that the intimate, ongoing communion with our Lord is essential to our spiritual health, to our life, and 2) that this vital communion can be threatened by our returning to the flesh, by our engaging in sin that is radically opposed to love of God and neighbor.

But, if we have a change of heart and confess our sins, He’ll purify us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). So, we’re provided a definite “place to go” for this need, so that complacency in observing it isn’t easily allowed to prevail. The sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation is for that very purpose, of reestablishing communion with God if we’ve seriously strayed away from Him. I believe this sacrament isn’t recognized by most Lutherans, but I’ve come to appreciate it and the reason behind it.

Anyway, by these simple sacraments even the simplest of folk can both know the most basic part they must play while having the practical means to play it, with all of these pointing to the need for and the reception of God’s grace. Any and all of these can be done cavalierly, mechanically, without sincere faith, but then they’ll be of no value either way.

As someone who has a habit of thinking in analogies (sometimes not a bad thing, sometimes not helpful, e.g. the Trinity), one of the analogies that I find helpful in thinking of the Sacraments is that they are like a power cord or electrical cable, through which we are plugged into grace and grace is "carried" to us. Word and Sacrament is an essential dimension of Jesus being the Vine and we the branches--it is our union to Christ, and the way we are "plugged" into God's grace. So that Word and Sacrament is where and how God condescends to meet us and mend us. The longer I leave my phone off the charger, the juice in the battery starts to run dry--it's that recharge, as we encounter God in His Word and Sacraments, that vitalizes us.

-CryptoLutheran

timothyu · Tuesday at 3:26 PM

XrxrX said:
There's conflict yes, but could it be more with spiritual attack than "ourselves"? I know what my "self" truly desire

No as we and spiritual attack follow the same motivation of self interest. The Hebrew people pre-gentile called it the Tempter, remember? Lead us not into temptation and deliver us from evil. That evil is putting our will before God’s, both human and elohim alike

XrxrX · Tuesday at 6:06 PM

timothyu said:
No as we and spiritual attack follow the same motivation of self interest. The Hebrew people pre-gentile called it the Tempter, remember? Lead us not into temptation and deliver us from evil. That evil is putting our will before God’s, both human and elohim alike

jas3 said:
Biblical literacy like knowing the difference between Ψ and Υ? I'd think you'd need to know at least the alphabet before claiming you could wipe the floor with the Church Fathers.

It seems like in spite of your assertion that Scripture is so clear a child can understand it, the only people who make the right connections in your mind are IFB. Funny how that works.
No, this is just historically illiterate and shows you don't really care to know what you're talking about. The Church Fathers weren't heresiarchs.

*Good catch on the misspell in my avatar... so much for avatar shopping in the wee hours.. xD

What's the use of faith alone?

Well-Known Member

Oldbie

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Active Member

Active Member

Oldbie

Active Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Oldbie

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Oldbie

Active Member

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads