Age of Accountability

Skala · Jun 9, 2011

I've always understood James to be teaching that works justify our faith. Not that works justifies us before God in the legal sense that Paul means when he says "justification is by faith, apart from works of the law"

There's a difference between the two. James is saying "prove your faith", not "get yourself justified before God by works".

Paul teaches that faith justifies the man.
James teaches that works justifies the faith.

The two are not at odds with each other. Here's a clear verse that shows the role works has in our salvation:

Eph 2:8-10
(8) For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
(9) not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
(10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

We are saved to do good works. Not saved by the good works that we do.

Fencerguy · Jun 10, 2011

Skala said:
I've always understood James to be teaching that works justify our faith. Not that works justifies us before God in the legal sense that Paul means when he says "justification is by faith, apart from works of the law"

There's a difference between the two. James is saying "prove your faith", not "get yourself justified before God by works".

Paul teaches that faith justifies the man.
James teaches that works justifies the faith.

The two are not at odds with each other. Here's a clear verse that shows the role works has in our salvation:

Eph 2:8-10
(8) For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
(9) not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
(10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

We are saved to do good works. Not saved by the good works that we do.

Which is interesting that James goes on to say:
"Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works." (James 2:20-22)

It would seem that James thought that works had at least a minimal role to play in the individual's salvation....
Jesus' words are also interesting... "For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct." (Matthew 16:27).
The Son of Man will not come to judge everyone according to how much faith he had, but according to his conduct....interesting

Again we see James saying that works play some role in a soul's justification:
"See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24).

don't see how James is saying that works "prove your faith." But I do see how works have a role in assuring your salvation and maintaining your salvation...

Hupomone10 · Jun 12, 2011

I don't believe James was saying "justification" by works in the sense of being declared not guilty of sin and declared righteous in the sight of God, now having "peace with God" regarding sin (Rom 5:1). Otherwise, he would be in direct disagreement with Paul who later taught justification in this sense by faith alone apart from works.

Rom 3:28
"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law."

And works are works; there is not a separate set of works that Paul is referring to and one that James is referring to; they are all works of law. To give to someone in need is certainly included in the Law of the O.T. and in Jesus's words, and this is the example James uses. Works are works.

If one is to clarify the other, since the majority opinion is that Paul's letters of Romans and Galatians were written after James, it must be Paul's words that clarify James', not James' that clarify Paul's. IOW, we can't say James' statement last as though it is the last factor in the equation.

James merely meant dead faith is mental belief that doesn't result in any action in keeping with that faith. He's talking about what we all know: mental acknowledgement of a fact isn't Biblical faith. It isn't the one who says "I know that Jesus is the Savior, I believe that," it is the one who embraces Christ as Savior; and this will result in actions in keeping with that faith.

This quote puts it in perspective I think:

"But now that God has ordained that man shall not be justified by works of law but by faith in the Lord Jesus (Rom 3:28), those who attempt to follow the law only disclose their own disobedience to God, seeking to establish their own righteousness in lieu of Gods righteousness (Rom 10:3).
Watchman Nee, Chinese teacher, preacher, author

"We must be brought back to the basics: freedom from the penalty of sin by His finished work; freed from the power of sin by His finished work. justified by faith (Gal 3:24), we walk by faith (2 Cor 5:7), Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him (Col 2:6).
- Miles Stanford, "The Complete Green Letters"

We do not maintain our salvation by works, we start the walk, and continue the walk - by faith. And so we must have a fuller understanding of what this means.

And this tells us what the real issue is regarding works: it is the ongoing process of our sanctification, working it out in this life, with reference to this life, not affecting or effecting eternal life.

Here's where our focus should be regarding works and actively living the Christian life, not with a view toward maintaining salvation, not in the sense of eternal life. It should be with a view toward living in victory over sin and the strongholds that have bound us:

Here's the whole quote from above, and it makes even better sense with regards to living the Christian life after what I just said and when placed together:

What sort of salvation would we have if our Father simply saved us from the penalty of sins, and then left us on our own to deal with the power of sin in our Christian life and walk? But most believers feel this is about as far as He went, and are struggling to get on the best they can, with His help. And this is the Galatian error, so prominent even now throughout born-again circles.
We must be brought back to the basics: freedom from the penalty of sin by His finished work; freed from the power of sin by His finished work. justified by faith (Gal 3:24), we walk by faith (2 Cor 5:7), Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him (Col 2:6).
- Miles Stanford, "The Complete Green Letters"

Fencerguy · Jun 15, 2011

Hupomone10 said:
I don't believe James was saying "justification" by works in the sense of being declared not guilty of sin and declared righteous in the sight of God, now having "peace with God" regarding sin (Rom 5:1). Otherwise, he would be in direct disagreement with Paul who later taught justification in this sense by faith alone apart from works.

Rom 3:28
"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law."

And works are works; there is not a separate set of works that Paul is referring to and one that James is referring to; they are all works of law.

I don't think this is necessarily true.....because James clearly says that "faith without works is dead".... Paul is very specific when he says "works of the law."

There would have to be a differentiation....My mind is drawn to the Judaizers who taught that one could only be saved by believing in Jesus and following the OT Law.....Which is what Paul said was not true....

It seems that there actually are two kinds of works......works of self that do nothing and have no effect on our salvation.....and the works that are empowered by the Holy Spirit that we are responsible to complete if we claim to be saved......

If James is referring to the "works of the law" that Paul is referring to, then you are right.....and the Bible has a massive contradiction on its hands........or else James is differentiating the works that a Christian needs to do and the ones that a Christian no longer needs to do...

Hupomone10 said:
James merely meant dead faith is mental belief that doesn't result in any action in keeping with that faith. He's talking about what we all know: mental acknowledgement of a fact isn't Biblical faith. It isn't the one who says "I know that Jesus is the Savior, I believe that," it is the one who embraces Christ as Savior; and this will result in actions in keeping with that faith.

we have talked about this Hupo
remember how works are often seen as a responsibility of faith, rather than a result of faith? How then do we explain people who seem to have a great faith, but dont ever do much with it? Would you tell them that they aren't saved? Because I am reasonably certain that they would vehemently disagree with you....

Hupomone10 said:
This quote puts it in perspective I think:

Hupomone10 said:
"But now that God has ordained that man shall not be justified by works of law but by faith in the Lord Jesus (Rom 3:28), those who attempt to follow the law only disclose their own disobedience to God, seeking to establish their own righteousness in lieu of Gods righteousness (Rom 10:3).
Watchman Nee, Chinese teacher, preacher, author

I still see Paul differentiating between the works of a born-again believer, and such works as the Judiazers were espousing......otherwise, why does Paul say "works of the law" specifically where James only says "works?" If it were all "works" that Paul were talking about....why does he say "works of the law" specifically?

Hupomone10 said:
Here's where our focus should be regarding works and actively living the Christian life, not with a view toward maintaining salvation, not in the sense of eternal life. It should be with a view toward living in victory over sin and the strongholds that have bound us:

So if we are never able to be victorious over a certain sin, does that mean that we weren't actually saved? because if we were, then our resulting works should have made it so that there is no sin that we should ever struggle with.,.....

I still can't get past where it says that "faith without works is dead"....Not that it is nonexistant, but dead.......

Hupomone10 · Jun 24, 2011

Fencerguy said:
I don't think this is necessarily true.....because James clearly says that "faith without works is dead".... Paul is very specific when he says "works of the law."

I still see Paul differentiating between the works of a born-again believer, and such works as the Judiazers were espousing......otherwise, why does Paul say "works of the law" specifically where James only says "works?" If it were all "works" that Paul were talking about....why does he say "works of the law" specifically?

Greetings, boy of the Sword

He is not always specific.
Consider this example, which is long before the Law was ever established:

Romans 4:2
For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God."
Notice that since this reference is to Abraham, it is long before the system of God's Law was ever instituted, and yet we have Paul using the same wording: works. He cannot be referring to a specific kind of works such as the works of the Jewish Law, as though other types of works are ok but it is only works according to the Jewish Law system were the only thing that was a wrong way to achieve righteous standing in God's eyes or to maintain it.

Paul is trying to show us that to focus on works such that the person sets himself with all resolve to "come through" and "do a great work for God" and "be a great Christian" is the wrong approach altogether because it is still of the flesh. And since it is of the flesh it will attempt to use fleshly self-effort to please God and will fall flat on its face.

Also verse 5:
"But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness"
Paul is not saying that one should not have works, but that it isn't the starting point; and it isn't even a second step or second additional necessary path toward righteousness or eternal life. They are not separate. Paul here is contrasting the type of focus that focuses only on working its way through self-effort, with the way that starts with faith and continues with works - actions - in keeping with that faith. STARTS with faith, not ENDS with faith. He is showing us an entirely different way of walking, a different type of walk - the walk of faith. And it is exactly that: a WALK of faith, not a stagnant point of time of faith; and not a mental belief we think is faith.

Rom. 4:6
"just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works" (works period, not works of Jewish law; keeping in mind there was no other set of God's principles then BUT the Mosaic law)

Eph. 2:8.9
For by grace you have been saved through faith;...
not as a result of works, that no one should boast." (no mention of the Law of Moses)
The thing I keep in mind here is that there is no "Christian Law" established at that time to take the place of the Mosaic law, nor does Paul infer there is. He says we should walk according to the "Law of faith."

And a last one
2 Timothy 1:9
who has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works,..." (Timothy was probably never a practicing Jew, for his father was a Greek and he wasn't even circumcised (Acts 16); and again, no reference by Paul to the Mosaic Law)

There would have to be a differentiation....My mind is drawn to the Judaizers who taught that one could only be saved by believing in Jesus and following the OT Law.....Which is what Paul said was not true....

We have to understand that in that day there was only one standard to adhere to - the law of God's Word, and that was the Old Testament Scriptures. They didn't have an Old Testament Law and a New Testament Law they could walk by, and a case of Paul saying "don't follow that Old Testament Law because we now have these New Testament Laws to go by and achieve righteousness." Paul is not telling them to choose between two sets of laws; and that they still need to do works separate from faith or in addition to faith, simply do them according to NT principles not OT Law.

Paul knew the Word of God too well. He knew that for instance "How blessed are those whose way is blameless, Who walk in the law of the LORD." - Ps 119:1, and he knew that and believed it with all his heart. He knew that the OT Law incorporated God's holy principles for living. Besides that, the NT principles other than the ceremonial law (and there's no suggestion that Paul was only referring to that) actually repeat the moral principles of the OT.

He also knew from hard experience that the consecrated and sanctified regenerated believer, freshly forgiven of sin would start the Christian life with all his zeal and all his self-effort to do a great work for God, and end up doing it all according to his consecrated Self-Effort; and that absolutely stinks before God. Because it's source is in Adam, not Christ. Only what is in us of Christ counts for anything. Only what Christ does in and through me through faith counts for anything. Every single work I do or have done that I think gets me some pleasing in God's eyes is nothing but flesh if it is not done in total dependence on the Holy Spirit within doing HIS work and not ME doing what my new sanctified mind thinks I should do. The "good flesh" is still.... the flesh. And the flesh, whether the good side or the bad, is still flesh, and cannot please God.

Paul when he refers to works is contrasting the entire principle of living by works period, not just the works of supposedly the Law of the OT, for that was the only Law of God there was. The NT letters were being written, and the gospels, and very little had been circulated. To please God, you kept God's principles. Those were incorporated in the OT because that's all there was. But the principle of living by Law is the same faulty method regardless of the system of law we adopt. It is living by Law, either by command or principle, that Paul is identifying as ineffective, both for justification and for living the Christian life.

It seems that there actually are two kinds of works......works of self that do nothing and have no effect on our salvation.....and the works that are empowered by the Holy Spirit that we are responsible to complete if we claim to be saved......

Exactly. On this we agree. And this is a revolutionary concept to grasp, speaking from years of failing at it.

That's why I still affirm the connection between faith and works being something like this:

"Faith has two aspects: initial faith, and ongoing faith. Initial faith is the act of trusting in Christ personally as our payment for sin. Ongoing faith is trust in Christs Presence, provisions, and power in order to live the Christian life moment-by-moment. It is faith in His indwelling Presence and His accomplished work.

"Biblical faith is belief that results in a response in keeping with that belief a response of thoughts, attitudes, and actions. The response is not always effective, depending on the object of the faith; but true faith always leads to a response."

Yes, we have responsibility to follow through with actions in keeping with our faith; but it cannot ever be actions (works) in addition to that faith; if we see it that way we have missed the connection between faith and those actions. If we see it as "in addition to" or live as though it is extra to faith, we have stepped out from actions based on total dependence on Christ to actions based on self's resources and self's resolve.

If James is referring to the "works of the law" that Paul is referring to, then you are right.....and the Bible has a massive contradiction on its hands........or else James is differentiating the works that a Christian needs to do and the ones that a Christian no longer needs to do...

My previous statements may not have been clear enough. I don't think there is a massive contradiction here, but I also do think that works are works, whether one calls them actions based on the Law of Moses or actions based on the Law of the Gospels or actions based on the laws (principles) of the epistles or the Law of Love or one's personal standard. I think James is pointing out one thing: after all is said and done, more is said than done. IOW, actions must follow faith or you're fooling yourself. Actions in keeping with faith follow faith or all we have is a mental belief that we think is real faith. It doesn't mean you aren't saved; it means that the person who thinks that way doesn't understand how to walk the Christian walk, which is the walk of faith.

Just using the example James used: he illustrated with a man who made a verbal statement, telling someone to be warm and filled (with food), a statement of something he wants or believes for that other person; but he does nothing to actually make that faith alive and make it come about. So many Christians try to put this in the category of how one gains eternal life because of the word justification.

we have talked about this Hupo

Not in-depth enough, obviously

remember how works are often seen as a responsibility of faith, rather than a result of faith?

I think we're talking about two different concepts, or it may be that you are misunderstanding what I'm saying to be that such works - actions - are automatic. That's not what I'm saying. It takes active engagement to walk the walk of faith.

No, I do not at all believe that it is one rather than the other. I believe that actions in keeping with one's faith are both a result of proper faith and the responsibility of such faith. If you take the responsibility and respond with active on-going faith, it will result in actions in keeping with that reliance on the Lord to some degree.

I contend that faith that doesn't result in works in keeping with that faith is not Biblical faith. It is not that I have faith in the Lord Jesus, and now I have to have works or else my faith dies. If I will just do enough actions that faith will stay alive and not die, or that the faith will result in eternal life because and only because I added to works to it; I'm referring NOT to actions in keeping with faith now but the idea that works must be added as a supposedly separate factor to faith. No, I believe they must be integrated; and only in that way are we pleasing to God. Everything else are works whose source is Self.

remember how works are often seen as a responsibility of faith, rather than a result of faith? How then do we explain people who seem to have a great faith, but dont ever do much with it? Would you tell them that they aren't saved? Because I am reasonably certain that they would vehemently disagree with you....

You are asking a question and then assuming my answer, and then disagreeing with the answer you had me give.

I explain people who seem to have great faith as just that: it only seems that way. I explain it this way: they are complacent, lazy. Maybe they should actually exercise some true faith in the Lord and, reckoning themselves dead to complacency, trust the Holy Spirit to enable them to do something. That would then head them on the road toward great faith.

But a person can fully trust in the Lord Jesus as their only payment for sin, realizing that they are themselves that awful thing, that worm, that deserves nothing but eternal wrath of God for rebellion against the very Essence of Love itself; and yet be a lazy complacent person when it comes to the ongoing living out of the walk of faith. That's why it's best not to confuse the two; and don't fall into the trap so many on our Baptist forum have fallen into where they cannot differentiate salvation from the Christian walk and they think the entire Christian life is nothing but God's grace saving them and the blood of Christ cleansing their sin. If that was all the gospel was to me or all I saw of it, I would never have overcome severe alcoholism.

God has something better for you than just complacent faith OR a walk focused on Self's works that Self can do. He has a walk empowered by the Holy Spirit to do what you cannot do for yourself, lived out in total dependence on Him and His indwelling Presence which will not change, His accomplished work (took your sins, crucified your Old Man on that cross) which CANNOT change, and His Word which will never fail.

So if we are never able to be victorious over a certain sin, does that mean that we weren't actually saved? because if we were, then our resulting works should have made it so that there is no sin that we should ever struggle with.,.....

I don't understand the connection you are making from the comment I made to your statement here. But again, it may be because you are taking what I said to mean that works are automatic and we may complacently sit back and expect them to happen. Nothing could be further from the truth.You should know by now from reading my posts and conversations that this thing about a person who has a struggling area was never saved to start with is really a pet peeve of mine, and folks around the Baptist forum seem to jump on that all the time.

All I can share is my own experience, strengh and hope. I can promise you that saving faith, faith in the Lord to save me from my sin, definitely wasn't the same level of faith I needed once I became a severe alcoholic. It wasn't even in the same ball park. I'm sure there are others, but of all the hundreds of alcoholics I've known, I'm the only one I know of personally who had it to the degree I had it and found deliverance from it apart from AA. They even told me multiple times that I would fail if I didn't stay. And yet, here I am, 3 yrs and 9 months sober without a drop; and it was all through learning AFTER salvation, AFTER saving faith in Christ as my SAVIOR, learning to walk governed by FAITH instead of governed by FEELINGS.

That was the key; for me anyway. It was not focusing on works, although actions were involved. It was total reliance on the Lord to do in and through me what I could NOT do through Self.

I still can't get past where it says that "faith without works is dead"....Not that it is nonexistant, but dead.......

I understand. I propose that you may be trying to make too much out of the word or phrase "dead." Don't make more out of it than what's there. It doesn't mean he lost eternal life; it doesn't mean he doesn't have eternal life, it actually says nothing about eternal life period.

What does he say? Something very practical about LIVING the Christian life, nothing about salvation, but everything about living for the Lord. Supposed faith that has no actions in keeping with that faith is useless. I think that's all James is saying, not that we should conclude that such faith is real because being dead it has to be real. The point to me seems to be the connection between real faith, or active faith if you will, and actions that should go with it.

Faith cannot accomplish anything without actions connected with it, right? Such faith can best be described as dead.

Blessings, and a special blessing for reading this long post.
H.

FaithPleases · Jul 4, 2011

I thought this discussion was about infants and their salvation. What is the consensus?

God sends them to burn forever no matter what age?

Skala · Jul 5, 2011

@Faithpleases

did you not read the whole thread?

I think the only 3 options are:

1) God saves all infants
2) God saves zero infants
3) God saves some infants

My belief is #1, but not because of some fictional age of accountability, but because I believe all of those that die as infants are God's elect. God has mercy on whom He will (Rom 9).

Also, it would not be wrong or unjust of God if he were to do #2, because all humans are guilty in Adam. (Original sin - Thus my denial of the age of accountability)

FaithPleases · Jul 6, 2011

Skala said:
@Faithpleases

did you not read the whole thread?

I think the only 3 options are:

1) God saves all infants
2) God saves zero infants
3) God saves some infants

My belief is #1, but not because of some fictional age of accountability, but because I believe all of those that die as infants are God's elect. God has mercy on whom He will (Rom 9).

Also, it would not be wrong or unjust of God if he were to do #2, because all humans are guilty in Adam. (Original sin - Thus my denial of the age of accountability)

Nope didn't read. Couldn't grasp anyone's views.

Skala · Jul 7, 2011

Well, what is your view?

FaithPleases · Jul 8, 2011

Skala said:
Well, what is your view?

I don't know enough about the word to have a view. I would hope God would not send infants to hell but it wouldn't surprise me either.

This is the all loving God who will send people to burn for an eternity.

Hupomone10 · Jul 11, 2011

FaithPleases said:
I don't know enough about the word to have a view. I would hope God would not send infants to hell but it wouldn't surprise me either.

This is the all loving God who will send people to burn for an eternity.

I understand the feeling, bro.

I sometimes wonder how a holy God could allow any of us to have eternal life and to enter heaven?

Go figure.

Funny, it really depends on which attribute we pick, doesn't it?

Let me ask you a hypothetical question, FP:

Knowing what you know about Adolph Hitler and what he did; or Mao Tse Tung who was responsible for around 60 million people being slaughtered, not to mention tortures and the like.

Pick one of them. Knowing what you know about them, you are allowed to go back in history to the time they are infants. You are asked to watch one of them for a few hours, left alone in a room with the future greatest mass-murderers of all time. Knowing what you know now, be honest. what would go through your head?

Could you justify killing an infant if the death of that infant meant millions of lives are spared that otherwise would have been brutally killed and millions of people avoid the most unspeakable tortures imaginable?

You might say you couldn't, given the conversation we're having here. But in another context and situation, I believe you or I either one would not have a hard time at all snuffing out the life of that infant, giving what they were going to do. So, before we blame God for being unloving, maybe we should admit that maybe we don't know all the facts.

Whatever God does it will be the most righteous, loving, and holy thing that can be done, with all things considered. We can be sure of that.

Myshkin99 · Jul 13, 2011

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } Hi,

Total newbie here. Not a scholar of the word, but an interested dabbler. I don't recall precisely how I got here, but I see that somehow I have read this entire thread. I got lost in it for what appears to be a couple of hours. I suppose I have a backstory that might matter but...mainly I just want to thank y'all for a really fascinating and informative read. I was caused to think, maybe I learned, and I dusted off the ol' Bible.

To Skala, Fencerguy, Hammster, Hupomone12, and the apparently departed PrincetonGuy, I bid “cheers”.

That said, I guess I should probably add some actual Thread Content. This thread gave me a length of rope with which I could probably hang my pretensions to scholarship. In my most recent trip through the NT, I really tried to erase everything I had heard, seen, or thought I knew before reading, and pretend that it was a book I'd never heard of picked randomly off the non-fiction shelf. Between that experience and this thread, I suspect that, although I thought I was agnostic, I now suspect I might actually be a semi-theistic Calvinist. ;-)

I have tiptoed through the tulips. Pretty original, huh? I bet Skala never heard that one before! I mean before 11:53 CDT on a Wednesday, but after 11:50 CDT on that same Wednesday....via the interwebs, that is.

C-Man · Jul 14, 2011

Many topics like this hedge against the fact that we just don't know. The Bible says in plain English that our questions will be answered in part.
I prefer to think that they are answered in part simply because our minds, which are still mired in the flesh, are unable to handle the true answer.

Hupomone10 · Jul 15, 2011

Myshkin99 said:
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } Hi,

Total newbie here. Not a scholar of the word, but an interested dabbler. I don't recall precisely how I got here, but I see that somehow I have read this entire thread. I got lost in it for what appears to be a couple of hours. I suppose I have a backstory that might matter but...mainly I just want to thank y'all for a really fascinating and informative read. I was caused to think, maybe I learned, and I dusted off the ol' Bible.

To Skala, Fencerguy, Hammster, Hupomone12, and the apparently departed PrincetonGuy, I bid cheers.

That said, I guess I should probably add some actual Thread Content. This thread gave me a length of rope with which I could probably hang my pretensions to scholarship. In my most recent trip through the NT, I really tried to erase everything I had heard, seen, or thought I knew before reading, and pretend that it was a book I'd never heard of picked randomly off the non-fiction shelf. Between that experience and this thread, I suspect that, although I thought I was agnostic, I now suspect I might actually be a semi-theistic Calvinist. ;-)

I have tiptoed through the tulips. Pretty original, huh? I bet Skala never heard that one before! I mean before 11:53 CDT on a Wednesday, but after 11:50 CDT on that same Wednesday....via the interwebs, that is.

Greetings to you as well.

How far are you in this most recent trip through the NT, and what are your impressions from reading it that way?

Blessings,
H.

Myshkin99 · Jul 17, 2011

Hupomone10 said:
Greetings to you as well.

How far are you in this most recent trip through the NT, and what are your impressions from reading it that way?

Blessings,
H.

Through 1 John. I do a chapter a day. When I have the energy to really think about it.

My impressions? Confused. It's lovely, but not really consistent.

I can see how this became such a force in the world, but I can also see why there are a multitude of 'interpretations'. The confusion factor multiplies once one leaves the gospels. I'm not sure that Paul was the best spokesman for what Jesus appeared to want to say.

In terms of the Gospels, I find Matthew to be the outlier in tone and message.

I had just assumed that the five points were handed down de novo from self-appointed authority, but...there is some support in scripture. Several posts in this thread have pointed these out, but the rebuttals have been robust. I don't think that the reformers made this stuff up out of whole cloth, but.... It's an uncomfortable theology for someone not brought up in it.

And somebody should have had a chat with Jesus about Matt 10...Maybe ought to strike that from the record. Sounds like alot of pseudo-intellectual but righteously emotional late night dorm room conversations I had back in the day. What is this, Earth First! for souls? I'm not impressed.

Please carry on this dialogue. Thanks.

Age of Accountability

I'm a Saint. Not because of me, but because of Him

Defender of the Unpopular!

Veteran

Defender of the Unpopular!

Veteran

Newbie

I'm a Saint. Not because of me, but because of Him

Newbie

I'm a Saint. Not because of me, but because of Him

Newbie

Veteran

Newbie

...

Veteran

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency