Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I agree Jesus saves us.Lutherans don't focus on salvation as an offer. In fact Jesus saves us completely with his own power:
Savior first, then Lord:
But now a righteousness apart from law has been made known to which the law and prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.That is the basis of our SALVATION. Certainly. But you asked what was the basis of our righteousness.
If we view righteousness = salvation, then we risk being accused of believing that we can work our way to worthiness before God, which of course, we cannot do.
If I recall correctly, I did not mention sacraments when I gave the two extremes as you put it. Simply legalism, attaining heaven by observing the law, and the opposite I mentions. I will go and check I I remember correctlyYou are creating the extremes, between Sacraments, Church, etc. on one hand, and on the other is giving your heart and life to Christ. This is a false dichotomy. Nowhere in the receiving of grace through the Sacraments do we say, for example, that we must not submit completely to Christ and rely on Him. In fact, the opposite is true. Without faith in Christ, they WOULD be empty and meaningless rituals, devoid of grace.
(This is the answer to your charge earlier, of the mafia perhaps receiving Sacraments - though I would also point out that this is usually associated with Catholicism's views, which are already tending toward legalism in contrast to Orthodoxy.)
But it is not, and cannot be, a matter of either/or. It must be a matter of both/and.
But now a righteousness apart from law has been made known to which the law and prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
Rom3:21&22
There Is only ONE righteousness on offer under the new covenant that I am aware of
Faith in Christ.
Therefore, according to the bible, if you ask what a christians righteousness is, there is and can be no ambiguity In such a question, for scripturally there is only one definition of it.
Faith in Christ
No, you might not have mentioned it. But given the drift of the conversation, it seems you consider your descriptions to be two extremes? Please do forgive me if I've misunderstood you.If I recall correctly, I did not mention sacraments when I gave the two extremes as you put it. Simply legalism, attaining heaven by observing the law, and the opposite I mentions. I will go and check I I remember correctly
Taken to an extreme, some might understand your words to mean that you think we should have faith in Christ, and then go out and sin all we might like.
.
.
If I recall correctly, I did not mention sacraments when I gave the two extremes as you put it. Simply legalism, attaining heaven by observing the law, and the opposite I mentions. I will go and check I I remember correctly
No, I am being honest, I really wasn't sure EXACTLY what you were asking.If you were really honest, is that why you did not immediately state.
Faith in Christ, in respond to the question?
For I am sure you knew the answer, you've read the NT
I'm sorry, I am in an out of the convo, not quite enough time to devote until later today.
I am nearly positive you are looking for "Christ" as the answer.
We Orthodox would certainly agree with that, but I think Matt was right that there is a risk of talking past one another.
I hope I haven't messed up the conversation by replying. Will check in when I have more time to devote to thoughtful replies, and will see how it progresses by then.
I hope that helps.
Remember, the new covenant hinges on TWO core points.Taken to an extreme, some might understand your words to mean that you think we should have faith in Christ, and then go out and sin all we might like.
I know that's not what you mean.
But I've also told you what we mean, and don't mean. Or I've tried to.
I can only repeat, there is no other definition of a christians righteousness under the NC that i am aware of. Therefore I fail to understand you did not know what I was askingNo, I am being honest, I really wasn't sure EXACTLY what you were asking.
I did answer Christ though ... in case you were asking about salvation, as I thought possible. But perhaps you did not see that.
Actually, I'm glad you wrote the above. It is certainly true the majority I Christendom believe you cannot have a sole righteousness of faith in Christ, for they see That as a licence to sin.Taken to an extreme, some might understand your words to mean that you think we should have faith in Christ, and then go out and sin all we might like.
I know that's not what you mean.
But I've also told you what we mean, and don't mean. Or I've tried to.
I understand where you are coming from.Nop, quite the contrary. He was against the rigorists who wanted to re-baptize apostates and schismatics. Sort of what many Orthodox Christians do.
Two separate events in Acts ch8...They became believers, therefore the holy spirit had already entered their lives. But they did not receive the filling of the holy Spirit until peter and John went to samaria.
You do not have to drive with your hands, you can use your knees if you want. But, we cannot be mad at Catholics, Anglicans, and Orthodox for wanting to continue the model the Apostles employed.As I have previously, in detail explained you do not have to be anointed with oil to be healed
We cannot be mad at Catholics, Anglicans, and Orthodox for wanting to continue the model the Apostles employed.Every born again Christian will confess to God when they err, if they had to be told they must do it, there is something badly wrong with their religious experience.
According to Christ, "My flesh."What is the true bread( when that term is used) from heaven that gives eternal life to man?
Lets just concentrate on the true bread from heaven.Yes, but the Chrism is what the Apostles did to confer the filling of the Spirit. We cannot be mad at Catholics, Anglicans, and Orthodox for wanting to continue the model the Apostles employed.
You do not have to drive with your hands, you can use your knees if you want. But, we cannot be mad at Catholics, Anglicans, and Orthodox for wanting to continue the model the Apostles employed.
We cannot be mad at Catholics, Anglicans, and Orthodox for wanting to continue the model the Apostles employed.
According to Christ, "My flesh."
The filling of the spirit came to Cornelius and his household prior to baptism.Yes, but the Chrism is what the Apostles did to confer the filling of the Spirit. We cannot be mad at Catholics, Anglicans, and Orthodox for wanting to continue the model the Apostles employed.
You do not have to drive with your hands, you can use your knees if you want. But, we cannot be mad at Catholics, Anglicans, and Orthodox for wanting to continue the model the Apostles employed.
We cannot be mad at Catholics, Anglicans, and Orthodox for wanting to continue the model the Apostles employed.
According to Christ, "My flesh."
Christ said it in much less words. "My flesh is true food."Lets just concentrate on the true bread from heaven.
For the bread of God is he who comes down from Heaven and gives life( eternal) to the world
John6:33
I am the bread of life( eternal) he who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never thirst
Verse35
So what exactly is the bread That gives eternal life?
I tell you the truth, whoever hears my WORD and believes him who sent me has ETERNAL LIFE and will not be condemned. He has crossed over from death to life
John 5:24
I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my WORD he will never see death( eternal life)
John8:51
How is it you don't understand I was not talking to you about BREAD. But be on your guard against the YEAST of the Pharisees and saducess.
Then they understood, he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching( wrong word) of the Pharisees and saducees
Mark 16:11&12
I am not angry, I am just saying that it is incumbent upon Christians to follow the mode of the Apostles. Just because the thief on the cross can die without baptism but go to heaven, that does not mean we should not bother with baptism. So, just because the Holy Spirit can be conferred without Chrism, it does not mean that we should not follow this model.The filling of the spirit came to Cornelius and his household prior to baptism.
Dont be mad at such a truth, it is in the bible.
Peter and Paul healed people without firstly annointing them with oil. Dont be mad at such an idea, it Is in the bible
Etc
Absolutely, all Christians should be baptised in water. I cannot understand why anyone wouldnt. The bible is clear. Believers are to be baptisedI am not angry, I am just saying that it is incumbent upon Christians to follow the mode of the Apostles. Just because the thief on the cross can die without baptism but go to heaven, that does not mean we should not bother with baptism. So, just because the Holy Spirit can be conferred without Chrism, it does not mean that we should not follow this model.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?