How do we sort out different intepretations, and seeming contradictions?

[Halbhh]

To begin with, read Ephesians 2 beginning at 2:1. The meaning of 2:8-9 will become clear, and there will be no contradiction between Paul and James. The confusion comes only from having some preconceived notion of salvation. After understanding Ephesians 2 and recognizing that there is no contradiction, compare that to the teaching of the Church. That teaching is that we are not saved due to anything we may have done previously but we are to cooperate with grace to attain salvation at the end.

There are many other such seeming contradictions, but viewing them in light of the teachings of the Church the contradictions disappear. An example is 1 John:

1Jo 1:8 - If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

And then:

1Jo 3:6 - Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

Now either we sin or we do not sin. How can the writer say that we cannot claim that we have no sin, but if we sin we do not know Jesus?

But if we consider the idea of both mortal and venial sin, it becomes clear. As if to say "we all sin unintentionally, but anyone who sins intentionally does not know him".

Tense of 'sinned' vs situation of 'continues to sin'. (having written the below, I realize I'm preaching to the choir here)

We've all sinned, and all stumble at times also, but being reborn in Him we become changed, and "the power of sin has been broken" -- it no longer has the superior available influence and power; there is now a greater power.

So that if and while we continue to look to Him, remain in Him, abiding in Him, when we are, then we during those moments will tend not to sin.

But as the epistle says (we are talking about 1rst John) at the end of chapter 1 and beginning of 2, when we do stumble into sin, then we need to confess, and because of His amazing grace we will be cleansed and restored!
I feel I'm preaching to the choir. lol

 

[Halbhh]

Hi. I've never had any formal Bible study training... and that's probably part of the problem. I was raised Southern Baptist, but am now getting myself all twisted in knots after reading Church history and some of the Church Fathers and trying to read Scripture with an open mind...

I do believe that the Bible is supposed to be our ultimate authority, but I'm really getting frustrated at all the places where the right way to understand doctrine doesn't seem clear. I know what Baptists have traditionally taught and believed -- but the early Church Fathers seem in many places to teach something different, and I'm finding the Bible seems to teach something different -- that is, unless I begin with Baptist assumptions.

It seems like everybody has to begin with a certain set of assumptions -- or else there's no way to make sense of all this at all. For an example of just one knot I am twisting myself in, one I was thinking about earlier today -- What is actually required for salvation? Rather than being simple and clear like I've always been told this is supposed to be, I find that the Bible isn't very clear at all -- unless I begin from a certain assumption (sola fide for example) and subject everything else I read to that.

• Paul talks about being "saved by grace through faith" and "not a result of works" in Ephesians 2:8-10. Protestants take this to be a statement of sola fide, justification by faith alone.
  
• James says "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). And yes I know how Protestants usually explicate this in light of Paul -- but why do we prioritize Paul over James? How is that decision made?
• Jesus makes statements that seem to pretty clearly state there are things we have to do (works?) in order to be saved. For example, He says "unless one is both of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5), traditionally understood to refer to baptism; He says "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53), traditionally held to refer to the Lord's Supper. And yes, Baptists say neither one refers to either, but they still both apparently refer to something we have to do.
• Jesus also gives parables of the Judgment indicating we will be judged according to our works (Matt 25:31-46). Paul also says pretty plainly that God "will render to each one according to his works" (Roman 2:6) -- shortly before the passages where Protestants find the boldest proclamations of sola fide. How does that square?

And I could go on. There are other passages that don't seem to line up with the rest of these. And I'm just making myself miserable trying to figure out how all this sorts out. People tell me in sola fide threads to "use Scripture to interpret Scripture" -- but I don't see how that works at all, when these Scriptures appear to be saying completely different things. It feels like trying to solve a mathematical proof -- I feel like everything should make sense, if only I know the theorem to start with. But I feel like, in my mind, I have no idea where to begin... People tell me to keep studying, that if I study more, it will all begin to make sense... but it feels like the more I study, the less anything makes sense.

And yes I know that the Catholic Church has a magisterium that "fixes everything"! But is that the only answer? I know that the Church Fathers give guidance in how they, the Early Church, understood things -- and that helps a lot. But should I prioritize their interpretations? How do Protestants make it work at all?

The best single passage summary of it all is Ephesians chapter 2, verses 1-10 in full, including verse 10 (which of course is just what Paul expected -- that we read/listen fully).

I think a natural question also is what in the world does verse 10 mean, that we would at first ask this. I certainly did.

The best answer is in John chapter 15, verses 1-17, but perhaps the very best way to read that passage is to have begun at the beginning of chapter 14, taking your time, pausing to reflect and absorb all the words. When we say "grace" we also mean the power of the spirit working in us, accomplishing for us, in us, what we could not do on our own. When and during the times we are walking in the spirit, looking to Him, instead of following the flesh. I need help everyday though and He told us the prayer we need in Matthew 6, to pray each day. That's for real. When I do, I'm aided very clearly, and strongly, and everything goes better with others. When we do stumble then we need to confess in our heart to God, and then we are cleansed. (see just above in post #61)

 

[Acts2:38]

Which is why my previous advice was to ... "concentrate on the "doing", rather than the "knowing".

P.S. Believing is "doing something" ... unless you believe that the only valid endeavors are physical endeavors ...

John 6:28 Therefore they said to Him, “What must we do, that we may be doing the works of God?”

29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you should believe in Him whom He has sent.”

I didn't see that post.

I know that properly used, believing is doing something. My intention was to point out that the denominational world thinks that "believing" is to just say, "yup I believe" and then they just go on their way doing whatever. They just say some words and they are done.

So I was just pointing out that something has to be done. You cannot just spout out some words and say your a Christian. There are stipulations to entering into the kingdom.

One of the stipulations just so happens to be, baptism. One the denominational world thinks is unnecessary. On the contrary, it is SO necessary, that you can't "put on Christ" without it Galatians 3:27. You can't enter the kingdom without it John 3:3 and 5. You can't put on Christ and therefore cannot obtain spiritual blessings Ephesians 1:3. You cannot receive remission of sins thereby obtaining also, the Holy Spirit Acts 2:38.

That is what I was pointing out.

My apologies for not seeing your other post. I just saw the previous one I responded to that didn't say that, among other peoples that gave the impression that "all you have to do is say you believe and your fine" type posts. Because that is false according to scripture. Which is why the OP'er made this post. They are realizing that the denominational world is teaching something NOT found in scripture.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well I recently had to understand that I may be a protestant even though my Church and I do not protest the Catholic Church, with that out of the way I would say that my Church has a house of Bishops, a Catechism, and all that. I trust the Church since Christ founded the Church and St. Paul has said the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) and the model in the NT is that the Church sorted things out (Acts 15). So I sort it out by relying on my Church not some sola silliness and my Church sorts it out in looking to the Church fathers, the Creeds, the Ecumenical Councils, and the Liturgy.

That doesn't make you not Protestant, necessarily. Lutheran confessions are full of references to non-biblical sources. We just don't make any of those things ultimate norms.

 

[-Sasha-]

Which is why my previous advice was to ... "concentrate on the "doing", rather than the "knowing".

P.S. Believing is "doing something" ... unless you believe that the only valid endeavors are physical endeavors ...

John 6:28 Therefore they said to Him, “What must we do, that we may be doing the works of God?”

29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you should believe in Him whom He has sent.”

A couple of relevant quotes from St Mark the ascetic;
"Do not say: 'I do not know what is right, therefore I am not to blame when I fail to do it.' For if you did all the good about which you do know, what you should do next would then become clear to you, as if you were passing through a house from one room to another. It is not helpful to know what comes later before you have done what comes first. For knowledge without action 'puffs up', but 'love edifies', because it 'patiently accepts all things' (1 Cor. 8:1; 13:7)."

"Understand the words of Holy Scripture by putting them into practice, and do not fill yourself with conceit by expatiating on theoretical ideas."

"He who neglects action and depends on theoretical knowledge holds a staff of reed instead of a double-edged sword; and when he confronts his enemies in time of war, 'it will go into his hand, and pierce it' (2 Kgs. 18:21), injecting its natural poison."

 

[Halbhh]

A couple of relevant quotes from St Mark the ascetic;
"Do not say: 'I do not know what is right, therefore I am not to blame when I fail to do it.' For if you did all the good about which you do know, what you should do next would then become clear to you, as if you were passing through a house from one room to another. It is not helpful to know what comes later before you have done what comes first. For knowledge without action 'puffs up', but 'love edifies', because it 'patiently accepts all things' (1 Cor. 8:1; 13:7)."

"Understand the words of Holy Scripture by putting them into practice, and do not fill yourself with conceit by expatiating on theoretical ideas."
...

First time I've heard those quotes or any like those, but they are definitely as we should do, and it's a great point that we do first things first, and then the next comes. Also, one thing that happens consistently in these discussions between people of various backgrounds is we rarely know much about the actual practices of others we discuss with, nor do we even understand perfectly the different ways various people we talk with are using the same word, such as even words like 'faith' and 'communion' even(!). (also, it's additionally not even possible to have a perfect understanding of each other simply because each individual person has unique thinking and often unique styles of wording something or another). So, I tend to never think I really know precisely what someone meant, but only very slowly learn what they meant, sometimes days later, but even then I've learned not to presume much past individual bits.

 

[-Sasha-]

First time I've heard those quotes or any like those, but they are definitely as we should do, and it's a great point that we do first things first, and then the next comes. Also, one thing that happens consistently in these discussions between people of various backgrounds is we rarely know much about the actual practices of others we discuss with, nor do we even understand perfectly the different ways various people we talk with are using the same word, such as even words like 'faith' and 'communion' even(!). (also, it's additionally not even possible to have a perfect understanding of each other simply because each individual person has unique thinking and often unique styles of wording something or another). So, I tend to never think I really know precisely what someone meant, but only very slowly learn what they meant, sometimes days later, but even then I've learned not to presume much past individual bits.

I once heard conversation described as sending a ship out into the "sea" which is the air between the people talking. If all is turbulent between them, filled with intent to argue and prove oneself right, the "ship" (the words which you send out) will be swallowed up before reaching the safe harbor of the other persons mind/heart. But if all is calm and peaceful between the two, if there is desire to learn and understand, if there is humility, the ship will arrive safely and the hearer will receive the words. In my experience this is very true...so often when we talk to someone else, we stir up the waters with contention and pride, or only waiting for our turn to speak rather than hoping to gain something from what the other has said. We can learn a lot if we humble ourselves and listen.

 

[Halbhh]

I once heard conversation described as sending a ship out into the "sea" which is the air between the people talking. If all is turbulent between them, filled with intent to argue and prove oneself right, the "ship" (the words which you send out) will be swallowed up before reaching the safe harbor of the other persons mind/heart. But if all is calm and peaceful between the two, if there is desire to learn and understand, if there is humility, the ship will arrive safely and the hearer will receive the words. In my experience this is very true...so often when we talk to someone else, we stir up the waters with contention and pride, or only waiting for our turn to speak rather than hoping to gain something from what the other has said. We can learn a lot if we humble ourselves and listen.

Yes, that definitely helps hugely. Even enough often. We can rise from no real understanding or 1% understanding of what all they mean up to a much more communicating...40% (or is it more like 50% when it's at that best level between strangers)?

 

[Knee V]

This is a small point that may or may not be helpful.

I commonly see people establish doctrines by stringing together individual verses from separate and unrelated passages and from different books of the Bible.

Any given verse we read is part of a larger passage which has a specific context and which is making a specific point.

It is best to get away from stringing together unrelated verses and to read entire passages, finding the context and determining the over all point being made. If we don't do that, we just have a smattering of words that can be rearranged to make whatever doctrines we want.

 

[eleos1954]

Hi. I've never had any formal Bible study training... and that's probably part of the problem. I was raised Southern Baptist, but am now getting myself all twisted in knots after reading Church history and some of the Church Fathers and trying to read Scripture with an open mind...

I do believe that the Bible is supposed to be our ultimate authority, but I'm really getting frustrated at all the places where the right way to understand doctrine doesn't seem clear. I know what Baptists have traditionally taught and believed -- but the early Church Fathers seem in many places to teach something different, and I'm finding the Bible seems to teach something different -- that is, unless I begin with Baptist assumptions.

It seems like everybody has to begin with a certain set of assumptions -- or else there's no way to make sense of all this at all. For an example of just one knot I am twisting myself in, one I was thinking about earlier today -- What is actually required for salvation? Rather than being simple and clear like I've always been told this is supposed to be, I find that the Bible isn't very clear at all -- unless I begin from a certain assumption (sola fide for example) and subject everything else I read to that.

• Paul talks about being "saved by grace through faith" and "not a result of works" in Ephesians 2:8-10. Protestants take this to be a statement of sola fide, justification by faith alone.
  
• James says "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). And yes I know how Protestants usually explicate this in light of Paul -- but why do we prioritize Paul over James? How is that decision made?
• Jesus makes statements that seem to pretty clearly state there are things we have to do (works?) in order to be saved. For example, He says "unless one is both of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5), traditionally understood to refer to baptism; He says "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53), traditionally held to refer to the Lord's Supper. And yes, Baptists say neither one refers to either, but they still both apparently refer to something we have to do.
• Jesus also gives parables of the Judgment indicating we will be judged according to our works (Matt 25:31-46). Paul also says pretty plainly that God "will render to each one according to his works" (Roman 2:6) -- shortly before the passages where Protestants find the boldest proclamations of sola fide. How does that square?

And I could go on. There are other passages that don't seem to line up with the rest of these. And I'm just making myself miserable trying to figure out how all this sorts out. People tell me in sola fide threads to "use Scripture to interpret Scripture" -- but I don't see how that works at all, when these Scriptures appear to be saying completely different things. It feels like trying to solve a mathematical proof -- I feel like everything should make sense, if only I know the theorem to start with. But I feel like, in my mind, I have no idea where to begin... People tell me to keep studying, that if I study more, it will all begin to make sense... but it feels like the more I study, the less anything makes sense.

***

In infinite love and mercy God sent Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, so that in Him we might be made the righteousness of God. Led by the Holy Spirit we sense our need, acknowledge our sinfulness, repent of our transgressions, and exercise faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ, as our Substitute and Example. This faith which receives salvation comes through the divine power of the Word and is the gift of God's grace.

Through Christ we are justified, adopted as God's sons and daughters, and delivered from the lordship of sin. Through the Spirit we are born again and sanctified; the Spirit renews our minds, writes God's law of love in our hearts, and we are given the power (Christ working in us) to overcome live a holy life (this is a life-long process). Abiding in Him we become partakers of the divine nature and have the assurance of salvation now and in the judgement.

Each of us must diligently study Gods word for themselves.

Acts 17

11 And the people of Berea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul’s message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth.

Proverbs 2

1 My son, if you accept my words
and hide my commandments within you,
2if you incline your ear to wisdom
ad direct your heart to understanding,
3if you truly call out to insight
and lift your voice to understanding,
4if you seek it like silver
and search it out like hidden treasure,
5then you will discern the fear of the LORD
and discover the knowledge of God.

A good start is to study topically. Topics that interest you as impressed on you from the Holy Spirit. Here is a good resource www.biblehub.com

It is ALL about Jesus ... He is our example and we are to follow in his footsteps.

Psalm 119:133

Direct my footsteps according to your word;
let no sin rule over me.

1 Peter 2:21

To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

May the Lord lead you through the truth of His Holy Word. Amen.

 

[mnphysicist]

It seems like everybody has to begin with a certain set of assumptions -- or else there's no way to make sense of all this at all.

Agreed, this is the place where everyone starts irrespective of a given faith tradition. Some people can go through their entire life and leave those assumptions unquestioned, and it works for them.

This does not work for everyone, some will start to question those assumptions, which leads to their entire faith unraveling. If they are not supported in this path, many walk away from faith entirely, as it doesn't make any sense at all. In other cases, they will bounce from one faith practice to another, looking for answers, and sometimes finding one, and sometimes not. In other cases, they end up working through the issues, and start to see bits of truth in many of the assumptions they may have previously thought illogical. As time passes, they will see the wisdom of those assumptions, whether they ascribe fully to one set or the other, or even some combination, and their faith gets stronger, their walk with Jesus gets closer.

Fowlers stages of faith can give you a 10,000 ft view of this.
James Fowler: Stages of Faith — Lexington Avenue Baptist Church

How do Protestants make it work at all?

The most common way is to double down on their set of assumptions, and to view any questioning of those as "backsliding". Again, this can work for many people, and for some it can work for a lifetime. Sadly though, doubling down too much can make some folks faith brittle... which seems to be the case where in extremely committed believers end up pastors and church leaders, and then over a number of years, slam into faith crisis, where in their faith crashes and burns.

 

[timothyu]

There are stipulations to entering into the kingdom.

One of the stipulations just so happens to be, baptism.

Don't forget putting the will of the Father before our own thus loving all as self.

 

[timothyu]

which leads to their entire faith unraveling.

Not everyone unravels negatively. Some unravel and find they were bonds not of scripture but of doctrine. To them unravelling is a positive and allows regrowth through scripture..

 

[BNR32FAN]

Hi. I've never had any formal Bible study training... and that's probably part of the problem. I was raised Southern Baptist, but am now getting myself all twisted in knots after reading Church history and some of the Church Fathers and trying to read Scripture with an open mind...

I do believe that the Bible is supposed to be our ultimate authority, but I'm really getting frustrated at all the places where the right way to understand doctrine doesn't seem clear. I know what Baptists have traditionally taught and believed -- but the early Church Fathers seem in many places to teach something different, and I'm finding the Bible seems to teach something different -- that is, unless I begin with Baptist assumptions.

It seems like everybody has to begin with a certain set of assumptions -- or else there's no way to make sense of all this at all. For an example of just one knot I am twisting myself in, one I was thinking about earlier today -- What is actually required for salvation? Rather than being simple and clear like I've always been told this is supposed to be, I find that the Bible isn't very clear at all -- unless I begin from a certain assumption (sola fide for example) and subject everything else I read to that.

• Paul talks about being "saved by grace through faith" and "not a result of works" in Ephesians 2:8-10. Protestants take this to be a statement of sola fide, justification by faith alone.
  
• James says "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). And yes I know how Protestants usually explicate this in light of Paul -- but why do we prioritize Paul over James? How is that decision made?
• Jesus makes statements that seem to pretty clearly state there are things we have to do (works?) in order to be saved. For example, He says "unless one is both of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5), traditionally understood to refer to baptism; He says "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53), traditionally held to refer to the Lord's Supper. And yes, Baptists say neither one refers to either, but they still both apparently refer to something we have to do.
• Jesus also gives parables of the Judgment indicating we will be judged according to our works (Matt 25:31-46). Paul also says pretty plainly that God "will render to each one according to his works" (Roman 2:6) -- shortly before the passages where Protestants find the boldest proclamations of sola fide. How does that square?

And I could go on. There are other passages that don't seem to line up with the rest of these. And I'm just making myself miserable trying to figure out how all this sorts out. People tell me in sola fide threads to "use Scripture to interpret Scripture" -- but I don't see how that works at all, when these Scriptures appear to be saying completely different things. It feels like trying to solve a mathematical proof -- I feel like everything should make sense, if only I know the theorem to start with. But I feel like, in my mind, I have no idea where to begin... People tell me to keep studying, that if I study more, it will all begin to make sense... but it feels like the more I study, the less anything makes sense.

And yes I know that the Catholic Church has a magisterium that "fixes everything"! But is that the only answer? I know that the Church Fathers give guidance in how they, the Early Church, understood things -- and that helps a lot. But should I prioritize their interpretations? How do Protestants make it work at all?

I think the biggest problem is the English translations don’t encompass the full meanings of the Greek words. I think this is what causes so much confusion. For example the Greek word translated to justified means not only to be made right with God but also to be shown or evinced as being right with God. Paul in Romans 4 is referring to being made right with God and James 2 is referring to being shown to be right with God. Understanding the Greek definition a person can see that James specifically says I will show you my faith by my works.

Also the definitions of the Greek words translated to faith, believe, and believer all include a certain level of obedience, faithfulness, trustworthiness, and fidelity. Personally I think a better word would be devotion. Devotion itself is not a work yet it requires belief and trust and invokes qualities like faithfulness, trustworthiness, fidelity, and works.

 

[Acts2:38]

Don't forget putting the will of the Father before our own thus loving all as self.

Oh for sure! Yes I agree.

That's why I state scripture to the things I discuss. By pulling scripture, your showing what is God's will, and not our own, since scripture is "God breathed" 2 Timothy 3:16.

Great point to remind people of.

 

[zippy2006]

And I could go on. There are other passages that don't seem to line up with the rest of these. And I'm just making myself miserable trying to figure out how all this sorts out. People tell me in sola fide threads to "use Scripture to interpret Scripture" -- but I don't see how that works at all, when these Scriptures appear to be saying completely different things. It feels like trying to solve a mathematical proof -- I feel like everything should make sense, if only I know the theorem to start with. But I feel like, in my mind, I have no idea where to begin... People tell me to keep studying, that if I study more, it will all begin to make sense... but it feels like the more I study, the less anything makes sense.

Have you had any luck with your inquiry?

Without digging up the references, it seems to me that when Paul says, "Faith, not works," he is intending to undercut the possibility of boasting that one has been saved through their own power. It is God who saves us, not ourselves. That is the essence of Paul's emphasis on faith.

James seems to be opposing the idea that justification can be a mental, intellectual matter apart from the nitty-gritty of life:

If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill," and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. (James 2:15-17)
​

He is saying that that kind of faith is dead faith, not living, salvific faith.

In my humble opinion the reconciliation of these two views is found in the recognition that God's grace acts through us, both in our acts of faith and in our works of charity. We have no right to boast in our acts of faith, we have no right to boast in our works of charity, and a faith that is merely intellectual is insufficient.

Your broader question about scriptural contradictions in general is harder to answer, but I would encourage you to follow James' advice and supplement intellectual understanding with a practical living out of your faith. Sometimes the intellectual difficulties are attenuated and even resolved by way of practice and prayer. Patience is always important, too.

 

[GodLovesCats]

This is a small point that may or may not be helpful.

I commonly see people establish doctrines by stringing together individual verses from separate and unrelated passages and from different books of the Bible.

Any given verse we read is part of a larger passage which has a specific context and which is making a specific point.

It is best to get away from stringing together unrelated verses and to read entire passages, finding the context and determining the over all point being made. If we don't do that, we just have a smattering of words that can be rearranged to make whatever doctrines we want.

This is not a small point at all. In fact it is one reason so many Christians think the Bible contradicts itself. Additionally, people ask, "What does this verse mean?" and the answer is in the same chapter.

 

[mnphysicist]

Not everyone unravels negatively. Some unravel and find they were bonds not of scripture but of doctrine. To them unravelling is a positive and allows regrowth through scripture..

Absolutely agree with this... sometimes one go in with base of assumptions A, and comes out 10X stronger, but with assumptions A missing.

What scares many church folks who have not walked the path, and/or have seen part of it and have doubled down, is that the intermediate state is super scary. Things the church peer groups takes for granted as 100% true and certain are no longer believed by the person who's faith is unraveling. Sometimes this means that one is no longer comfortable talking about their true beliefs... and just parrots the party line to keep up social ties. In other cases, the person eventually does talk about their beliefs, which sadly can and does break longstanding friendships and church social ties. This should not be the case... but the love of doctrine, and the fear of changing beliefs is often times much stronger than the love for people Jesus talks about in the scriptures. Granted, not all churches botch this, some are supportive throughout the process.

The rebuilding of faith after unraveling can also freak church folks out, as its unpredictable. Sometimes folks come out the other side with beliefs quite different than what they started with.

 

[mnphysicist]

It feels like trying to solve a mathematical proof -- I feel like everything should make sense, if only I know the theorem to start with. But I feel like, in my mind, I have no idea where to begin... People tell me to keep studying, that if I study more, it will all begin to make sense... but it feels like the more I study, the less anything makes sense.

One thing to ponder is that mathematical proof that you solved in a few hours, or maybe a few days if its a nasty one, likely took someone years, or maybe even a good chunk of their lifetime to solve. There had to be a whole ton of times where they got discouraged and pondered giving up. In math and science, often times the more you study, the less things make sense, and then you have a lightbulb moment where the bits come together.

Matters of faith can be like that too...

The early writings of a young Augustine, Luther, Pope Benedict, or even small town church pastor of 60 people in 2019 are going to be vastly different than ones in their prime, and in some cases, the later ones in their twilight years. Its easy to look at the best of the best of their writings and go wow, this is so cool, they got this spot on... and miss the years or decades it might have taken to get there. Or in some cases as aging sets in or life experience, one can think wow, this brilliant man with so much promise went off the deep end... thinking of Luthers anti-semitism writings, and/or the tonedeaf letter from Pope Benedict a couple weeks ago.

Granted, all of this effort might not give you the clear and simple answer you are looking for... and it doesn't always in science either. Despite having jet airliners spread throughout the world, there is no universal formula for aerodynamics that fits the nice precision that math nerds would enjoy. Rather there are pieces of truth that work under a given set of assumptions, and models of the theory of flight that allow us to travel with speed and safely. Theology is sort of like that... grand unification theories pulling all the baselines assumptions do not yet exist, and likely won't exist... but within each set of baseline assumptions, there are people fully on board with loving God and loving their neighbor. Walking with Jesus with love ever more closely every day. This isn't to say to give up... but more so to be encouraged, others really are walking this path with you.

 

[Jonathan Mathews]

Hi. I've never had any formal Bible study training... and that's probably part of the problem. I was raised Southern Baptist, but am now getting myself all twisted in knots after reading Church history and some of the Church Fathers and trying to read Scripture with an open mind...

I do believe that the Bible is supposed to be our ultimate authority, but I'm really getting frustrated at all the places where the right way to understand doctrine doesn't seem clear. I know what Baptists have traditionally taught and believed -- but the early Church Fathers seem in many places to teach something different, and I'm finding the Bible seems to teach something different -- that is, unless I begin with Baptist assumptions.

It seems like everybody has to begin with a certain set of assumptions -- or else there's no way to make sense of all this at all. For an example of just one knot I am twisting myself in, one I was thinking about earlier today -- What is actually required for salvation? Rather than being simple and clear like I've always been told this is supposed to be, I find that the Bible isn't very clear at all -- unless I begin from a certain assumption (sola fide for example) and subject everything else I read to that.

• Paul talks about being "saved by grace through faith" and "not a result of works" in Ephesians 2:8-10. Protestants take this to be a statement of sola fide, justification by faith alone.
  
• James says "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). And yes I know how Protestants usually explicate this in light of Paul -- but why do we prioritize Paul over James? How is that decision made?
• Jesus makes statements that seem to pretty clearly state there are things we have to do (works?) in order to be saved. For example, He says "unless one is both of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5), traditionally understood to refer to baptism; He says "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53), traditionally held to refer to the Lord's Supper. And yes, Baptists say neither one refers to either, but they still both apparently refer to something we have to do.
• Jesus also gives parables of the Judgment indicating we will be judged according to our works (Matt 25:31-46). Paul also says pretty plainly that God "will render to each one according to his works" (Roman 2:6) -- shortly before the passages where Protestants find the boldest proclamations of sola fide. How does that square?

And I could go on. There are other passages that don't seem to line up with the rest of these. And I'm just making myself miserable trying to figure out how all this sorts out. People tell me in sola fide threads to "use Scripture to interpret Scripture" -- but I don't see how that works at all, when these Scriptures appear to be saying completely different things. It feels like trying to solve a mathematical proof -- I feel like everything should make sense, if only I know the theorem to start with. But I feel like, in my mind, I have no idea where to begin... People tell me to keep studying, that if I study more, it will all begin to make sense... but it feels like the more I study, the less anything makes sense.

And yes I know that the Catholic Church has a magisterium that "fixes everything"! But is that the only answer? I know that the Church Fathers give guidance in how they, the Early Church, understood things -- and that helps a lot. But should I prioritize their interpretations? How do Protestants make it work at all?

Let's take these points 1 by 1

#1) Saved by Grace thru Faith, not by works
vs
Justified by works and not faith alone

James is not preaching HOW to be saved by works. He is preaching against those who claim to have Faith, but are showing no works. He is exposing false Faith... faith without any good works resulting. Paul on the other hand IS teaching HOW to be saved... by Faith and not by works. Faith in Christ Alone is what saves. But once we are saved, God in us produces Good works. These works are the evidence that we are saved, and therefore God can examine our works to "Justify" us. Works are not the cause of our Salvation. Works are the inevitable "FRUIT" of our salvation. Works are not the means to salvation. They are the RESULT of salvation. Everyone who has saving faith will also have good works. Anyone who claims to have faith but has no good works does not really have saving faith either. But before we have works, we must only have faith in Jesus Christ to receive His Holy Spirit and be saved.

As Martin Luther said "Salvation is by Faith alone, but saving Faith is never alone (it produces good works)".

#2) Born by water and by Spirit
The "water" Jesus is referring to is the water in the womb of your mother when you were born. Jesus is saying, just being born is not enough. You must also be Born Again, by having Him pour the Holy Spirit into you. "Born of water" does not mean baptized in water. Even if it did, that baptism would not be enough. John baptized in water but said a greater one was coming (Jesus) who would baptize in the Holy Spirit and Fire. THIS is the One Baptism.... Baptism with the Holy Spirit by Jesus Christ.

#3) "eat of my flesh and drink of my blood".... Jesus made it clear that the Lord's Supper was his body and blood. But notice that He never said "If you eat of my flesh and drink my blood, you WILL have life in you." He said, "If you DON'T Eat of my flesh and my blood, you have NO life in you". Jesus is not teaching that His Life is given by eating his flesh and blood. He is teaching that this is something all people who have His Life will do, and whoever does NOT do that is outside His Life. It doesn't necessarily mean eating the Lord's Supper will GIVE you eternal life. Eternal Life is received when you receive the Holy Spirit, not NECESSARILY when you eat the Lord's Supper. But all those who have the Holy Spirit will eat the Lord's supper also. So anyone who does not eat the Lord's Supper is not one of those who are saved. But again, eating the Lord's Supper does not make you saved. Judas ate the Lord's Supper and he was a devil from beginning to end and he is in Hell. So even eating the Lord's Supper does not save. You must be Born of God's Spirit.

#4) God rendering Judgement according to works. This should have been answered in answer #1 above. Even though we are saved by Grace thru Faith ALONE, it ALWAYS bears good works. Jesus said "Every good tree bears good fruit" and "By their fruit, you will know them". So God can Judge whether we are saved by examining our works, even though those works are not HOW we were saved. If a tree bears good fruit, it's a good tree. If it bears bad fruit, it's a bad tree. A tree is known by it's fruit. A bad tree does not BECOME a good tree simply by binding good fruit to it's branches. It must have the Water in it's roots and be planted in good soil and receive the sun light. Then it will bear good fruit. A bad tree cannot bear good fruit, unless it becomes a good tree. So God will judge the trees by their fruit, even though it's not the fruit that makes them a good tree. Works are the Fruit of the Holy Spirit in you. The Holy Spirit in you ALWAYS produces good works in your life. But you cannot get the Holy Spirit by doing good works.