Martin Luther

[Punchy]

The catholic church was not preaching the gospel and Luther pointed it out.

Have you never heard of the Orthodox Church?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church

Shlomo.

 

[mike1reynolds]

Martin Luther needs to be remembered for rescuing the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone without any regard to works.

Stumpjumper pointed out that this doctrine goes hand-in-hand with the belief that there is no progressive sanctification. If sanctification does not come progressively through works then it only comes as a single binary quantum chunk with a moment of faith. This turns sanctification into a one size fits all proposition where everyone is either fully sanctified or totally unsanctified. It seems highly improbable to me that there are not different degrees of sanctification in God’s eyes.

 

[tall73]

This thread has been moved as part of our theology re-organization. for more information read the announcement here:

http://www.christianforums.com/a80

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I think you have me confused with someone else. I never spoke about "rest".

Oops. You're right. Sorry about that.

Ok. You said that I was assuming something that caused you to disagree with my position concering the term good in Genesis, in reference to the things created on the creation days. If the Hebrew term good, based upon the exegesis I provided, is problematic to you, then please explain why.

Why do you have a problem with the Lord's declaring His creation good as being on the same level as perfection...in in the sense of it being perfectly in harmony with His design?

What form of perfection did think I was referencing?

Perhaps our main problem is an understanding of key terminology.

BTW&DM

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Actually, our works are the evidence of a genuine faith, not the mechanism for justification.

There's a difference.

BTW&DM

 

[Melethiel]

I'll tackle this again, but since I answered all your questions, I would appreciate your take on mine. If Adam and Eve were perfect and would have lived forever but for the Fall, why was the Tree of Life placed in the garden?

The Lord stated that those things were good before the fall, which is the point at which suffering, sin and death entered the world.

So, are you then going to tell us that the Lord created that which was imperfect, meaning that it was still in some way flawed, and yet still good, before the fall?

Are you saying, therefore, that Adam and Eve were less than perfect before he sinned, and yet he would have lived forever without the advent of sin and death?

While good is not the same as perfect, I do not view lack of perfection as being synonimous with "flawed." Let's use an analogy in music - somebody writes a sonata. It's a good sonata. There are no technical errors, no glaring dissonances. However, compared to the sonata written by a Master, it is not perfect. (And no, this is not an analogy for creation, so don't go tearing into me. It is simply to illustrate my understanding of terminology.)

 

[thereselittleflower]

From reading the Pauline epistles to the early churches I have to conclude that Luther and Paul understood the gospel in the same way, salvation by grace through faith alone, apart from any works. The apostle Paul and the Reformers preach the same gospel. The catholic church was not preaching the gospel and Luther pointed it out.

From doing so and investigating the history of the Early Church, I have concluded the exact opposite . . . .




.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Actually, our works are the evidence of a genuine faith, not the mechanism for justification.

There's a difference.

BTW&DM

Our works are BOTH! And our works are not merely evidence of a genuine faith, they are what give life TO our faith, for without good works, our faith is no better than a dead corpse.

And yes, our works combined with our faith ARE a mechanism for justification. . . . .


.

 

[icedtea]

Stumpjumper pointed out that this doctrine goes hand-in-hand with the belief that there is no progressive sanctification. If sanctification does not come progressively through works then it only comes as a single binary quantum chunk with a moment of faith. This turns sanctification into a one size fits all proposition where everyone is either fully sanctified or totally unsanctified. It seems highly improbable to me that there are not different degrees of sanctification in God’s eyes.

All are equally saved at that moment.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I'll tackle this again, but since I answered all your questions, I would appreciate your take on mine. If Adam and Eve were perfect and would have lived forever but for the Fall, why was the Tree of Life placed in the garden?

Why do you think the presence of the Tree of Life in the garden indicates a lack of perfection in Adam and Eve?




.

 

[mike1reynolds]

All are equally saved at that moment.

Sanctification and salvation are related, but not the same thing. Apples and oranges.

Does God have to view everyone with the absolute equanimity of a communist state? Equally saved is one thing, but equally loved and respected by the Lord? That is quite another.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I would appreciate your take on mine. If Adam and Eve were perfect and would have lived forever but for the Fall, why was the Tree of Life placed in the garden?

Well, there have been all kinds of speculation on this from different sources. I prefer to stick to the text. For reference, I'll quote it from Genesis 2:9 -

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

We see from this that the two specific trees are included in the description of the trees in the garden that are pleasent to the sight and good for food. Setting aside the one restriction placed upon the tree of knowledge of good and evil, we're not told anything else about the tree of life, except that after the fall, Adam and Eve were barred from the garden to keep them from eating from that tree.

To my understanding and studies, we're not told anything else about that tree, especially any reas as to its placement in the garden. If we assume that its fruit was the only way Adam and eve could have lived forever before the fall, then we once again create the problem of God's allegedly having created two people with an inferior design, therefore imperfect, and thus not good. However, before moving further, let's look at another important passage in Genesis 3:24 -

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Many use this in an attempt to show that they would not have lived for ever since they had not eaten of its fruit. That's purely misguided conjecture. The context within which the above quote was spoken was after the fall had taken place. If they had eaten of that tree's fruit after they had fallen, then they would have lived for ever in their sinful state, which would be a horrible existence for anyone, similar to Hell itself since that sinful state seperates anyone from the Lord.

We are told, by the word of God, a hope that comes true is a tree of life, that a good wife is a tree of life, and that a wholesome tongue is a tree of life. There are many graphic similes given, none of which speak as to why such a tree exists. Revelation states that those who overcome, and those who do His commandments, will eat of that tree.

Why would we need to eat something from a tree to have what the Lord can give to us without such a tree? Well, we aren't told. I don't know the answer to that one.

However, I will say that assuming Adam and Eve were not created in the perfection of God's design, apart from the taint of sin and death, and still assume imperfection and eventual death into the mix of what was declared good is to create insurmountable problems.

To assume that they had not eaten of that tree before eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is yet again to assume what we aren't told. After all, Adam was instructed that he would die if he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which wasn't contingent upon what he may or may not have eaten prior to that event. If they had already eaten from the tree of life, and then ate from the other, the latter obviously negated the former, by decree from the Lord Himself.

I'd say that His being sovereign pretty much puts to rest any and all complaints and arguments about the tree of life and whether they had eaten of it or not.

In conclusion, we have only the simplistic explanation (because it was pleasent to the eyes and had fruit that was good to eat), as to why the tree of life was placed in the garden.

Thus, the deeper purpose for the inclusion of the tree of life in the garden really is not given to us...if there is a deeper reason at all.

The reason for the inclusion of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is indeed something we can know, but that's an entirely different discussion...for another thread.

I'll address the rest of your post later. Gotta get to class.

BTW&DM

 

[Bill777]

Stumpjumper pointed out that this doctrine goes hand-in-hand with the belief that there is no progressive sanctification. If sanctification does not come progressively through works then it only comes as a single binary quantum chunk with a moment of faith. This turns sanctification into a one size fits all proposition where everyone is either fully sanctified or totally unsanctified. It seems highly improbable to me that there are not different degrees of sanctification in God’s eyes.

Paul calls all believers in Christ saints, if you are justified you are a saint. When Paul addresses believers in his epistles he calls them saints. You are either a saint or a sinner, saved or lost. When it comes to salvation these are the only two possible states.

This doesn't mean that some christians are more mature than others, Paul mentions in Hebrews that some of the christians there needed milk and not solid food, as if they were babes in christ. Still you are either a christian (a saint) or not (an unsaved sinner).

 

[icedtea]

I know there is a verse which says God doesn't play favorites.

 

[Martureo]

Why do you think the presence of the Tree of Life in the garden indicates a lack of perfection in Adam and Eve?




.

I think this answer is in Athanasius' "On the Incarnation of the Word" Its pretty early into the opening after he criticizes the other philosophies of the day and begins into Christianity. Its worth reading. You can find it at ccel.org

Almost all of the writings of the early church fathers and Origen see Adam and Eve as spiritually immature. Athanasius said it was death having come as a result of the adverse reaction of not being able to sustain themselves with the tree of life. This death causes sin and hell. This is the belief in the universal church before Augustine misunderstood a mistranslation in the latin and made up original guilt which even Catholic scholars like LT. Johnson admit was an error.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Martureo, I think it is a mistake to view the Tree of Life as imparting a forever natural life . . .

God said they had become as one of God .. . God like in their knowledge of Good and Evil . . it is no stretch of understanding that if they ate from that tree, they would be come like God with a transformed eternal life . . .

The Tree of Life is a type of Mary, the fruit of the Tree of Life a type of Christ, the fruit of Mary's womb. . .

It is no stretch to see the Tree of Life in the garden as imparting something much, much more than mere physical unending life . . .

The Tree of Life points to our Theosis .. . And this could not be allowed to happen while unredeemed . . .

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:​

.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

While good is not the same as perfect, I do not view lack of perfection as being synonimous with "flawed."

Again, you avoided my question as to how you define perfection in the context of Genesis. The analogy was intersting in its contextual setting.

What I want to know is your understanding of the implications of good being less than perfect, in the sense that they would not have have lived forever if they had not sinned. Is that what you're saying? If so, then then your claim seems contradictory to say the least.

BTW&DM

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Our works are BOTH! And our works are not merely evidence of a genuine faith, they are what give life TO our faith, for without good works, our faith is no better than a dead corpse.

And yes, our works combined with our faith ARE a mechanism for justification. . . . .

Galatians 2:16 says, "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Charity and other good works are in the Law, in case anyone decides to try and create a distinction with this verse from the claim concerning justification, which is the term used in our original discussion.

BTW&DM

 

[Martureo]

Oh I would definitely say that its not natural. I dont think that humans can survive completely without the Logos to sustain them. I was more referring to that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge was not wrong because the fruit itself was evil, but rather because man was not ready for it yet...

Martureo, I think it is a mistake to view the Tree of Life as imparting a forever natural life . . .

God said they had become as one of God .. . God like in their knowledge of Good and Evil . . it is no stretch of understanding that if they ate from that tree, they would be come like God with a transformed eternal life . . .

The Tree of Life is a type of Mary, the fruit of the Tree of Life a type of Christ, the fruit of Mary's womb. . .

It is no stretch to see the Tree of Life in the garden as imparting something much, much more than mere physical unending life . . .

The Tree of Life points to our Theosis .. . And this could not be allowed to happen while unredeemed . . .

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:​

.

 

[Rick Otto]

"Christianity did not begin with the Reformation. The question you must ask is how those who first preached the Gospel actually understood it. Have you no appreciation for history?"

Uh, thanks for THAT.

An "appreciation for history" MIGHT include the question,"When did those who 1st preached the Gospel begin to CHANGE IT so much a Reformation occurred?"

Our works do not GIVE life to our faith.
That is exactly backward. A living faith is EVIDENCED (justified) by works.

It isn't a "combined mechanism" it is a divinely natural & chronological process.