My faith: Josiah (CaliforniaJosiah)

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican






The following is a SERIES of posts about my faith. There are some three pages of posts here (with some responses by others interspersed). They are in no particular order.



I request that you do NOT post in this thread. Responses are welcomed and encouraged, but please PM them to me. Thank you for respecting that request.





Christianity is rooted in God's LOVE

All other religions are about us becoming God. Christianity is about God becoming one of us in the person of Jesus Christ.

All other religions are about our trying to seek and find God, Christianity is about how God found us.

All other religions are about what WE do for God, Christianity is about what God did/does for us.

Christianity is based on love (agape is the very significant word for this kind of love).

"For God so loved (agape) the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but has everlasting life."

"God is love."

"Not that we love God but that He loves us."

"God shows His love for us in that while we were enemies, Christ died for us."

"The free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

BOTH great Christian festivals emphasis this unmerited, unconditional love (agape) of God toward us. At Christmas, people ignored Him, the innkeeper relegated Him to a barn, King Herod even tried to kill Him! But God's love prevailed in spite of us and the Savior was born for you and me. At Easter, the people rejected Him, the apostles abandoned Him - one even betrayed Him. The religious leaders that shold have known better (and probably did) ran Him through a mock trial so bad even they were embarroused and they twisted the arm of the Roman governor who clearly wanted nothing to do with all this, and He was horribly - horribly - crucified on a cross. But God's love prevailed in spite of us. Jesus looks down from that Cross and says, "Forgive them." And He turns His death into our life - and abundant life here, an eternal life in heaven.


Christianity is centered in what God did/does.


Christianity is the celebration of what God has done for us.
This is why much of the Bible is history.

Christianity is about God taking the initiative, God doing the action. Think of all the Christian holidays - Christmas, Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost - they are ALL about what God does for us, not what we try to do for Him. They are ALL about God's amazing, unmerited, unearned, unconditional love - not about our works or merits or accomplishments or efforts.

For centuries, the main symbol of the Christian religion has been the cross - not a heart. That's because Christianity isn't just about how God feels but especially the action that love caused Him to take for us.


Christianity is about a living, loving relationship with the living, loving God.

"You shall be My people and I shall be your God."

"See what love the Father has given to us that we should be called 'the children of God' and that's exactly what we are!"

"Because we are His children, God sent the spirit of His Son into our hearts crying 'abba, father'." ('Abba' means 'Daddy!')

"Our fellowship (relationship) is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ."

"We abide in God and He in us."

"I am with you always, to the close of the age."

It's no coincidence that God calls Himself, "our Father" and us His "children." It's no surprise that the only prayer Jesus taught begins with the words, "Our Father." It's no surprise that when Christians talk about their faith, they instinctively talk about relationships, especially family relationships! And so does God!


This living, loving relationship is the basis of Christian morality.

Christian morality is very different than the dead "do this or die" morality of the Pharisees or the "do this and God might be nice to you" mentality of so many religions. Christian ethics is not a matter of ordinances, it's a matter of opportunities.

Christian morality is not based on the idea of "do no harm." It's based on the reality of love.

"A new commandment I give to you, that you LOVE one another just as I first loved you."

This is the distictive mark of Jesus' ethics. It's what makes Christian ethics so different from the self-righteous, holier-than-thou, "pick-myself-up-by-putting-you-down" mentality of the Pharisees. It's not so much about outward keeping of the letter of the law, it's about love.

This living, loving relationship is also the basis of our comfort and assurance.

There's a story about a hospital that was having problems in the nursery. The walls of the nursery were painted plaster, the ceiling the same, the floors were hard tile. As a result, when one baby would cry, the sound would reverberate around the room until it woke up all the other babies and there was an unbearable din of wailing!

A nurse suggested they play music to sooth the babies. Every kind of music was tried to no avail. Then the nurse had a revolutionary idea. She recorded the sound of her heart beating. The entire tape was nothing but the sound of her heart beating. It did the trick! It comforted the babies like nothing else.

I understand that. Every day, every minute, every second, I hear and feel God's heart beating. And it's beating for me.

I don't have all the answers. I don't know all the details. I may not always escape the storms.

But I'm in His arms.
Next to His heart.
And it's beating for me.


More follows...


.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JamiArch

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican



I believe that we cannot and do not earn or contribute to our salvation. Life - physical and spiritual - is a gift of God. A loving, free gift from God.


Rom 8:7-8, "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

Gal. 2:16, "By works of the law shall no one be justified."

Gal 2:21, "If justification were through keeping the law, then Christ died for no purpose."

Eph 2:9, "Not because of works, lest anyone should boast."

Rom 3:20, "No one will be justified in His sight by works."

*** 3:5, "He saved us, not because of deeds done by us but in virtue of His own mercy."


But God LOVES (agape) all people and sent His Son, Jesus, to atone for the sins of all.


Jn 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but will have life everlasting."

1 Tim 2:4, "God desires all people to be saved."

Jn 1:29, "The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

Rom 5:8, "God shows His LOVE for us in that while we were enemies, Christ died for us."

Also see
2 Cor 5:15, 2 Cor 5:19


Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Son of God (the Second 'Person' of the Trinity), totally man and totally God. Because of His perfect life, His vicarious death and His victorious resurrection - all in our place, we can have forgiveness, salvation, and life - here and hereafter in heaven.


2 Cor 5:21, "For our sake, He made Jesus to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God."

Gal 3:13, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us."

Rom 6:7, "We beleive that we shall also live with Him."

Jn 14:19, "Because I live, you shall live also."


We claim and benefit from this atoning work through faith, which is also a gift from God. Faith is trust/reliance, trusting in Christ's life, death and resurrection for our salvation.


Jn 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His Son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but has everlasting life."

Eph 2:8, "For by grace you have been saved by faith; this is not your own doing but is the gift of God."

Rom 3:26, "He justifies him who has faith in Christ Jesus."

Acts 10:43, "Everyone that believes in Christ receives the forgiveness of their sins."



God saves us and adopts us into His family totally because of His unmerited, unearned, undesired, unconditional LOVE (agape). Now that we are His own, we are to act like His own. Now that His love has been poured into our lives, we are not to hoard it but to share it, allowing it to flow from us to others.

Our love and works are not the cause of our salvation, they are the result of our salvation. We love and do good works not so that we may be saved but because we are saved, not so that God will love us but because God loves us.

"Faith alone saves, but faith is never alone." - Martin Luther

Jn 13:34, "A new commandment I give to you, that you LOVE one another, even as I first loved you."

Phil 2:13, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure."

This loving and doing on our part is always inperfect and incomplete. We are always "saints" and "sinners" - sinners because we continue to sin, saints because we are forgiven through the blood of the Lamb. But while we won't ever be all His calls us to be, that is to be our focus and goal.

Phil 3:12-14, "Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own because Christ Jesus has made me His own. Brethern, I do not consider that I have made it my own, but one thing I do - forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead. I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus."

Rom 3:12, "There is no one that does good, not even one."

Acts 10:43, "Everyone that believes in Christ receives the forgiveness of sins through His name."







Some comments about FAITH...


Faith can be a noun (in which case it applies to the subject of our faith) or as a verb (in which case it applies to the trust/reliance in that subject).

I'll address it from the standpoint of the verb since that's the use we commonly use.


"Faith" = to trust, to rely. Especially trust and reliance in something that cannot be empiracally proven. Theologically, to trust and rely on God.


When I was a kid, I had surgery (long story, doesn't matter). Anyway, I was just old enough to know I could die - and what that meant. I actually was okay with that. It had very little to do with heaven (a concept not yet in my heart or head) but with 1 John 4:8, "We rely on the love of God, because God is love."

I remember meeting the surgeon in the hospital - and that he kept calling me by the wrong name (Joseph, I think). I realized, he doesn't know me - much less love me or even care about me. That was powerful. And yet, Mom and Dad told me he was a good doctor and God could use him. I was okay with that... I remember being moved onto the cold, hard table with the huge light above me - although by this time I was already very sleepy - fighting that as best I could.

I didn't know anything about the surgery, I didn't know anything about this surgeon, and clearly he knew nothing about me (not even my name) - or any of the rest of the staff involved in all this. And yet, I entrusted my life. Willingly. And I sooooo remember being okay wih that. I sooooo remember thinking: no matter what, it's okay, God loves me, and all that I love.

While my reliance was active on my part (I placed my life in their hands), there were no "works" on my part involved. There was no "obedience" other than I laid limp and allowed to happen whatever happened.


I know how planes fly; I understand the principles involved. Still, whenever I board one of those HUGE planes, I am amazed. They are soooooo big and heavy! And inside, they are STUFFED with overweight Americans (probably more so than the engineers planned for), and under them, all their luggage - too much. It's always the same. I look at those wings and that curvature and think, "no way!" And, of course, I don't know the pilot and he doesn't know me (or care). I don't know the flight plan or the weather report. I don't know the mechanics or their reports or when this plane was last overhauled. In fact, I know NOTHING about this particular plan or crew or flight. And I realize that when a plane stops working at 40K feet, well, it means we'll all be meeting Jesus. While the ODDS of that are very small, that means little for this particular flight - this could be that 1% (or whatever). It bothers me not. I board the plane. And as it takes off, as it's going down the runway, I hope to be able to see the wings and sit (passively!) in awe of it all, and then, surprisingly soon, the wheels chirp, and the plane rises - gloriously, and Hawaii is just 5 hours away.



Faith and Knowledge certainly have a relationship, but it's not a causitive or mechanical one, but rather a relational one. See my two illustrations above.

To insist that faith is the RESULT of knowledge is to deny that those below a certain IQ or age are capable of faith and therefore of salvation. And, IMO, undermines the very nature of faith which is to rest, rely, trust.

I am well aware that I can't "prove" much of anything in my heart. Actually, I "understand" probably LESS today than I did 3 or 4 years ago, more aware of the questions than the answers I have, more aware of mystery. It hasn't impacted my faith at all (if anything, it's increased it).


Luther said, "Faith is a busy, active thing." Faith changes us - from the inside out, and that reveals itself in genuine, not forced, things. Faith that is just some claim, words we chant, is not faith. Just chanting the right syllables is not faith.

There's two senses in which faith is to be active:

1. Faith causes us to rely, to rest, to trust. To use the airplane illustration above, another person may have the exactly same information (or LACK thereof!!!!) and yet does not board the plane. In his/her case, there is no faith. The irony is that faith, while active, is rest - and therefore passive.

2. Faith is a change in our heart and results in a change in our lives. "By their fruits you will know them." "Faith without works is dead." A good tree bears fruit. But don't press this TOO far! The "transformation" of faith is not complete (this side of heaven), we remain here always incomplete, always saint AND sinner at the same time. And while faith is constant, the opportunities are not. To insist, for example, that there must be tangible good works - helping the little old lady across the street - would be to insist that a baby cannot have faith and therefore cannot be saved. I think the thief on the cross had faith and salvation - as far as I can tell from the text, he did NOTHING after coming to faith. To make works a requirement is to proclaim he went to hell. The principle is sound, but it shouldn't be pressed too far.




More follows...


.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican





How my faith blesses me:


I LOVE to talk with people about their faith, and while I may disagree with their theology, I often can totally relate to how faith works in our hearts and lives. I think that too often we get off into how we intellectually disagree and too little affirm the spirituality that we share.

I have come to treasure Christ more than anything. It's kinda hard to put into words or to find words adequate to express it - but the totally cool thing is that as I'm talking to other believers, they seem to know and understand, even when I'm failing to really express it. Whether Catholic or Baptist, Fundamentalist or Liberal, Lutheran or Greek Orthodox.

There are so many aspects, all different and all just different ways of looking at exactly the same thing...

Presence. "Lo, I am with you always." "He is the Immanuel" (that means "God with you"). This is the single most powerful aspect of my faith that drew me back to faith. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't shake the awareness of His presence, and not just in some locational sense but here - for me. I once memorized that "Footprints" poem.

Loved. The concept of LOVE (agape) is the starting point, the hub of the entire Christian religion. Everything in the Christian religion all comes back to this point: God loves us. The unconditional, no-matter-what LOVE. Even when I can't stand me, God loves me. I feel that always. It is the one thing in life I KNOW. It's extremely affirming and renewing and life-giving.
John 3:16, 1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:10. As childish as it sounds for a 17 year old, I sometimes sing "Jesus Loves Me" first thing in the morning. It's okay to be a child. That's what I am. (Galatians 4:5, 1 John 5:1)

Family/Relationship. Christianity is all about our RELATIONSHIP with God, and how that impacts our relationships with others and with ourselves. God calls Himself "Our Father." He calls us "My son, My daughter." It's a living, loving, abiding REAL relationship with the living, loving, abiding REAL God. When I pray, I call God "Abba" (
Galatians 4:5, Romans 8:15) - it means "Daddy." And the more I know that (relational "know" not didactic "know"), the more it seems to impact how I relate to myself and to others. Forgiveness is easier (and perhaps eventually automatic?) when we know we are forgiven, acceptance is easier (and perhaps eventually automatic?) when we know we are accepted. When we HAVE love, we can GIVE love...

Peace. This is totally hard to put into words. There is, of course, that objective peace - the end to the war - that Jesus secured for us on the Cross.
Romans 5:1-11. But it isn't just objective and historic, it's subjective and present. "The peace that passes all understanding," the Bible says somewhere. I've known this for a long time, but it's beginning to grow some deep roots. When I was a little boy, I had surgery (no need to go into that). I was just old enough to understand that I could die - and what that meant. I remember - for the first and probably only time in my life - I considered that in very real terms. And I remember feeling at peace with that. It didn't have too much to do with Heaven, really, it had a lot to do with relying on His heart and will, in knowing my small hand was in His big hand - and that's all that mattered. I understand that more today. I could give seperate things about JOY and COMFORT but they are really just different ways of looking at the same thing. "Joy is peace dancing, peace is joy at rest."


For ME, faith isn't about trying to find a lost god, it's about God finding ME, and loving me more than I'll ever be able to comprehend.


For ME, faith isn't about my somehow satisfying God by jumping through a bunch of hoops, it's about what HE did for me. For ME. Try reading the Passion Story in the Bible and put your own name in there whenever the crowd or soldiers or whoever is mentioned. Yeah. He did it for ME. And for YOU. We are the ones in the crowd. We are the ones with the hammer. It's about what HE did for ME.


For ME, faith isn't so much about obedience to a demanding God, it's about the opportunities He gives me to be a blessing; "blessed to be a blessing" as Roman Catholics are so fond of saying. The times I can touch someone with just a TINY, TINY bit of what He blessed me with. It's how we love Him back (
John 13:34). It's how we share His love with others. And it ends up blessing us more than the other, which is the odd thing about God's economics. You can't out-love Him.




More follows...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican



This post says something about my doctrinal beliefs...



Ecumenical Creeds


These two creeds come from the early church and for over 1500 years, have been accepted by the GREAT majority of Christians (in many centuries, nearly 100%) as expressions of the core of Christianity. They are still – to this day – accepted by and often used in Sunday worship by perhaps 90% of Christians. While there are things in them (especially the Nicene) that I don’t necessarily completely agree with, I embrace them, joyfully, in the ecumenical spirit in which they exist:


The Apostles Creed (roots from 212 AD)

"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From there He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting. Amen.

The Nicene Creed (roots to 325 AD)

"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of every God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary and was made man; and who was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried. And the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures and ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. And He will come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead, whose kingdom will have no end. And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and gloried, who spoke by the prophets. And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church, I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, and I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen!"


FOUNDATIONS:

Every discipline has its assumptions, things unproven but assumed to be true. Often little time is spent on these (hey, they are just assumed) but they really "color" how everything else is viewed. I can’t "prove" any of them – and the Bible and historic Christianity doesn’t attempt to, but I accept them as "givens." I have 5 of them:

1. God EXISTS and He is a personal, involved, caring God. (
Genesis 1:1, 1 John 1:8, 1 John 5:14, Matthew 6:32, 1 Peter 5:70) He is knowable by me, He is the "God with us."

2. God LOVES. (
1 John 4:8-10, 1 John 4:19, John 3:16, John 13:34). This is God’s essential nature. It is the hub of the Christian religion.

3. God ACTS (
John 3:16). God does the action. Christianity is about what GOD did and does. The universal symbol isn’t a heart but the Cross.

4. God RELATES (
Leviticus 26:12, 1 John 3:1, Galatians 4:5, 1 John 5:1, 1 John 1:3, 1 John 4:13, Matthew 28:20, Matthew 1:23). Christianity is about our RELATIONSHIP with the living, loving God. A part of this is that God reaches out to us in His Word – the Bible.

5. God is HOLY. (
Matthew 5:48, Leviticus 20:26). He is a good and just and perfect God.


GOD

I believe that God is the Creator of mass/energy and how that exists in our time/place. HOW He did it, I believe is a question for scientists, but regardless of what processes He may or may not have used, I give Him 100% of the glory and praise for it.

I believe that God is spiritual, He is not a creature but the Creator, He is not a part of the nature He brought about but aside from that. I also believe that, since He is not physical and not subject to the laws of physics, questions of "where" and "when" just don’t apply to Him. Therefore, we may speak of Him as eternal, changeless, all present, etc.

But I’m FAR more focused on His character. He is faithful, forgiving, caring, LOVING.

I accept the Trinity is a legitimate expression of what the Bible says. I believe there is ONE God but that there is some kind of "threeness" about Him – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I reject the numerous logical explanations used about how they are just ‘modes’ or ‘titles’ or ‘offices’ of one unnamed God, or that they are 3 gods ‘so united in love, will and purpose that we may call them one.’ I accept the profound mystery that the Trinity proclaims – and make no attempt to understand what God has not chosen to explain.


SIN

I believe that there is a "bentness," a twisted, sick part of our human nature that reveals itself in what we tend to think, say and do. It impacts our attitudes, our perspectives, our priorities, our actions. It includes "sins of commission" (doing what we should not) and "sins of omission" (not doing what we should). The problem is with the tree – the fruit bears witness to the disease of the tree. The origins or cause of this is unknown (the account of Adam and Eve – which I accept as true doesn’t really address this). It’s a reality the Bible accepts without delving into such issues. Sin recognizes we are broken.

This is NOT how God made us or how God desires us to be. Sin kills – literally. Sin destroys – us and others. God made us for LIFE, not for death. Sin so impacts our nature that we are unable to genuinely deal with it. We can address some of the symptoms but we can’t cure the disease, like blowing our nose helps it from running but doesn’t cure the cold that causes it. Ironically, such usually makes the disease of sin worse.


JESUS CHRIST

I believe that the Second Person of the Trinity (the Son) came to be also with the person of Jesus Christ, so that Jesus has two natures – a real human being but also in Incarnate Son, He is both human and divine. These TWO natures interrelate in ways beyond our understanding ("the communication of attributes") but do not blend.

I believe Mary was a biological virgin when Jesus was born; His conception being a complete miracle. I believe that Jesus was 100% sinless, and this is one of those "communication of attributes" related to His divine nature.

I believe in the literal and physical resurrection of Jesus on Easter.

More follow...




.


 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Continuing from above...




SALVATION


I believe that Christ’s goal and mission is to give us LIFE – an abundant life here and an eternal life hereafter. His purpose, in all He did and does, is to replace our death with LIFE – now and forever.

I believe that we cannot save ourselves, in whole or in part. (1 Corinthians 2:14, Ephesians 2:1, Ephesians 2:9, 1 Corinthians 12:3, Romans 8:7-8, Galatians 2:16, Galatians 2:21, Romans 3:20).

I believe that salvation is completely, totally GOD’S loving act – "the gift of God." (
John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:4, Romans 5:8, Titus 3:5). We don’t cause ourselves to be born again anymore than we caused ourselves to be born the first time. LIFE is a gift from God.

I believe that God’s grace is universal – God loves every person. I believe that Christ’s work is for every person. I believe that God’s desire for and offer of salvation is for every person. I do not know why every person is not saved, only that this is their fault and not God’s will or act.

I believe that we must be morally perfect, we aren’t, so Christ was perfect for us. (
Matthew 5:48, 1 Peter 2:22, Romans 5:19, Matthew 5:17)

I believe that our sins must be punished by death and that Christ took that punishment for us. (
Romans 6:23, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Galatians 3:13, Isaiah 53:4-12, John 5:24, John 3:16)

I believe that the victory over sin and death was won on that Easter morning that that Christ rose for us, bring us also to life (
John 5:24, Romans 6:5-7, Romans 6:23)

I believe that Christ did this work for ALL people (objective justification) but that we are called upon to accept this gift by faith (subjective justification). Faith is trust. (
John 3:16, Ephesians 2:8, John 1:12, Romans 5:1, Romans 3:26, 2 Timothy 1:9, Romans 1:16). Since not all people have faith, therefore not all people are saved.




DISCIPLESHIP;

I believe that by our salvation, we are made children of God – a part of His family. As His children, God calls us to GROW ever more in His image and love and will. This process continues throughout our earthly lives, empowered by His Holy Spirit.

God calls us to many things, none of these are to be confused with our salvation but rather belong to our lives as Christians. This includes baptism, evangelizing, forgiving, celebrating communion, worshipping, praying, and many other things. These all have to do with the fruit – the results of our salvation.

Above all, God calls us to LOVE. We are to love others as God in Christ first LOVED us. This is the essence of Christian morality and "good works." Such is a characteristic of faith. "Faith alone saves but faith is never alone" – Martin Luther.

Romans 6:1-2, Romans 6:11-12, Romans 12:1, Galatians 5:25, John 13:34, 1 John 5:1-2, Philippians 2:13, Philippians 3:12-14.


More follows...


.

 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Continuing from above...


THE CHURCH

I believe that God not only calls us to faith but also calls us together, as parts of His Body – the church.

I believe that there is one holy catholic and apostolic church. This is the church of Jesus Christ that He founded. He never gave up His lordship of this church and still rules it today. It is the "communion of saints." ALL believers are members of this holy catholic church – past, present and future. It is not a denomination or institution. Ephesians 2:19-22, Ephesians 4:4, 1 Peter 2:9, Romans 12:4, Ephesians 1:1, Luke 17:21).

As Christians gather together, they naturally form congregations. God has called us to do so. Such congregations are reflections of His church but imperfect since it includes imperfect people (we remain both saints and sinners) and there will be some nonbelievers mixed in. (
Galatians 1:2, 1 Thess. 1:1, Matthew 13:47-49, Acts 2:42, Hebrews 10:22-25, 1 Corinthians 12:4-26, 1 Peter 4:10). Such congregations work to support, encourage, serve and build up one another, and to hold each other accountable. (2 Timothy 4:2, Ephesians 4:12-13, 1 Peter 2:9, Hebrews 10:24-25, Matthew 18:21-22, 2 Corinthians 5:18, 1 Thessalonians 5:14).

Congregations may also bond together into denominations. Denominations serve much the same purpose for congregations that congregations do for individual Christians. They exist to support, serve and enable congregations – and to hold them accountable, especially in teaching. They also enable congregations to work together to do things that would be difficult to do alone such as foreign missions, colleges, publishing houses, hospitals, social work, etc. Denominations are not required or biblically established, although we can see the churches in Acts often acting as a denomination and the Bible’s establishment of bishops may indicate an endorsement of this concept (although it’s unclear if bishops had authority beyond a single congregation).


LAST THINGS:

I believe that when we die, our soul immediately goes to heaven or hell. I personally do not accept the ideas limbo or purgatory or the various Protestant equivalents although I appreciate the concepts.

I believe that Christ will judge the living and the dead, at our death and at the end of time. Like Jesus, I have no idea when this will be but I think we should be ready always.

I reject Millennialism.






The Theology of the Cross:

this is a Lutheran concept that I find very powerful... My thanks to many here at CF for helping me learn and understand this.

The Theology of the Cross is the opposite of the “religion of man” and legalism. It points to Christ Alone (Solus Christus), not to self. It embraces His heart and works, not our own.

A Lutheran missionary to New Guinea in the 1800’s reported that he was having great difficulty sharing God with the natives. He reported that the natives often responded to the Gospel by retorting, “Our god is not a weakling! Our god is victorious in battle – he would never let himself be killed like your Jesus! Our god doesn’t love like a weak old woman, our god conquers like a strong young man!” Perhaps the missionary encountered the two common theologies here – what Lutherans call “the Theology of the Cross” and the Theology of Glory.”

Like that native, many Jews and especially Romans expected God to arrive on the scene in GLORY, with fanfare that would make a Disneyland parade look subtle and meek, that would put Hollywood to shame! They expected lights flashing, bells ringing, angels flying, armies marching! They expected GLORY.

It was even true of His disciples, only slowly and partly did they learn the Theology of the Cross. A Cross-centered theology.

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!" Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." Matthew 16:21-23


There is an unexpected and surprising aspect to Christianity!
One SO unexpected that we tend to forget it.

He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. Isaiah 53:2-5

Those that embraced a theology of glory missed out on the whole thing. Note well how He came and lived and worked and died. A lowly teenage girl from a tiny “has-been” conquered nation, a girl whom no one had heard of, from a tiny, laughed at out-of-the-way village was the “chosen one.”

God chose her not because she was large but because she was small, not because she was glorious but because she was humble. Not because she knew she would do great things for God but because she knew God could do great things in spite of her. “I am the Lord’s servant,” she said. “Let it be according to Your word.”

Mary and her husband arrive at the birthplace of the King, the City of David and now the City of a far, far greater King. No one noticed. No one cared. No one gave them the time of day. Mary gives birth to the Messiah in a barn. The legion of Holy Angels burst forth in song, but no humans notice – except for some poor, lowly shepherds keeping watch over the flocks by night.

It’s how He came. It’s how He lived and ministered. It’s how He died. On a Cross. Beaten to shreds, ridiculed, mocked, condemned. On a Cross.

It was SO unexpected, SO surprising hardly anyone notice.
They embraced a theology of glory, but there was a theology of the Cross at work here.

They shouldn’t have been surprised, at least not the Jews. They were, after all, God’s chosen people – not because they were a great nation (they were NO nation when God chose them) but because He is a Great God. God could have chosen the glorious Egyptians or the mighty Babylonians or the majestic Chinese. He didn’t. His people were slaves of those Egyptians. And while they briefly were a great nation under Saul and David and Solomon, they were almost always a conquered people. And they were God’s people. His chosen nation. Surprising, yes. But how God works. None of the Prophets were great as the world would judge – lowly shepherds mostly. None of the Apostle’s impressive – smelly fishermen many of them. Not the theology of glory.

Nowhere is this distinction more clear than Calvary. The hated Romans crucifying Jesus. Horribly. Painfully. Wrongly. The Holy One dying for His executioners (including you and me). Jesus knew this event. He prayed with drops of blood at Gethsemane, and yet He prayed, “Not my will but Thine be done.”


Our Cross, Not Ourselves:

It’s not just true of the Hebrews or of Jesus. The Theology of the Cross applies now. For us.

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross! Philippians 2:5-8

For Christ sent me to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the Cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord." 1 Corinthians 1:17-31

Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? Matthew 16:24-26

Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Mark 10:43-45

The Theology of the Cross is one of humility and faith, one of submission and trust.
The Theology of the Cross considers us wholly unworthy recipients.
The Theology of the Cross considers us as unworthy servants of Christ.
Sola Gratia, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria


The Theology of the Cross Vs. The Glory of Glory:

Perhaps because the Theology of Cross is so surprising and unexpected, perhaps because it runs head-on with our pride and sometimes our will, because people want to get rather than give, to be blessed rather than to bless, people are eager to revert to the Theology of Glory.

Pastor Richard Eyer, a Lutheran Chaplain at a large hospital in Chicago, tells a story that illustrates the difference. Mr. Wittmann, in his 80’s, had cancer. Treatments had given him 10 years but the end seemed very near. His daughter visited daily, insisting that if he would just pray harder and with more faith, God would heal him again. “Claim His promise!” she insisted. “You just need more faith! You just need to pray more!” Chaplain Eyer stopped by again. He shared the assurance of God’s love and care in ALL things. “Pastor, “ he said, “God knows my vote in this matter. But the only vote I care about is His. In death as in life, I am His child and servant. He alone is God – I don’t want the job,” he laughed. “We all live and die at the foot of the Cross. There’s nowhere else I want to be.”

This is not surrendering (something I do to my benefit – the Theology of Glory), this is humility, love, trust, reliance. It’s leaning on Him, it’s serving Him. It’s knowing He is Lord and Savior.


Check out the books in any Christian bookstore and a central theme shouts out from many of them. “If you just pray this prayer…” “If you just believe this…” “If you just claim that…” “If you just follow these steps…” Lots of “how to” improve one’s health, happiness, prosperity, marriage, etc. All this if often focused on things WE do to OUR benefit. God somehow gets lost in it all, except, perhaps, as a super powerful pill WE can use to OUR glory and benefit, the extension of OUR ‘kingdom.’

We want simple solutions, complete answers, tangible evidence, happiness, success, glory. WE want to win. God directs us instead to the Cross. “Take up your cross,” Jesus said. “And follow Me.” It’s the Theology of the Cross.

Some Christians see the trip to the Cross as a one-time trip THEY make. “I’ve already been to the Cross. I’ve heard the Gospel and I accepted it so I’m saved.” (Theology of Glory). The Theology of the Cross says God loves me, called me by the Gospel, brought me to the Cross, gave me His salvation, and I’m dwelling at the foot of the Cross. “Take up My Cross, and follow Me.” I am an unworthy servant. Repentance is not some one-time act on our part that got us “saved,” it’s a life. In the Theology of Glory, the Law is a list of “do’s” and “don’ts” which, to the extent that you keep them, will bless you. While the Law can function in that way, it’s primary purpose is to declare us sinners and direct us – always – to that hill called “Calvary.” We don’t do it, Christ did it. The good we do is not from us or for us, it’s from God and for God.

The Theology of Glory is focused on self. It turns us constantly to ourselves as we measure ourselves – our growth, holiness, spirituality, success – against an endless plethora of spiritual “achievements” or “steps” or “rules” or “hoops.” They rarely (if ever) pay off – except in getting our eyes off Him and onto ourselves, in taking glory away from Him and placing it on us.

The Theology of the Cross insists it’s not about you, it’s about Christ. The Theology of the Cross continues to direct us to Christ and His Cross. We don’t lean on ANYTHING we do, we lean on His heart, His work, His will. Living under the Cross doesn’t make us better than anyone else – even the pagan unbeliever; we are NOT getting “better and better, day by day” in any sense that matters at all. We are saved by grace through faith – and this the gift of God, lest anyone should boast.” The Theology of the Cross turns us away from self and to Christ. It embraces that life is not about our will, it’s about His will. It’s not about us, it’s about Christ. It’s not about the “hoops” we jump through. It’s Christ who is loving and powerful enough for us, not about us being obedient or whatever enough for Him.

The Theology of the Cross points to Christ Alone (Solus Christus), not to self. It doesn’t seek anything for us but everything for Christ. It seeks less of me, more of Him.

To keep me from becoming conceited, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. 2 Corinthians 12:7-10



Keep the faith! Share the love!




- Josiah


.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Christianity is about God taking the initiative, God doing the action. Think of all the Christian holidays - Christmas, Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost - they are ALL about what God does for us, not what we try to do for Him. They are ALL about God's amazing, unmerited, unearned, unconditional love - not about our works or merits or accomplishments or efforts.
And with all these holidays the Catholic Church was the one that said they should be celebrated every year and set the date for them. Christmas for example is celebrated on Dec25 beacuse the Catholic Church got to decide when.

I believe that we cannot and do not earn or contribute to our salvation. Life - physical and spiritual - is a gift of God. A loving, free gift from God.

Rom 8:7-8, "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

This is not talking about Baptized Christians, Baptized Christians have responsibility to do good works.

Gal. 2:16, "By works of the law shall no one be justified."

Gal 2:21, "If justification were through keeping the law, then Christ died for no purpose."
I agree, nobody is saved throught the Mosaic Law which is what this is talking about.

http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=Eph 2:9
Eph 2:9, "Not because of works, lest anyone should boast."
This passage context is talking about initial justification, the door was opened to us through faith, but good works must be done to complete this justification. The term "works" in this passage is talking about the works of the Law, a system in which God's grace was considered not needed.

http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=Rom 3:20
Rom 3:20, "No one will be justified in His sight by works."
The passage says " no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law", there is a huge distinction here between the good works Jesus commanded and works of the law. We both agree the Law doesnt justify.

http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=*** 3:5
Ti 3:5, "He saved us, not because of deeds done by us but in virtue of His own mercy."
This is an amazing passage, here is some context:
5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. 8 The saying is sure. I desire you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good deeds; these are excellent and profitable to men.
The "washing of regeneration" is Baptism, Christians have always believed this. Justified by God's grace through the most important Sacrament.
Luther believed this and it is recorded in his most important teaching work, the Large Catechism:
Here you see again how highly and precious we should esteem Baptism, because in it we obtain such an unspeakable treasure, which also indicates sufficiently that it cannot be ordinary mere water. For mere water could not do such a thing, but the Word does it, and (as said above) the fact that the name of God is comprehended therein. But where the name of God is, there must be also life and salvation, that it may indeed be called a divine, blessed, fruitful, and gracious water; for by the Word such power is imparted to Baptism that it is a laver of regeneration, as St. Paul also calls it, Titus 3, 5.
Also, it goes onto say that Christians should "be careful to" remain doing good deeds and be productive (v14).

Phil2:
12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. 14 Do all things without grumbling or questioning, 15 that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, 16 holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain.
Here we see salvation is a lifelong process, we are doing God's work the entire time and our work is never finished till we pass away. Paul mentions that salvation can be lost and that if the people dont continue on the right path Paul's work would have been in vain.

But God LOVES (agape) all people and sent His Son, Jesus, to atone for the sins of all.


Jn 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but will have life everlasting."

1 Tim 2:4, "God desires all people to be saved."

Jn 1:29, "The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

Rom 5:8, "God shows His LOVE for us in that while we were enemies, Christ died for us."

I would agree with this.
Too bad Calvinists believe in limited atonement and limit the extent of God's love.

Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Son of God (the Second 'Person' of the Trinity), totally man and totally God. Because of His perfect life, His vicarious death and His victorious resurrection - all in our place, we can have forgiveness, salvation, and life - here and hereafter in heaven.
I agree with this.

We claim and benefit from this atoning work through faith, which is also a gift from God. Faith is trust/reliance, trusting in Christ's life, death and resurrection for our salvation.
I agree with this as well and Im glad you did not mention the unBiblical term "faith alone".

God saves us and adopts us into His family totally because of His unmerited, unearned, undesired, unconditional LOVE (agape). Now that we are His own, we are to act like His own. Now that His love has been poured into our lives, we are not to hoard it but to share it, allowing it to flow from us to others.
Agreed.

Our love and works are not the cause of our salvation, they are the result of our salvation. We love and do good works not so that we may be saved but because we are saved, not so that God will love us but because God loves us.
Its actually both, we are not saved because we first did something for God, but because we accepted what God first did for us. But we must remain in Christ by avoiding sin and doing good works, ie bearing good fruit. Failure to do so results in hell. As Jesus says "If you love me keep my commandments".

"Faith alone saves, but faith is never alone." - Martin Luther
UnBiblical, you only see the term faith alone once in the Bible, James2:24.

Phil 2:13, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure."
One verse back it says "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling"

This loving and doing on our part is always inperfect and incomplete. We are always "saints" and "sinners" - sinners because we continue to sin, saints because we are forgiven through the blood of the Lamb. But while we won't ever be all His calls us to be, that is to be our focus and goal.
In Matt5, the Sermon on the Mount speaking to all men:
48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
And, 1Thess5:
23 May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I agree with what you put if it means we are only imperfect and incomplete in that it is a lifelong process of being perfected every day, not that we are unable to be perfect and complete in this life.

For more info on what Catholics believe see
Catholic.com
and
forums.catholic.com
( I will get to the rest of the post later)









 
Upvote 0

Jesus Is Real

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2003
4,724
74
58
Texas
✟5,289.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Catholic Dude said:

And with all these holidays the Catholic Church was the one that said they should be celebrated every year and set the date for them. Christmas for example is celebrated on Dec25 beacuse the Catholic Church got to decide when.


This is not talking about Baptized Christians, Baptized Christians have responsibility to do good works.


I agree, nobody is saved throught the Mosaic Law which is what this is talking about.

http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=Eph 2:9
This passage context is talking about initial justification, the door was opened to us through faith, but good works must be done to complete this justification. The term "works" in this passage is talking about the works of the Law, a system in which God's grace was considered not needed.

http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=Rom 3:20
The passage says " no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law", there is a huge distinction here between the good works Jesus commanded and works of the law. We both agree the Law doesnt justify.

http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=*** 3:5
This is an amazing passage, here is some context:
5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. 8 The saying is sure. I desire you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good deeds; these are excellent and profitable to men.
The "washing of regeneration" is Baptism, Christians have always believed this. Justified by God's grace through the most important Sacrament.
Luther believed this and it is recorded in his most important teaching work, the Large Catechism:
Here you see again how highly and precious we should esteem Baptism, because in it we obtain such an unspeakable treasure, which also indicates sufficiently that it cannot be ordinary mere water. For mere water could not do such a thing, but the Word does it, and (as said above) the fact that the name of God is comprehended therein. But where the name of God is, there must be also life and salvation, that it may indeed be called a divine, blessed, fruitful, and gracious water; for by the Word such power is imparted to Baptism that it is a laver of regeneration, as St. Paul also calls it, Titus 3, 5.
Also, it goes onto say that Christians should "be careful to" remain doing good deeds and be productive (v14).

Phil2:
12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. 14 Do all things without grumbling or questioning, 15 that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, 16 holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain.
Here we see salvation is a lifelong process, we are doing God's work the entire time and our work is never finished till we pass away. Paul mentions that salvation can be lost and that if the people dont continue on the right path Paul's work would have been in vain.


I would agree with this.
Too bad Calvinists believe in limited atonement and limit the extent of God's love.


I agree with this.


I agree with this as well and Im glad you did not mention the unBiblical term "faith alone".


Agreed.


Its actually both, we are not saved because we first did something for God, but because we accepted what God first did for us. But we must remain in Christ by avoiding sin and doing good works, ie bearing good fruit. Failure to do so results in hell. As Jesus says "If you love me keep my commandments".


UnBiblical, you only see the term faith alone once in the Bible, James2:24.


One verse back it says "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling"


In Matt5, the Sermon on the Mount speaking to all men:
48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
And, 1Thess5:
23 May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I agree with what you put if it means we are only imperfect and incomplete in that it is a lifelong process of being perfected every day, not that we are unable to be perfect and complete in this life.

For more info on what Catholics believe see
Catholic.com
and
forums.catholic.com
( I will get to the rest of the post later)










JOSIAH,

YOUR ABOUT READY FOR THE BOOK I HAVE ONLINE.
I SENT IT OUT FREE ALL THE TIME.
IT'S CALLED "THE GREAT FALLING AWAY TODAY" BY MILTON GREEN

PM ME WHEN YOU CAN,
CONNIE~
 
Upvote 0

eternal_flame_1988

Active Member
Mar 10, 2005
181
9
In a small part of Gods creation of Earth
✟429.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
AU-Liberals
CaliforniaJosiah said:

I enjoyed reading your testimony. You are blessed to have had such a Christ-filled upbringing. And it doesn't matter if your upbringing didn't have all the ups and downs that many others experienced...if everyone went through the same thing growing up, we would all be the same. Our upbringings are all unique, because we are all unique children of God!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
SOME THOUGHTS AROUND UNITY AND DISAGREEMENT AMONG CHRISTIANS:



Faith:

ALL Christians are of one faith. It is faith in Christ as our Savior. ALL Christians share this faith and are one in this faith. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ. And we are a part of His church by faith. IMO, one would not be a Christian without this faith in Christ - and all who have that faith in Christ are Christians. IMO, it's not rocket science.



Customs, Traditions, Teachings:

Of course, not all 2,000,000,000 Christians agree with all other 2,000,000,000 Christians about every viewpoint, custom, tradition, practice, policy, interpretation, application, etc. Duh. Never have. Never will. In some cases, it would be nice. In other cases, it matters not. BUT...



Unity:

IMO, the Bible and the Creed are correct and that there IS ONE faith, ONE Lord. That there IS ONE holy catholic church. Always has been. Always will be. Man cannot - CANNOT - change that reality, no matter how much ego and pride, no matter how much they condemn and rebuke, no matter how great their propensity to excommunicate each other, no matter how they try to institutionalize Christianity. They CANNOT destroy His church. Soli Deo Gloria!


Concern those teachings, the level of unity among the great majority of Christians is nothing less than AMAZING! Soli Deo Gloria!


Physics prof of mine: "It all makes sense until you get to the edges, then it all gets nuts." LOL. It seems true in MANY things. But, in Christianity, I think we quickly discover that perhaps 90-95% of Christians agree on perhaps 90-95% of teachings. The fact that we're all here agreeing to the Nicene Creed is HUGE!!!! And we agree on much, much more than that!!!


IMO, much of the "problem" (if it is such) is because of our unwillingless to leave things where God does. Many have an uncontrollable urge to "explain" everything, to "connect the dots" to "fill in the blanks" to make it all "make sense." We think we have to supply all the "answers" even if God doesn't seem to think so. MOST of the things I disagree with among my FULL, UNseparated brothers and sisters in Christ is not because I think they are wrong but because I think they've overstepped what we can verify as true.


More follows...



.
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Continuing from my posts above...



THE LAST SUPPER/THE HOLY EUCHARIST/COMMUNION:



Matthew 26:26-28

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat, this is my body.' And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, 'Drink of it all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (see also Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20)


1 Corinthians 11:23-29

The Lord Jesus on the night when ee was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats or drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."



MY view of His presense...


1. I believe the meaning of is is is.


2. I beleive that we literally receive Christ, in both natures (Real Presense).


3. I believe we ALSO receive bread and wine, so that we receive 4 things: Body, Blood, bread and wine. I leave the physics of that completely to mystery.




Personal opinions...


1. The Bible actually says little about this ritual. But I believe it was important in the first century church and has a long, strong, positive history among us. I embrace that this is something the whole (catholic) church does together, that's very meaningful to me, there is a very, very strong "community" aspect to "communion."


2. The Eucharist is God's way of hugging us.


3. I view this as a Sacrament (something God does for us) rather than as an Ordinance (something we do for God). I view it as Gospel, not Law. A blessing, not obedience (although that's involved).


4. I find it profoundly odd and sad that this Blessing, meant to unite us and express our COMMUNION, is something Christians love to fight over and use in divisive, hurtful, exclusive and sometimes prideful ways. Ironic beyond understanding.


Word of Pope Gelasius


“The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.” Gelasius, bishop of Rome, in Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologiae Latinae, Tractatus de duabis naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium 14."


Actually the Real Presense is more scriptural than the modern theology of "only symbolic" since that theology has to twist Jesus' words to be something other than what He said.

I agree.

The same applies to the new, distinctive RCC dogma of Transubstantiation.

Let's look at what Jesus said (read the words):




"Now as they were eating , Jesus took BREAD (what does He say here? Do you know what bread is?) and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take and eat, this is (what did He say here? Did He say "converted?" Did He say, "an alchemic transubstantiation just happened?") My Body.(what does He say here? Do you know what Body is?)' And He took the cup (do you agree, He means wine?) and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them saying, "Drink of this cup all of you, for this is (what did He say here? Did He say "just converted into?" Did He say, "an alchemic transubstantiation just happened?) My Blood ( what did He say here? Do you know that Blood means?) which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you the truth, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (I'm sure you'll agree, this means wine) again until that day when I drink it (referring back to "fruit of the vine") in my Father's Kingdom."


Some notes:

1. BEFORE the consecration, Jesus speaks of bread and wine. Catholics agree bread means bread and wine means wine.

2. Jesus then speak of "is." He does NOT say "converts" or "changed into" or "an alchemic transubstantiation happened" rather He says "is."

3. AFTER the consecration, Jesus speaks of Body (which Catholics understand as body), Blood (which Catholics understand as blood) and wine (which Catholics oddly now entirely and completely shift gears. To this point, they have taken the words literally and "at face value." But now they entirely shift gears BUT ONLY FOR THIS SINGLE WORD - not any of the other words before or after. This "wine" doesn't mean wine, it means the Aristotelian accident of wine - a very symbolic interpretation of a single word ripped out of a sentence where every other word is taken literally and. It is a "half real, half not" split interpretation.





Now, let's look at what St. Paul penned by divine inspiration in First Corinthians 11:23-29:


"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you. That the Lord Jesus Christ on the night when He was betrayed , took bread (Catholics agree that bread = bread) and when He had given thanks, He broke it (bread) and said, "This is (note He said "is" not "converted into" not "changed into" not "an alchemic transubstantiation just happened) My body (Catholics agree that body = body) which is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me. In the same manner, He also took the cup (which Catholics agree means wine) after supper saying, "This cup (wine) is (is, not just converted, an alchemic transubstantiation just happened) my blood (Catholics agree blood = blood). Do this as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me. For as often as you eat this bread (note Jesus said BREAD - the exact same word He used before that Catholics teach means bread, but now they again suddenly and radically shift gears, all has been literal so far but now a single word is ripped out and given a symbolic "non real" interpretation using Aristotle's theory of accidents to dismiss what Jesus said. NO! Jesus said bread, Catholics agree, but that's not what He meant to say, what He MEANT to say was, "this BODY still has the Aristotelian Accident of bread but it's not bread so I don't know why I said bread, I didn't mean to") and drink this cup (Catholics told us that cup = wine, but now they've changed it - it really means blood) you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread (notice: Paul refers to BREAD more often AFTER the Consecration than he does before it!!!!! Same word. But Catholics insist Paul really MEANT to say "Body with the mere Aristotelian Accident or appearance or specie of bread but not really bread") or drinks this cup (earlier Catholics insisted that cup = wine) in an unworthly manner will be guilty of profaning the body (Catholics now entirely abandon all efforts to interpret things symbolically and via Aristotle's Theory of Accidents and arbitrarily completely shift all gears, and insist that body = body) and blood (Catholics are back to literalism and have forgotten all about Aristotle, we're back to blood = blood) of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread (Catholics now forget about being literal and suddenly remember Aristotle again!!! OBVIOUSLY bread does not mean bread, when Jesus says bread He means the mere Aristotelian accident of bread cuz it's not bread, Jesus made a little slip there) and drink of the cup (Catholic are back to the Aristotelian symbolic meanings now) . For anyone who eats or drinks without discerning the body (Actually, this isn't about symbolic Aristotelian accidents and appearance or species - Jesus means what He says! Body - body!") eats and drinks judgement on himself."


Notes:

1. Paul speaks FAR MORE of bread and wine AFTER the Consecration than he does before it.

2. Post 1551 Catholics join with Zwinglian Protestants in insisting on a split "half real/half not" interpretation of the texts - arbitrarily and without ANY textual reason, they insist that everything Jesus said is literal - except for either bread and wine (Catholics denying that via Aristotelian accidents) or body and blood (Zwinglians denying that via figurative speech). BOTH are in exactly the same "half is, half isn't" camp - they just don't agree on which is real and which isn't. Same/same.




Another post on this:

SOME Protestants teach that SOME of what Jesus said and Paul penned by inspiration after the Consecration is to be taken LITERALLY (bread and wine) and some is to be taken in some other less-than-entirely-LITERAL sense (Body and Blood). IMHO, this is no different than Transubstantiation that says that SOME of what Jesus said and Paul penned by inspiration after the Consecration is to be taken literally (Body and Blood) and some to be taken in some other less-than-entirely-LITERAL sense (bread and wine). Transubstantiation does not DENY that bread and wine are "there" in SOME sense (Aristotelian accidents) and nor does the Zwinglian DENY that Christ is "there" in SOME sense (spiritual or in His Divine Nature alone).



Lutherans and Anglicans (who make up one-third to one-half of Protestants - depending on whose numbers you use and who you regard as "Protestant") embrace the Dogma of Real Presence but not the unique Catholic Dogma of Transubstantiation. Lutherans, Anglicans (as well as Orthodox and many Methodist) embrace that at the Consecration, Christ IS present (the point is BEING rather than any molecules or substance undergoing an alchemic transubstantiation) - not because alchemy would enable this but because Christ said so and Paul affirmed as he penned God's Scriptures. We affirm that we recieve Christ's literal, real, physical Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist not because Aristotle's theory of accidents could be applied to deny that there is bread and wine but because Jesus said we are receiving His Body and Blood and St. Paul affirmed that as he penned God's Scriptures. We believe that "is" = is. "Body" = body. "Blood" = blood, because it does and because there's no textual reason to interpret otherwise - nothing to suggest some "figure of speech" such as a metaphor or Aristotelian theory is being taught.

Lutherans and Anglicans do not DOGMATICALLY DENY that bread and wine are "there" since both Jesus and Paul said so - IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as Jesus said and Paul pinned that Body and Blood are there . It just to us an entirely moot point. If I were over 21, I could consume wine anytime (LOL) but only in the Blessed Sacrament do we receive Christ's Body and Blood with all the Eucharistic Blessings!!!! Each Sunday, when my Lutheran pastor places the Host on my tongue, his words are: "Josiah, this IS the Body of Christ." He doesn't DOGMATICALLY deny that bread is there, too, but who cares? We just don't share the enormous interest of our full, unseparated and equal brothers and sisters in the Catholic Church over supporting some foreign "half is, half isn't" interpretation so as to dogmatically deny the real presence of the bread and wine. Frankly, we just are not interested in the wine and bread when CHRIST is here!!! And we just see no need for alchemy or Aristotle to agree with what Jesus and Paul said - God's Word is more than enough, we see it as moot what two now entirely rejected theories are. Christ is here! "Is" = is! "Body" = Body! Blood = blood! We affirm Real Presence but we do not affirm the 1551 Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation - and yes, we know that has been a major issue of division of Catholics toward us.




See Post #30 for another post on the Eucharist!






VIEWS ON 'ONCE SAVED, ALWAYS SAVED'


Gospel:


Romans 8:29-39, For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all--how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died--more than that, who was raised to life--is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. "

Mark 13:22, "For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect--if that were possible.

John 4:14, "but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

John 20:28, I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.

1 Thess. 5:24, "The one who calls you is faithful and he will do it.

Hebrews 10:14, "because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

Rev. 3:5, "I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels."



Law:

John 15:4-7, "Remain in me, and I will remain in you... If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned."

Rev. 2:10, "Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life.

Matthew 10:22, "He who stands firm to the end will be saved."

1 Timothy 4:1, "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons."

Luke 8:13, "They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away."

John 8:31, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really My disciples."

Luke 21:19, "By standing firm you will gain life."

Hebrews 8:9, "They did not remain faithful to My covenant, and I turned away from them"

Gal. 5:4, "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace."

Col. 1:23, "If you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel."

Hebrews 10:26, "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God."

2 Peter 1:8-10, "But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure."

2 Peter 3:17, "Be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position."

Rev. 3:5, He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white.

Luke 12:8, "He who disowns Me before men will be disowned before the angels of God."


As so often in theology, we find there are "two sides of the coin." To ME, the approach is NOT to take all the Scriptures, subject them to our limited, fallable, sinful, human LOGIC and force them to "fit" and "make sense" to US. To ME, the approach is to accept both "sets" of scriptures at their face value and allow them to stand in all their truth and power just as God inspired them.

The approach, then, is in how to APPLY them rather than in how to force them to fit together according to our fallible, limited logic. Not in accepting one "set" and explaining away the other in the light of it.




MY view...


- Josiah


I'll be posting more stuff in this thread from time to time...


.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
As a frequent poster here at CF, I offer the following as a confession and prayer...


A Confession for Web Theologians


I'm sorry

of pretending to know more than I do,
of speaking without listening,
of correcting without caring,
of passing judgment without understanding,
of talking at people instead of with people,
of using words that hurt and do not heal,
of writing without grace, charity, love and kindness,
of writing with arrogance and pride,
of being more critical than redemptive,
of presuming my words are more valuable than others’,
of uncovering problems without pointing to solutions,
of being more zealous for a system than for a Savior,
for I am a man of imperfect posts, and I write among a people of imperfect posts.

More of you Jesus
Amen



.

 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican


A man shares a story from his school days…


When I was in the third grade at my Lutheran school, I was naughty and not nice. My buddies and I would find every mischief and if we couldn’t find any, we made it.

My teacher was Miss Kleinburg – a stout woman with an ample chest.

When I was caught being bad, she wouldn’t yell at me or punish me or report me to my parents. No. She would hug me. She’d force me into her ample chest with a firm, strong, sincere hug, swaying just a bit with me in tow, and crying – literally crying - with tears rolling down her round cheeks. She’d say, “I love you, I love you, I love you. It hurts me so very, very much when you hurt people and when you do something that could hurt you. It just so breaks my heart, because I love you, I love you, I love you.” This would go on for the longest time.

Meanwhile, my face was stuck in her chest and I’d be gasping for air! Trying to wiggle myself free just a enough to somehow capture some small breath – but she’d just hug me all the more, her strong arms holding me in place. FINALLY, she’d let me loose. She always thought I was crying but really I was just trying to catch my breath. Seeing what she was sure was repentance, she’d hug me again! Rejoicing over me!

I learned not to be bad in Miss Kleinburg’s class. Partly because it broke her heart and partly because I feared an accidental death.”

Our relationship with Christ is not so different. Yes, we are naughty and not nice (it’s called “sin”) but Jesus did not come to judge the world but to save the world. He doesn’t so much yell at us or punish us or report us as He hugs us. It is His love that not only empowers us but also motivates us. Christ doesn’t just love us to life. He also loves us to right.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
What follows in this post is a LOT of stuff about Sola Scriptura. Skip all this if that is not an interest of yours.


Principles of Norming: Accountability in teaching



The purpose of an epistemological principle of norming is to provide a "check" if you will, some accountability, to avoid the "I'm just right cuz I say I am" problem.

There are two teachers (persons, congregations, denominations, etc.), teaching different things. What principle or process would best help Christians decide which (if either) is correct?

Is any principle going to be infallible, unable to be misused? No, but some will be more helpful than others.



There are two issues involved:


1. WHO/WHAT will do this evaluation? This is called "arbitration."

2. WHAT will serve as the "rule"? The evaluation will be made on the basis of what? This is called the Rule (in legal issues, the Rule is often the written law, so this is called the 'Rule of Law') or the 'Canon' (literally, the measuring stick, the ruler, the standard, the norm) This is called the "norma normans" (the norm which norms).




Let's look at the two common principles of norming commonly embraced in contemporary Christianity:


Sola Ecclesia: (Church Alone)

The teacher (WHO or WHATEVER is presenting the view - that could be a person, a congregation, a denomination, etc.) is the "sole final arbiter" for himself/itself.


Since the "teacher" here is often a denomination, the principle is often known by "Sola Ecclesia" but the principle is the same if the teacher is an individual person.

In this principle, the teacher self-claims to alone have the authority (often infallibly so) to evaluate himself.

The "rule" for his own self-arbitration includes everything he teaches (which, of course, may well include the very teaching being evaluated, "normed").

Often, the unavoidable result of this principle is self-claimed to be infallible, and thus unaccountable, so that norming is moot.


The common term "Sola Ecclesia" comes from the doctrine of the RCC (and a couple of others) that the Church Alone is the interpreter of Scripture and Tradition, and the arbiter for doctrine. Read the following:

Quote:
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the [Catholic] Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.




Sola Scriptura: (Scripture Alone)


The Rule, Canon, Standard for this evaluation is not the teaching itself but God's holy written Word, the Word that virtually all Christians (for 1600-1900 years) have embraced as Authoritative, Apostolic, Infallible, DIVINELY-inspired, and true. And it is written - in exact words we all agree on, words no one can alter to suit himself, not the "phantom" of what the self-same teacher self-claims is something God forgot to include in Scriptures but delivered to them as a secret although they cannot provide any evidence of such.


The issue of arbitration isn't actually addressed in the principle of Sola Scripture. Many that embrace this tool view that the "arbiter" is the church, the Body of Christ, the "one holy catholic and apostolic church" the "communion of saints." It includes all Christians (including those now dead - equally, not lesser or greater - with those now living). Consensus is usually the goal. Self does not arbitrate self. But some that embrace believe that the arbiter is each individual (in that case, embracing the same arbitration factor as Sola Ecclesia).



An Illustration:

ANY illustration is limited and flawed, but an often used one in this discussion is the legal system.

Sola Scriptura example: The Rule of Law prevails, all must be in harmony and concord with the written law of the land. Everyone from the policeman to the judge to the jury are to norm what they decide and do with the law of the land (the 'Rule' is the law - thus this is known as the "Rule of Law"). Of course, that must be adjudicated (arbitrated) and that is done by consensus - perhaps by a jury. Such is not infallible and can be appealed, so the adjudication is not the norma normans but rather the arbitration.


Sola Ecclesia example: The accused (teacher) is the "sole final arbiter" for himself. He alone can determine his guilt or innocense, correctness or falsehood. The norma normans for this evaluation is his own viewpoints or teachings (Tradition) as he himself so defines, interprets and applies. He is accountable only to himself and to God as he himself so determines.





MY evaluation:

Can Sola Ecclesia supply the necessary accountablity and avoid the self-authentication needed to provide the required norming? IMHO, no, it cannot, no matter who or what is the arbiter. It is, by definition, self-authenticating and rejects accountability.

This is abundantly obvious to many because no one seems to condemn the principle more than those who insist on it. They rebuke and ridicule this approach - boldly and strongly - when any other uses it, BUT insist that they themselves (but only they themselves) MUST use it. It's perfect for they themselves to us but absurd any other uses it.

IMHO, if the principle is as bad as they insist it is, then it's bad even when they use it.


Sola Scriptura removes the "self norms self according to self" circle and thus can provide accountability. It CAN do what Sola Ecclesia CANNOT do.


Admittedly: it ain't easy. It takes humility, study, work, prayer, time. I confess, it is so much easier and quicker to just have a Dictator say "I say!" and everyone shuts up, a Dictator who self-claims to be infallible and unaccountable, above Gods Word and people, above the law; a Dictator of amazing ego. Some, however, just aren't sure that's a better system of accountability - and that's what we're talking about - accountability.

The problem for Sola Scriptura, of course, is that humility and patience are RARE commodities among Christians and consensus is much easier said than done. We HAVE done it in nearly all things - I'd guess 90% of Christians agree on 90% of dogmas, but there are things that even now - 2,000 years into things - still lack consensus. These include: The infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, the Assumption of Mary, the "accident" explaination in the dogma of the Eucharist, the necessity of obedience to the Roman Pontiff for salvation, OSAS, and some other things. These issues remain, a consensus does not exist. Some allow the continuing discussion, prayer and study of these things - but those using Sola Ecclesia insist they themselves have SPOKEN dogmatically and are unaccountable and infallible.



Here's another post on this same issue:



Sola Scriptura is an epistemological approach to the norming of teachings. Like the other major approach - Sola Ecclesia - it's not a doctine that is (or can be) "proven" but it's a tool, a method, a process, a proceedure, an approach.





Teacher "A" teaches as dogma "B"
Let me ask some questions about that:



1. Do you think it matters if "B" is true or not? I'm not asking if it's PROVABLE ("proof" is an amazingly difficult thing!), just if Christians can come to a reasonable enough consensus about that to say that it's "dogma" or not? Is that a good thing? Or do you believe that it's all unknowable and irrelevant, if someone says it's true - cool, it's of no ones' concern if it is or isn't?


2. The Scriptures tell us to "test the spirits." It tells us to cast the false teacher out of us. It tells cautions us - repeatedly - to beward of false prophets, false teachers, antichrists, those that would lead many astray. Do you think that's counsel Christians should follow? How might we do that? Again, not in absolute sense - no one is suggesting a new Inquasistion or Salem Witch Hunts, but with enough confidence so that Christians can come to a consensus that says "we respectfully disagree with that teaching and no not embrace it." Do you think that's something we should care about? Or is it irrelevant if this is a false teacher or not?


3. Who do you think would be a more objective, less self-authenticating arbiter for this evaluation? "A" (Sola Ecclesia) or the community of Christians (Sola Scriptura)? Neither, I suspect, is INFALLIBLE or can probably PROVE anything - but that's not the standard here, we just want to find some way to resolve all the various conflicting views and claims, some way to have some reasonable basis to say "This teaching is something we can call dogma" or "this teaching is something we conclude is not true" or maybe somewhere in between. Which do you think would be more likely to be less self-authenticating and to provide more accountability? "A" (the one teaching what we are evaluating) or Christians as a whole?


4. And what basis should be used for this evaluation? What is the "Rule" or the "norma normans" as it's called in epistemology? The Norm, the Standard, the Canon (literally - the measuring stick)? Which would provide less self-authentication and more accountability? The teachings of "A" (which includes "B") or God's Holy Scriptures? Tradition or Scriptures?


I think as you reflect on those 4 questions, the basis of Sola Scriptura will come into better focus. You may not accept it - that's cool - but maybe you'll understand the concept.




Illustration #1:


I'm driving 60 miles a hour down a road. Am I speeding?

Using the two epistemological approaches being promoted in Christian theology today, here's how we'd address that issue.

"Sola Ecclesia" type approach.
Rule: The viewpoints of Josiah (Tradition). What Josiah has embraced and taught as true about the driving habits of Josiah. If Josiah infallibly and consisting teaches that Josiah doesn't speed, then that's the Rule or Canon for the evaluation.
Arbiter: Josiah. Josiah is the "sole arbiter" for the driving of Josiah.

Sola Scriptura type approach
Rule: The law. There is a speed limit sign posted and it says what the speed limit is - written so that it's knowable by all and alterable by none. The Rule is outside me and I'm accountable to it.
Arbitration: Well, if it gets that far, a jury. BTW, I will not have a vote on that jury.


Illustration #2:


You hire a man to build a wall 6 feet tall. It's done. Is it 6 feet tall? How would you resolve that - not in some ABSOLUTE, PROVEN mathematical sense, but to the reasonable conclusion.


Sola Ecclesia type approach:
Rule: What the builder says
Arbiter: The builder.

Sola Scriptura type approach:
Rule: A measuring tape
Arbiter: People - probably excluding yourself and the builder - measure the wall according to the measuring tape.


Is either INFALLIBLE? I doubt it, but which would likely provide for less self-authenticating and more accountablity?


THAT'S THE ISSUE.


BTW, while the words "sola Scriptura" do not appear anywhere in the Bible, the concept is revealed all over. Jesus appealed to the Holy Scriptures over 50 times - authoritatively and normatively - while never ONCE so quoting from any denomination, institution or leader of a denomination. Jesus never once refers us to ANY institution as normative or authoritative. James, Peter and Paul also quote from the Scriptures and refer to the often - authoritatively and normatively. They never wrote, "if you want to know if a dogma is correct, go to the head of your denomination - he is infallible and the sole arbiter." Nope, it's just not there. So, while neither is specifically taught in so many words, we have 50 examples form Jesus and dozens of examples from the Apostles of one, and zero examples of the other. Some see that as significant, some see that as entirely moot.




Another post on this same topic:


Before I get into this, I want to make it clear that the GREAT MAJORITY of the time, there's no conflict in the conclusion. We may "get there" or explain it a bit differently, but we're looking at the same Scriptures and coming to pretty much the same conclusions. BUT when there ARE conflicts (a rarity, praise God), this epistemological difference is often the key. It's NOT a case of one "side" being smarter, better educated, or anything else. It's different epistemologies. Our different epistemology (and the ecclesiology intertwined with that) means that in the CC, what the CC teaches is what the Bible teaches - even if such cannot be seen except by them through their teaching.


The "Three Legged Stool"


In Catholicism, the "norm" is Tradition as they themselves so define, interpret and apply it. Scripture is a part of this, but only a part.


The source, authority and rule for faith and practice is a "a three legged stool" (as they consistantly express it). This consists of:
1. The Holy Scriptures - God's Word
2. The Apostle's teaching as the CC defines that
3. The Catholic Church
If any leg is removed (or even shortened), the stool falls.

"Tradition" here is OF COURSE, as THEY define it (as is always the case in Sola Ecclesia). The Apostle were given insights not limited to that recorded in Holy Scripture long, long ago, but includes many things God would have us to know that isn't expressly, explicity (very important words!!!!) in the Bible. What the Catholic Church regards as this Tradition is called "infallible preaching." (note term "infallible").

Follow?



ONE Inseparable, Equal Whole:


This "three-legged-stool" is ONE. These three things are inseparable and equal. That CANNOT be stressed enough, it is the key to understanding this. Catholics see no conflict, no separation, no distinction here. It's not unlike our TV - using the 3 primary colors TOGETHER to form the whole picture - it would be incomplete at best if all we looked at was the red dots. This is critical to understanding how all this works.


All three are divine - from God (Scripture, Tradition, Church) and so all 3 are infallible and divine. God cannot lie. Nor can He contradict Himself or even be in conflict with Himself. This,too, is critical to understanding how this works in Sola Ecclesia.



Sooooooooo...

If the Bible teaches something, Tradition MUST teach that, even if such is not explicit (um, completely missing!), and the Church (theirs, of course) MUST also teach that, even if it's not explicit. Bible-Tradition-Church are ONE, they are equal, inseparable, true. Three legs of a stool, the 3 primary colors forming the picture.

If Tradition (as that teacher/denomination so defines) says something, the Bible MUST also teach that, even if such is not explicit (um, completely missing!), and the Church MUST also teach that, even if it's not explicit. Bible-Tradition-Church are ONE, they are equal, inseparable, true.

IF the Church Jesus founded (as that denomination so defines) teaches something, the Bible MUST also teach that, even if it's not explicit (um, even if completely missing!), and Tradition MUST also teach that, even if it's not explicit (it may take the church centuries to get around to it). Bible-Tradition-Church are ONE, they are equal, inseparable, true.


Follow?



Soooooooo....

If you want to know what the Bible teaches, you MUST look equally to the Bible, Tradition and Church, they each will develop the "whole picture." What the Church (RCC or whatever) says is what the Bible says which is what Tradition says - they CANNOT be in conflict - God does not lie or contradict Himself.

If you want to know what is "Tradition" - which snippet of which person is divine revelation equal to Scripture and Church - you look to Scripture and Church to tell you, only that denomination can so determine if what they teach is what God says via Scripture and Church. Remember, these 3 things are ONE.

If you want to know which denomination is the Church of Christ, you have to look at all three things to get the complete answer: the Bible, Tradition (as that denomination so defines, interprets and applies) and the Church. Catholics has yet another aspect to this, because they tend to argue that the Scriptures are actually a possesion and product of Tradition and Church.


Follow?



This approach does have one highly desired function: it's impossible to be wrong. It makes accountability completely moot - a point eventually made by those that embrace Sola Ecclesia. I've found it's this "I can't be wrong" aspect that causes them to embrace that is often acknowledged to be, well, less than promising as an epistemological process.


Yet another post on this topic...


1. Neither Sola Ecclesia or Sola Scriptura are doctrines, the are applications of such toward the issue of norming. They address the question of "is it correct?" Not necessarily in some absolute, abstract since of "infallible" (a word the Bible uses for God, not man) but as in reliable. Unless we want to embrace pure relativism or nihilism, we need some mutually acceptable and reasonable means by which we can agree what is correct and what is not. It's called norming. Sola Eccelsia and Sola Scriptura are the two primarily approaches to norming in contemporary Christianity.



2. Methods cannot be proven one way or the other, but they can be evaluated. If we want to know if a particular teaching or claim of a particular teacher is correct, what approach might be more promising in accomplishing that goal? Which is less self-authenticating and more objective?



3. Sola Scriptura says that ALL teachings and teachers are accountable to God's Word - which all parties in this discussion agree is Authoritative, Apostolic, Inerrant, DIVINELY-INSPIRED and written so as to be knowable by all and alterable by none. The teaching is subject to a standard, unatlerable, DIVINE rule outside of and above the teacher. Sola Eccelsia says that ALL teachings and teachers are subject to the teacher, is the rule as well as the arbiter. It's the "Three-legged-stool" of Scripture PLUS Tradition as self so defines and interprets PLUS Church as self so defines.



4. An Illustration:


Teacher: Brigham Young
Teaching: "How many Gods are there? I do not know, but there has never been a time when there were not many Gods and worlds."


Can (should) we ask, "Is this correct?" If so, then we need some process of norming. We could, of course, predetermine that if Brigham Young said it, it's true because all Brigham Young says is true and he said it's true so it's true. But, unless we are willing to take that presumptive position, we are left with the issue of norming. We'll need to determine two things: What will be our rule, our canon (literally 'measuring stick'), the basis by which correctness will be determined. We'll also need to determine the arbiter, who will do the determination, who will decide on the basis of the Canon whether the teaching "measures up" or not?

Sola Ecclesia: The Rule is the teaching of the teacher, in this case, Brigham Young. The Arbiter is the teacher, in this case, Brigham Young. Brigham Young will determine whether this teaching of Brigham Young conforms to the Tradition or filter or Rule of Brigham Young. The way the Catholic denomination would word this, is that a teaching of the Catholic Church (say the Immaculate Conception of Mary) must be evaluated according to the Rule of the Tradition of the Catholic Church - it will provide the 'lens' by which all interpretations will be made - any interpretation which confirms the teaching of the Catholic denomination will be determined as correct and all that don't will be determined as wrong. What the Catholic Chruch teaches, her Tradition will be the Rule for the evaluation of her Tradition with the presumption that this evaluation will be according to the 'lens' of her Tradition and will agree with it. And who will be the arbiter for this evaluation? The Catholic Church. The Catholic Church will determine if the teachings of the Catholic Church are correct according to the Rule of the teachings of the Catholic Church - which provides the 'lens' by which all determinations will be made. The "Three-Legged-Stool" of Scripture + Catholic Tradition + Catholic Church are equal and inseparable and incapable of conflict - whatever the CC says - Tradition and Scripture MUST also say, whatever the Scripture say the Catholic Chruch and Catholic Tradition MUST also say, and whatever the Catholic Tradition says the Scriptures and the Catholic Church must also say - they are incapable of conflict.

Sola Scriptura: Brigham Young's statement - like ALL - is accountable and subject to God's Holy Word. It must be confirmed by what God has said; Brigham Young is under God - not equal or above Him, regardless of what Brigham Young may or may not self-claim in that regard. The Rule then, is God's Holy Scriptures. The issue of arbitration is not addressed in Sola Scriptura (as it is in Sola Ecclesia). SOME embrace private arbitration, just as Catholics so. They would hold up Young's statement to God's Holy Word - and see if it is confirmed by that Word. They would pray, study, search, pray, debate, study, pray, argue - as long as it takes, until a conviction is reached, again as ruled by God's Word, the decision MUST be supported by God's Word. Others embrace public arbitration. The process is the same except that the goal is consensus rather than individual conviction. It can never be a perfect consensus (such rarely exists) but to misapply a quote from Abraham Lincoln, "You can fool all the people all of the time, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." It might just apply a bit here, too. It's not unlike under the Rule of Law. If there's a dispute, it goes to a trial and a jury (um - excluding the man - or here teaching - under review). If all 12 juriors agree (maybe even 11?), we have sufficient basis to proceed. This, they feel, is less self-authenticating than simply asking the defendent how he finds himself or in allowing every one to be a law unto themself and every person arbitrates for himself. BUT (and this is key) regardless of the arbitration, it is necessary to support the conclusion on the basis of the Rule or Canon: God's Holy Scriptures. Even if 100% of Mormons believe Brigham Young on this point, it's not normed by the Bible.



There's a fine thread that deals with these issues buried somewhere here at General Theology. It's called, "Which Teacher is Correct? The Issue of Norming: Sola Scriptura/Sola Ecclesia."



5. To the issue of Ecumenism: Many teachers come together to discuss those issues we disagree about. As we gather around the table, some (including one very major player) asks for our attention: I'm infallible. I'm the sole authority. I'm the sole interpreter of Scripture and anything else I consider to be authoritative. I'm the sole arbiter for all matters relating to my veiws and claims - and anything else I choose to arbitrate. And I'm infallible and therefore unaccountable. BTW, if anyone else here makes these same claims, he is anathma. IMHO, with such a situation, we might as well adjourn and go get some pizza and beer, LOL. THAT'S where we've been stuck for over 1,000 years. Meanwhile, for some of us, Jesus' prayer in John 17 rings loud and strong.
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
This is here mainly because it took me a LOT of work to post it - and I want to keep it handy!


The New Testament Canon


First Century:


1. The "heart of the Canon" is often regarded to be Paul's epistles. By the time 2 Peter was written (perhaps 70 AD), they seem to be regarding as normative and referred to as Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-16). Many theologians - conservative and liberal - give great importance to Paul's works as perhaps the theological framework for that which was later added. So, by 70 AD, we have perhaps half of the NT books in some aspect of a Canon. A bit later, Clement and others also speak of "Paul's letters" in this way, indicating a canonical status.


2. The Synoptic Gospels (written between 45 - 65) also seem to have been quickly and nearly universally seen as canonical. They were "published" together - as a single tome - as early as 115 and were very common. They too are repeatedly spoken of as canonical.

By this point, we have a fairly solid canon of 18 of our 27 NT books.

Second Century:


Many early writers not only reveal a knowledge of NT books, but refer to them specially - as Scripture. Clement points to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and maybe Titus. The Shepherd of Hermas (140) quotes from Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, Revelation and James. Ignatius (d.117) speaks of "all of Paul's epistles" authoritatively, he frequently uses normative quotes from Matthew, John and Acts as well. Tatian (c 170) writes that all Christians recognize that there are four Gospel books. Irenaeus also mentions that Christians accept only four Gospel books, he too speaks of "all Paul's epistles" and quotes from 1 Peter and 1 John. He speaks of these as a parallel of the Old Testament - having equal authority (ie being normative and canonical). Tertullian (d. 220) quotes authoritatively and normatively from all 4 Gospels, all the Pauline epistles, Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude and Revelation. All these reveal that much of the NT canon was in place by the end of the Second Century.

Third Century:


At the beginning, we seem to have a rather solid Canon of 20 of the 27 books. They are the Pauline letters (13), the 4 Gospels, Acts, 1 Peter and 1 John. The great majority of the Canon is in place. But a few books - including those eventually being dismissed - were still not embraces with a solid consensus.

Cprian of Carthage (d. 258) says that all Christians accept 21 books: Paul's 13 (in all these lists, nearly always mentioned first), the 4 Gospels, Acts, First Peter, First John and revelation. They are referenced as normative and canonical.

Origin (d. 255) also reports on the status of the books as regarded by Christians. He places them into two groups: Homologoumena (all embrace) as 21 books - the same as Cyprian's list. Antilegomena (challenged) as 10 - they are Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude (all which would eventually be accepted) and also Barnabas, Hermas, Didache and the Gospel of the Hebrews (all of which would soon be rejected).

The NT Canon is now solid for 21 of the 27 books.

Fourth Century:


By this time, there is clearly an embrace of 21 books - and has been for a long time. the only "debate" centers around 5- 6 that eventually were embraced, and a handfull soon to be dropped. The core of 21 is now very solid and unquestioned.

Eusebius (d. 340) wrote that Christians all accept 21 books. He lists 4 as ones accepted by most but not by all: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John (all eventually embraced). And he lists some as "spurious" - Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache. Most historians fully agree on this situation, although one of that solid 21 (Revelation) some historians think was more debated than Eusebius seems to indicate.

Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 350) does the same for us, listing the books that all Christians embrace as Holy Scripture. His list is the final Canon, except that Revelation was left out, giving us 26 (Matthew - Jude)

There now seems to be little debate at all, a consensus seem pretty solid - God's people settling on a pretty solid list. Although some historians believe that Revelation was still more disputed in the East.

Athanasius of Alexandria (d. 373) Once again, we have someone telling us what we want to know: What books were Christians embracing as Holy Scripture - the NT Canon? He lists them: It's our 27. He does mention the Didache and Hermas as "associated with" but clearly as inferior and below the 27.

Christians clearly had a canon of 27.



Early Councils


Early meetings were usually not focused on stating a canon (such seems to have already been in place, with no need to state) but more with practical issues of the lectionary - what would be the Sunday readings.


The Council of Laodicea (363) Really just a regional synod, it says that "uncanonical books are not to be read in the churches." While it mentions none by name, clearly all knew what was and was not a "canonical book" since there was no need whatsoever to specify which were so regarded. The canon already existed - clearly - in everyone's mind.

The Council of Hippo (393) Actually, just a regional council, this is the first official meeting (rather than individual) specifically listing exactly what that canon is. It's our 27, the 27 that had been clearly embraced as such for several decades (and in most cases, since the First Century).

The Third Council of Carthage (397) This again listed the by now very well established NT Canon, already agreed upon by consensus by Christians. It's the now familiar 27.

Since then, hundreds upon hundreds of gatherings of various types have confirmed this consensus that Christians developed and which later these councils acknowledged.


Augustine (352-430): Let us treat scripture like scripture, like God speaking; don’t let’s look there for man going wrong. It is not for nothing, you see, that the canon has been established for the Church. This is the function of the Holy Spirit. So if anybody reads my book, let him pass judgment on me. If I have said something reasonable, let him follow, not me, but reason itself; if I’ve proved it by the clearest divine testimony, let him not follow me, but the divine Scripture. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Newly Discovered Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 162C.15 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1997), p. 176.



A note about the DEUTEROcanonical OT books, "The New Catholic Encyclopedia states, "The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent"




Footnote:

It's historically necessary to point out that rarely has consensus in Christianity ever been perfect or without dispute. Various other lists - slightly different - continued well into the fifth century and beyond, although by ever smaller and more fringe Christians. Revelation and Hebrews (perhaps the last to be resolved in the mid 4th century) remained controversal for centuries - and some lectionaries excluded any readings form one or the other well into the middle ages.

Some historians are convinced that the Canon was not considered to be a "closed" issue at all until the 16th Century.
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Mary - the Mother of Our Lord


What God's Holy Scriptures tell us:
Matthew 1:23/Isaiah 7:14
Mark 3:31-35; 6:1-6
Luke 1:27, 31-33, 39-55
Luke 2:1-24, 49
John 2:4
John 19:26-27
Acts 1:14
That's it.
That's all.



Immaculate Conception:
No Scripture remotely confirms it.
No Scripture clearly denies it.
Which leaves an unnormed but traditional opinion.
IMHO: Not dogma, not heresy. Opinion.
Recently dogma in the Catholic Church.


Perpetual Virginity:
No Scripture remotely confirms it.
No Scripture clearly denies it (but some verses may make it problematic)
Which leaves an unnormed but tradtional view.
IMHO: Not dogma, not heresy. Opinion.
Dogma in the Catholic Church.


Divine Maternity:
Scriptural support for the divine nature of Christ is solid. Since Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus has a divine nature, in THAT sense, this is normed.
Tradition affirms this interpretation.
IMHO: Accepted but potentially very misleading.
(Not dogma in the CC)


"Queen of Heaven":
Related to above; in ancient Jewish culture, the mother of a king often had this title. It's not dogma but a title for Mary. As such, it is fitting.
IMHO: Accepted, but potentially misleading.
(Not dogma in the CC)


Assumption of Mary:
Nothing in Scripture remotely confirms this.
Nothing in Scripture clearly denies this.
Which leaves an unnormed but traditional opinion.
IMHO: Not dogma, not heresy. Opinion.
Newly dogma in the CC



Coredemptrix:
Nothing in Scripture remotely confirms this.
Nothing in Scripture clearly denied this, although several verses make it problemmatic.
Which leave an unnormed and I think fairly new viewpoint.
IMHO: Not dogma, probably not heresy. Opinion.
(Not dogma in the CC)


Mediatrix of all Graces:
Nothing in Scripture remotely confirms this.
Nothing in Scripture clearly denies this, although 1 Tim. 2:5 may make this problemmatic.
IMHO: Not dogma, not heresy if property understood. Opinion.
(Not dogma in the CC)


"Mother of the Church"
Another official title for Mary (not dogma)
Nothing in Scripture remotely confirms this.
Nothing in Scripture clearly denies this.
IHMO, reveals an abilbical view of the Christianity and Christians.




Some quotes:

Pope Pius IX Eneffabilis Deus (1854), "Let the most dear children of the Catholic Church hear these words and with more ardent zeal of piety, religion and love, proceed to worship, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary."


Pope Pius XII Coronation at Fatima (1948), "Mary is indeed worthy to receive honor and might and glory. She is exalted to hypostatic union with the Blessed Trinity. Her Kingom is as great as her Son's and God's."


While I won't quote them, it's clear that Martin Luther used the titles for Mary of "Mother of God" and "Ever Virgin Mary." He clearly accepted the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (although not as dogma) and rejected the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Assumption of Mary - then not dogmas as they are now. Of course, for Protestants, Luther was just a student of the Bible - fully accountable and subject to it. His words carry no more authority than any other man's.




Some Misc. thoughts....

1. God focused very little on Mary in His holy written Word - the Scriptures. Like Mary, it's focus seems to be on Christ.


2. While Catholics DO speak of a certain "worship" of Mary, they make it very clear they do not worship her as divine. "Mary belongs to the offspring of Adam and is one with all human beings in their need for salvation" (Vatican II) In modern English, "worship" has taken on that meaning it didn't have until recently.


3. At one time, Protestants (especially Lutherans and Anglicans) shared a certain veneration of Mary nearly the same as Catholics. As Catholics have become far more focused on Mary (note the dates of the quotes above, the Immaculate Conception was not declared dogma until 1854, the Assumption of Mary not until 1950), Protestants have moved away - in what I consider foolish and tragic.


4. Even an 18 year old guy cannot help but be amazingly moved by Luke Chapter 1. Here is a woman, probably younger than me, with a humility, faith and devotion that are beyond the ability of words to convey. That she might be considered chief among all saints is something I wouldn't challenge. Luke 1 and the story of Abraham and Issac about to be sacrificed are accounts that immediately spring to my mind when I think of what faith and discipleship mean...
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican

This was "borrowed" from a blog. It seems good and I basically agree with the Lutheran understandings here.



TULIP: A Response from Calvinism, Lutheranism and Arminianism


Calvinism has summarized its position in the famous acronym TULIP, and this serves as a useful way to approach the issue (being logical Calvinism is, if nothing else, easy to follow):


T: "total depravity"

Calvinism: Man after the Fall has no ability to cooperate with God's grace in conversion
Arminianism: Man after the Fall can cooperate with God’s grace in conversion
Lutheranism: Agrees with Calvinism on total depravity
Relevant Bible passages: Romans 3:9-20; Gal. 3:22


U: "unconditional election"
Calvinism: Before the world was created, God unconditionally elected some (the elect) for salvation and the others (reprobates) for damnation.
Arminianism: Before the world was created, God foresaw those who would choose Him of their own free will and elected them to salvation
Lutheranism: Before the world was created, God unconditionally elected some (the elect) for salvation but did not reprobate (chose for damnation) any.
Relevant Bible passages: Romans 9:11-13; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; Mat. 25:34, 41.


L: "limited atonement"
Calvinism: Jesus only died for the elect, objectively atoning for their sin, but he did not die for the sins of the reprobates.
Arminianism: Christ died to give all the possibility to be saved.
Lutheranism: Christ’s death objectively atoned for all the sin of the world; by believing we receive this objective atonement and its benefits.
Relevant Bible passages: John 1:29; 1 John 2:2; 2 Cor. 5:14-15, 19.


I: "irresistable grace"
Calvinism: In all of God's outward actions (preaching, baptism, etc.) there is an outward call which all receive, yet there is also a secret effectual calling which God gives to the elect alone. This effectual calling alone saves and is irresistable.
Arminianism: God gives in His outward actions the same grace to all; this grace can be resisted by all.
Lutheranism: The question is not answerable; for the elect, grace will irresistably triumph, yet those who reject Christ have rejected that Grace; yet the grace is the same.
Relevant Bible passages: Eph. 2:1-10; Acts 13:48; James 1:13-15


P: "perseverance of the saints" ("once saved, always saved.")
Calvinism: Salvation cannot be lost.
Arminianism: Salvation can be lost through unrepentant sin and unbelief.
Lutheranism: Salvation can be lost through unbelief, but this legal warning does not cancel the Gospel promise of election
Relevant Bible passages: 1 Cor. 10:12. 2 Peter 2:1, 20-22.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Some comments about Sola Fide...


Faith:



Faith can be a noun (in which case it applies to the subject of our faith) or as a verb (in which case it applies to the trust/reliance in that subject).

I'll address it from the standpoint of the verb since that's the use we commonly use and how it is meant in the Protestant view of Sola Fide.


"Faith" = to trust, to rely. Especially trust and reliance in something that cannot be empiracally proven. Theologically, to trust and rely on God. It's a function of our hearts and lives.




When I was a kid, I had surgery (long story, doesn't matter). Anyway, I was just old enough to know I could die - and what that meant. I actually was okay with that. It had very little to do with heaven (a concept not yet in my heart or head) but with 1 John 4:8, "We rely on the love of God, because God is love."

I remember meeting the surgeon in the hospital - and that he kept calling me by the wrong name (Josh, I think). I realized, he doesn't know me - much less love me or even care about me. That was powerful. And yet, Mom and Dad told me he was a good doctor and God could use him. I was okay with that... I remember being moved onto the cold, hard table with the huge light above me - although by this time I was already very sleepy - fighting that as best I could.

I didn't know anything about the surgery, I didn't know anything about this surgeon, and clearly he knew nothing about me (not even my name) - or any of the rest of the staff involved in all this. And yet, I entrusted my life. Willingly. And I sooooo remember being okay wih that. I sooooo remember thinking: no matter what, it's okay, God loves me, and all that I love. God said, "My grace is sufficient for you." It was.

While my reliance was active on my part (I placed my life in their hands), there were no "works" on my part involved. There was no "obedience" other than I laid limp and allowed to happen whatever happened...


I know how planes fly; I understand the principles involved. Still, whenever I board one of those HUGE planes, I am amazed. They are soooooo big and heavy! And inside, they are STUFFED with overweight Americans (probably more so than the engineers planned for), and under them, all their luggage - too much. It's always the same. I look at those wings and that curvature and think, "no way!" And, of course, I don't know the pilot and he doesn't know me (or care). I don't know the flight plan or the weather report. I don't know the mechanics or their reports or when this plane was last overhauled. In fact, I know NOTHING about this particular plan or crew or flight. And I realize that when a plane stops working at 40K feet, well, it means we'll all be meeting Jesus. While the ODDS of that are very small, that means little for this particular flight - this could be that 1% (or whatever). It bothers me not. I board the plane. And as it takes off, as it's going down the runway, I hope to be able to see the wings and sit (passively!! in awe of it all, and then, surprisingly soon, the wheels chirp, and the plane rises - gloriously, and Hawaii is just 5 hours away.




Faith and Knowledge certainly have a relationship, but it's not a causitive or mechanical one, but rather a relational one. See my two illustrations above.

To insist that faith is the RESULT of knowledge is to deny that those below a certain IQ or age are capable of faith and therefore of salvation. And, IMO, undermines the very nature of faith which is to rest, rely, trust.

I am well aware that I can't "prove" much of anything in my heart. Actually, I "understand" probably LESS today than I did some years ago, more aware of the questions than the answers I have, more aware of mystery. It hasn't impacted my faith at all (if anything, it's increased it).



Faith is active. Luther said, "Faith is a busy, active thing." Faith changes us - from the inside out, and that reveals itself in genuine, not forced, things. Faith that is just some claim, words we chant, is not faith. Just chanting the right syllables is not faith.

There's two senses in which faith is to be active:

1. Faith causes us to rely, to rest, to trust. To use the airplane illustration above, another person may have the exactly same information (or LACK thereof!!!!) and yet does not board the plane. In his/her case, there is no faith. The irony is that faith, while active, is rest - and therefore passive.

2. Faith is a change in our heart and results in a change in our lives. "By their fruits you will know them." "Faith without works is dead." A good tree bears fruit. But don't press this TOO far! The "transformation" of faith is not complete (this side of heaven), we remain here always incomplete, always saint AND sinner at the same time. And while faith is constant, the opportunities are not. To insist, for example, that there must be tangible good works - helping the little old lady across the street - would be to insist that a baby cannot have faith and therefore cannot be saved. I think the thief on the cross had faith and salvation - as far as I can tell from the text, he did NOTHING after coming to faith. To make works a requirement is to proclaim he went to hell. The principle is sound, but it shouldn't be pressed too far.


Faith is GOD'S work, not ours. Faith is not OUR work for which WE can take any credit. "This is the work of God - to believe in the one He has sent." (John 6:29), "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3), "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8),





Sola Fide (Faith Alone)...


"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved." Acts 16:30-31


"For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believe in Him will not perish but has everlasting life." John 3:16


"Everyone who believes in Him receives the forgiveness of sins through His name." Acts 10:43



Sola Fide states that justification (narrow sense), is the result of Christ's works, not our works.


Sola Fide does NOT exclude OUR works from our lives as Christians, it does exclude it as the means of our justification - it rejects that OUR works - per se - justify us.




Faith and works. The concept states that faith in CHRIST and CHRIST'S works save. However, such faith is "a busy, active thing" (Martin Luther).

Two common Protestant proverbs:
"Faith alone saves but faith is never alone."
"We are save BY faith FOR works."

OUR works is a response or expression or "working out" of God's love and gift of salvation but it's not the cause of it. Galatians 5:25, John 13:34, Hebrews 11:6, James 2:17. A good tree yields good fruit, but it's the tree being good that makes the good fruit, not the good fruit that makes the tree good. God has done something inside of us - Ephesians 2:8, and that expresses itself in tangible, living, loving ways - which is the basis of the Great Commandment.



Some thoughts about James 2:17...
Faith, by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."
Some will quote this verse (totally isolated from the rest of the NT) as if it somehow undermines Sola Fide. It does not - actually, this is a part of Sola Fide. The Book of James is profounded PRACTICAL, not theological in nature, and is entirely addressing the issue of discipleship (sanctification in the broad sense) not primarily focused on justification. In James 2:14-26, by separating faith from life, James is speaking of "faith" as just a proclaimation, a word, a chant, a syllable. Protestants agree: If faith is just a word, a thought, mental assent or agreement, if it's just a word we say - that's not faith at all. This is a part of the concept of Sola Fide. Luther said about this verse: "A man is justified by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0