|
Post by Grant on May 3, 2017 10:27:38 GMT -5
Why do I have read secondary sources, and other people's opinions for what is clearly spelled out in scripture. Even more, lived out in scripture? Would this Jerry Bridges read anything I wrote? If he's a man of God then why is he writing books? Books become scripture in themselves. And there's thousands of titles out there, all saying different things about a book few even read these days. Why do you have to only listen to workers preaching, Bert? Its only a secondary source. Peoples opinion of what is clearly spelt out in scripture. Books only become scripture if you make them scripture. There are thousands of sermons put there all saying different things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 10:52:15 GMT -5
Man's interpretations and understanding transformed/translated into opinions.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 3, 2017 16:43:40 GMT -5
I honestly don't understand the quibble between works and grace. It seems to me that if you believe grace is a gift from God that changes who you are then works would just naturally follow. So isn't it a pair instead of one or the other? I think the biggest problem that the 'works' group have with the 'grace' group is that they see people who believe they are saved by grace because they believe and don't see them doing anything to prove that they did receive grace into their lives. I know my mother used to say that about the Catholics. They do what they want, live however they like all week then go to confession on Sunday and all is good. I think that is one reason why the F&W's are so focused on works being important. But I have never heard them say that grace wasn't a gift from God or that grace wasn't important. I just think they are saying that grace alone isn't enough. The 'grace' group are saying there is nothing anyone can do to be saved and it's entirely by grace. Maybe. But if there are no works what's the point of grace? How are you any different from anyone else who you say is not saved because it isn't outwardly evident?
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on May 3, 2017 18:04:21 GMT -5
I honestly don't understand the quibble between works and grace. It seems to me that if you believe grace is a gift from God that changes who you are then works would just naturally follow. So isn't it a pair instead of one or the other? I think the biggest problem that the 'works' group have with the 'grace' group is that they see people who believe they are saved by grace because they believe and don't see them doing anything to prove that they did receive grace into their lives. I know my mother used to say that about the Catholics. They do what they want, live however they like all week then go to confession on Sunday and all is good. I think that is one reason why the F&W's are so focused on works being important. But I have never heard them say that grace wasn't a gift from God or that grace wasn't important. I just think they are saying that grace alone isn't enough. The 'grace' group are saying there is nothing anyone can do to be saved and it's entirely by grace. Maybe. But if there are no works what's the point of grace? How are you any different from anyone else who you say is not saved because it isn't outwardly evident? You got it all in a nutshell Snow! Wise words. Your second sentence especially encapsulates it.
The questions you ask later in the paragraph are just as pertinent, and were addressed directly in the Bible. Many of the early believers asked the same question. If we are covered by grace, can't we just do what we want?!
Romans 6:1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer
Roman 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! 16Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?
I think any of us who have left and keep carrying on about grace fully believe in the salvation of those of the 'friends' who also believe in this grace and trust fully in Jesus for their salvation.
For some of the friends, however, this would not be reciprocated. According to them, we are not saved because we do not have the "works" they require - which seems to primarily be obeying the workers, and the rules from the workers. Workers believe they are fulfilling law by going out in pairs and being homeless.
Our argument is - obeying the workers is not what God requires. Believing in Jesus is what he requires, and for those with genuine faith, yes, obedience to God must flow from that. But we refuse to bow to merely human rules set by workers which lay heavy burdens on men. We don't need them as intermediaries to get to God - we have Christ alone for that.
If we objectively believe this, we accept all true believers, no matter what their denomination.
The workers believe that ultimately Jesus came to set up a ministry for us to follow, and to be a perfect example for us to strive towards - this is all works based and impossible to fulfil. But, they "try their best".
Christians believe that ultimately Jesus came to fulfil the law and offer himself as a sacrifice on our behalf - that we might be presented as righteous before God, not because of our own works, but because of his perfect works. We rejoice in being set free from fear and condemnation to instead live the spirit of the law in love.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 3, 2017 18:06:49 GMT -5
I would ask again - What is it of your own good works that so esteems you before God and assures you of your own salvation? Would those who know you attest to these good works? In case it got missed
|
|
|
Post by PrueBert on May 3, 2017 19:20:17 GMT -5
Grace and Works is like the horse and cart. Which one is grace, the horse or the cart?
Two farmers looking down a long winding road:
Farmer1 - what comes first, horse or the cart?
Farmer2 - why you ask'n?
Farmer1 - 'cos I aint see'n neither com'n.
|
|
|
Post by pa on May 3, 2017 20:27:00 GMT -5
Grace and Works is like the horse and cart. Which one is grace, the horse or the cart? Two farmers looking down a long winding road: Farmer1 - what comes first, horse or the cart? Farmer2 - why you ask'n? Farmer1 - 'cos I aint see'n neither com'n. were those farmers "friends"?
|
|
|
Post by Pragmatic on May 3, 2017 22:02:09 GMT -5
62.3% of statistics are made up
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 4, 2017 0:57:18 GMT -5
Man's interpretations and understanding transformed/translated into opinions. THAT is why there are 1,000's of Christian denominations!
THAT is why it is so obvious that Christianity, like all religions, are constructed by mankind!
|
|
|
Post by PrueBert on May 4, 2017 1:41:19 GMT -5
Quote - "THAT is why it is so obvious that Christianity, like all religions, are constructed by mankind!"
What about Jesus' church. Was that one man-made?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 4, 2017 2:08:56 GMT -5
Quote - "THAT is why it is so obvious that Christianity, like all religions, are constructed by mankind!" What about Jesus' church. Was that one man-made? That's just it, Bert, -your "Jesus church" WAS also man-made just as all the rest of the churches have always been!
|
|
|
Post by PrueBert on May 4, 2017 2:11:16 GMT -5
Oh that's right. He didn't exist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2017 3:46:58 GMT -5
62.3% of statistics are made up Really? And here I read somewhere it was closer to 75%!
With all the fake news showing up everywhere, including this forum, how can one know, for sure?
Oh yeah, there's those posters in here who think they know every time something is posted wrongly! Whew! I thought we were in trouble here for an instant!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2017 5:24:13 GMT -5
Man's interpretations and understanding transformed/translated into opinions. THAT is why there are 1,000's of Christian denominations!
THAT is why it is so obvious that Christianity, like all religions, are constructed by mankind!That according to an atheist's view point.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on May 4, 2017 6:41:02 GMT -5
elizabethcoleman. muslims. When someone begins to die the Angel of Death or Izraeel comes to take the soul out of the body and puts it in a place called the Barzakh. "Say: 'The Angel of Death, put in charge of you, will (duly) take your souls. Then shall you be brought back to your Lord." (32:11) It is possible for an Orthodox Jew to believe that the souls of the righteous dead go to a place similar to the Christian heaven, or that they are reincarnated through many lifetimes, or that they simply wait until the coming of the messiah, when they will be resurrected. The Aboriginals believed in a place called the "Land of the Dead". This place was commonly defined as being in the "sky-world" (the sky). This was supposedly where a deceased person's soul went. As long as certain rituals were carried out during their life and at their death, they are thought to then be allowed to enter The Land of the Dead. Other places it could go were a place called Bralgu, or it could become one with a particular site, like Uluru for example. This explains why the Aboriginals are very protective of sites they call sacred, as it is all that is left of a dead member of theirs. Like Catholics, the Aboriginals believed in resurrection, in this case being that, one by one, spirits are being resurrected into living beings back in Australia. jains After each bodily death, the jiva is reborn into a different body to live another life, until it achieves liberation. When a jiva is embodied (i.e. in a body), it exists throughout that body and isn't found in any particular bit of it.buddhists. Buddhists believe in life after death because the Buddha taught that human beings are each born an infinite number of times, unless they achieve Nirvana.Humans tend to be deniers of death. And all types of religions thrive on death denying. The belief that a loved one is existing in some other form reassures many individuals. I have met people who can only cope by holding onto the belief they will one day meet their late child ( or other loved relative ) again.. Yet there is not one iota of evidence to suggest that humans are death defying and that an intangible part of our being will not decompose. Yet humans who believe in an afterlife typically accept that the death of other animals is absolute and final. Hence the need to deny that homosapiens are members of the anîmal kingdom and to instead concoct a magical kingdom ruled by a powerful lord who will protect his chosen people forever. Or the transformation into another life form after death or whatever death denying option is unique to our cultural heritage.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on May 4, 2017 7:43:49 GMT -5
joannaWhatever beliefs you might want to hypothesize about, fill your boots. The iota of evidence I have is Jesus, who was indeed death defying. He's all I need.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on May 4, 2017 7:44:55 GMT -5
PS - none of Jesus decomposed.
|
|
|
Post by PrueBert on May 4, 2017 7:52:23 GMT -5
Dmmich my dear friend. There are thousands of creation accounts. Why do you believe the one your society believes? I mean, if lots of beliefs are wrong, then aren't they all wrong - including your own? Get my point?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2017 10:26:59 GMT -5
I think the most attractive feature of evolution by natural selection and current cosmological models to explain our Origins is that no one is threatening me with eternal torture if I don't believe it.
That is, other than the evidence across multiple fields of science as elaborated by people of many different religions.
That's just me. To each his/her own.
|
|
|
Post by PrueBert on May 4, 2017 10:49:35 GMT -5
Ipsedexit Methinks you don't understand science. Nor do lots of scientists.
If a child believes that God brings the rain, you will get some scientific person say that no, the rain is condensation of water vapor via precipitation. Like on those TV weather reports with the pretty girl (always wanted to have my very own Weather Girl!!! I digress, sigh....)
But the scientist cannot say that child is wrong. The child can't say the scientist is wrong either. How God brings the rain is up to Him. Certainly He doesn't shape every drop and hurl it to the ground. He's smarter than that.
By way of example. God said He would remove the Jews from their nation and scatter them over the earth because they did not know the time of their "visitation." Who scattered the Jews? The Romans did. Did God scatter the Jews? I believe He did, because he said he would. But an historian would say "No, it wasn't God who exiled the Jews, it was the Romans, you silly religious people."
And what brings rain? Water condensation. What condenses water? The sun's energy. What drives the sun? Thermo nuclear reactions. What creates thermonuclear reactions? quantum forces within atoms. Where does quantum come from? Big Bang. Where does the Big Bang come from? A miracle, apparently, according to a science where every thing must have a prior cause.
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on May 5, 2017 0:21:11 GMT -5
This is for you Snow.
This is in response to your excellent query about grace and works, which Elizabeth Coleman has already ably responded to. My intention here is to simply support what she has said so well.
I've lost count of the number of times I've reiterated, rephrased, restated, reposted, repeated on multiple threads one very simple proposition about faith and works (or if you like, grace and works):-
'We are saved by grace through faith (in what Jesus has done), however the faith that saves is NEVER alone.'
This was stated by one of the church Reformers in answer to Catholic objections about protestants not thinking works are important. Which was a false imputation.
No matter how many times this point is made, that works are important, but not what saves us, Bert trots out the false news that grace alone (for salvation) believers don't also believe in doing good works.
That's rubbish!
You hit the nail on the head yourself and it is what I believe - if one is saved by grace then works will follow. Simple.
|
|
|
Post by PrueBert on May 5, 2017 9:16:20 GMT -5
Quote - "I believe more competent scientists in the area of physics have worked most if all of them out however."
There's that Faith thing.
nb you would be Mistaken. There can only be theories: 1 - the universe created itself without prior cause, conditions or reason - which violates the tenants of science. 2 - it was always here (which dodges the question. Back to #1)
|
|
|
Post by PrueBert on May 5, 2017 19:00:11 GMT -5
I appreciate the sentiments on science (though not the steering stereotypes on my church) Sat out in the autumn sun yesterday for an hour and read about "electron degeneracy" in white dwarf stars. I read the weirdest things at times. Frankly I couldn't understand it. As one lecturer put it, "If you say you understand quantum, it proves you don't."
My issue isn't with science, but its interpretations. Mentioned to Dmmich' about the Jewel Beetle. Some might say that God made that beetle with its iridescent colors. Others might say evolution gave us the beetle's 'photonic structure' which breaks up the light into its wavelengths. Furthermore, a scientist can create an 'artificial jewel beetle using a 'photonic crystal.' Which you order on the Internet. This is the power of explanation. If people want to understand something they no longer go to the scriptures or the priest - they go to the navigator, the philosopher, the mathematician or the scientist.
But religion (Judea Christian) does not operate in this realm. People who wanted to know, ie the earth, would look into the bible. Even Columbus did that. After Columbus no-one inquired into the bible about cartography.
Science and Religion have been described as "non-overlapping Magisteria." Science can't really debunk religion. What it does is present itself as an alternative power, or is presented as such (ie in Marxism and philosophy.)
And when you see societies acting like animals, you have to 'remind' yourself, that well yes, we ARE animals. Sort of.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 6, 2017 0:39:19 GMT -5
Oh that's right. He didn't exist. It doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist, Bert.
He probably did but not even as he was portrayed in the gospels.
Christianity was constructed by people other than Jesus.
Statements about Paul by Prominent Theologians and Bible Scholars
The fact that Paul spread his own version of Christianity independent of Yeshua' teachings has been well known for centuries. Only the Church doesn't agree to that. Paulianity displays very little of the teachings of the humble Jewish Rabbi, Yeshua, and adds much that Yeshua would have found appalling.
Below are quotations from the writings of renowned theologians and other scholars. Most were taken from Rev. Abba Nazaria's very informative article, "YAHOWSHUA OR PAUL?"
30ce.com/paulstatements.htm
Here is just one of many statements:
Will Durant, in his Caesar and Christ:
"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ. . . . Through these interpretations Paul could neglect the actual life and sayings of Jesus, which he had not directly known. . . . Paul replaced conduct with creed as the test of virtue. It was a tragic change."
Paul had far more to do with the creation of Christianity than Jesus did.
|
|
|
Post by PrueBert on May 6, 2017 0:46:04 GMT -5
Oh that's right. He didn't exist. It doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist, Bert.
He probably did but probably not even as he was portrayed in the gospels.
Christianity was constructed by people other than Jesus.
30ce.com/paulstatements.htm
Paul had far more to do with the creation of Christianity than Jesus did.
Christianity was constructed before the Old Testament Dmmich. Those who truly worshiped God didn't live so much under the Law of Moses. Interesting to see that being stated all the way through the Old Testament, ie I desire mercy, not sacrifice, the story of King David's relationship with God. Jesus saying the divorce commandment was written for the Jews but not for God, having a King instead of a prophet and so on. And those who did truly worship God 'in spirit and in truth' not only spoke often of Jesus, they went through many of His experiences themselves (ie Psalm 22 and 69 by David) God only gave the Jews The Law after they rebelled.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 6, 2017 0:56:53 GMT -5
It doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist, Bert.
He probably did but probably not even as he was portrayed in the gospels.
Christianity was constructed by people other than Jesus.
30ce.com/paulstatements.htm
Paul had far more to do with the creation of Christianity than Jesus did.
Christianity was constructed before the Old Testament Dmmich.
You and many others of course need to believe that, but it is only due to what you want to believe and must in order to maintain that belief.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on May 6, 2017 2:57:01 GMT -5
@ipsedixit that car analogy is v. good.
If the religious relied on faith-fuelled transport, they would remain insitu. Due to the majority of religious people relying on practical and scientifically evidenced interventions; they consistently prove that their faith-belief is irrelevant and unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on May 6, 2017 3:27:33 GMT -5
elizabethcoleman. If Jesus was all you honestly needed, then you would not have any natural needs. Jesus is not all you need. I once accepted that Jesus had lived, died and been resurrected to atone for my sins. I too was exposed to this information from an infant and so I absorbed it without questioning. The resurrection of Jesus was part of my being; it contributed to the essence of who I was. I considered the resurrection to be as true and as real as any other truth I knew, including those I could prove. But there came a point when I realised my belief had never been exposed to critical inquiry; it had formed by a process of osmosis. I was primed from a child to accept the biblical teachings as truth without questioning. Recognising this fact did not immediately change my belief in the resurrection of Jesus. I actually believed that the proof of this miracle would exist and overwhelmingly support my conviction that Jesus lived, died and rose again. Had I been careful about the information I sourced, and specifically selected material which strengthened my resolve, then I too may still believe in this and the other bibilical miracles upon which the Christian belief is founded. However I placed no restrictions on either my search for evidence nor the way I processed that information. Consequently it became obvious that the resurrection of Jesus did not, and does not withstand critical inquiry. The clues for refuting this miracle lie within the pages of the bible. The below video tells of these. You do not even have to source other information. For those who are uncomfortable making truth claims for which they have no evidence, I encourage you to act on that discomfort. Just recently I withheld a comment at a meeting (@ work ) as I did not have the time to check it was absolutely accurate despite believing that it probably was. A later check proved I could have added that information as it was a fact. To spread information which cannot be verified relies on blind confidence, or as it is commonly known, faith.
|
|