Caveman quoted Romans 3:19-20, and asked...
Is Salvation by faith alone?
Caveman,
Salvation is the work of God alone. Psalm 3:8
Faith comes by hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. Romans 10:17
Caveman73 said...
FAITH ALONE!!!
ROM 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
NOT BY FAITH ALONE!!!!
JAM 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Caveman,
The process of "saving" (salvation) is provided by God alone. The process begins with the grace of God, which reaches down to a man and makes him recognize his sinfulness. A man chooses either to accept God's grace or to reject it. The grace of God cannot be earned.
Paul is correct. A man is not justified by the Law. The Law makes a man aware of his sinful condition.
James is not saying anything contrary to what Paul said in Romans. Your suggestion that he said something contrary shows that you have chosen to misread what James is actually saying.
James is talking here about two kinds of faith: a faith that saves and faith that does not save. He asks (rhetorically)
"Can such a faith save?"
The "works" that James is talking about are a product of a "faith" that is alive. The faith that saves is alive, and is evidenced by the works that stem from it. A faith that is dead does not produce works.
The analogy here is that a branch that is alive produces fruit, and a branch that is cut off will not produce fruit (cf. John 15:5) The fruit on the branch is evidence that the branch is alive.
What you are suggesting (erroneously) that James means is akin to saying that by our effort to attach fruit to a dead branch, that we can make the branch alive. You are suggesting that James is saying that attaching "works" to a dead faith that we can make the faith alive. A careful reading of James 2 reveals that this is not what James is saying.
Notice also that faith is not a human work.
Rather, faith is a gift granted by God (cf. 2 Tim 2:25, Phil 1:29, John 6:37,65)
Thursday, February 2, 2012
unquestionably true
JeffreyK622 said ...
Among the things you expect readers to accept as unquestionably true:
1) There is a God;
2) There is a day of judgment;
3) On the day of judgment, God will declare our eternal punishment for thoughtcrime unless we have put on the proper parachute;
4) No nonbeliever is aware of the Christian beliefs regarding points 1,2 and 3; we need to be reminded of these "facts" by "helpful" believers;
5) There is no such thing as a good question regarding Christian beliefs, only sinful challenges to God Himself.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Jeffrey.
But I expect nothing of the sort from you. Actually, I encourage you to ask questions as a way to seek after truth.
I myself was brought to the knowledge of the truth by seeking answers to questions. I encourage anyone who seeks truth to ask questions. I will respond to each of the points you make with an answer that I found.
Q: 1) There is a God;
A: 1) I know that God exists, because the Creator has provided ample evidence of his existence. The entire book of nature testifies to it. The Bible testifies to it. I recognize that not everyone has reached the same answer that I did.
Q: 2) There is a day of judgment;
A: 2) On the appointed final day, I will stand before the throne. I will be held accountable for all my words and deeds, and a verdict will be delivered by the perfect Judge.
Q: 3) On the day of judgment, God will declare our eternal punishment for thoughtcrime unless we have put on the proper parachute;
A: 3) The Judge's verdict will be perfect and just. The judge has made me personally aware of his standards, and his sentencing guidelines. So I know the verdict that he will hand down.
I will have no need for a parachute on judgement day. Sentence will be passed and payment of the penalty will be due. On that day, my hope is in the one who has already paid the penalty.
Q: 4) No nonbeliever is aware of the Christian beliefs regarding points 1,2 and 3; we need to be reminded of these "facts" by "helpful" believers;
A: 4) Some people have a desire to share their understanding of what the Bible says. Some demonstrate they have good understanding, others do not.
Some people egregiously misrepresent what the Bible teaches. Some do so out of an apparent ignorance, others appear to do so with a wilful malevolence towards God.
Some people will offer responses to what they view as misstatements others make about what the Bible teaches. Some of these people are earnest in their desire to be helpful. Their efforts are imperfect at best. People make mistakes.
Q: 5) There is no such thing as a good question regarding Christian beliefs, only sinful challenges to God Himself.
A: 5) Not all questions are equally good. Some questions are excellent. Some are better than others, and some are not really questions at all. Some statements punctuated by a question mark are really opinions and objections.
A good question is interrogative, and it's intent is to seek the truth.
Asking a question is only the starting point; finding the right answer is the ultimate goal.
A question asked sometimes receives an answer. The first answer received is frequently not the best answer. Very often, an answer serves to raise more questions.
If a Christian has chastised you, and discouraged you from asking questions, we owe you a sincere apology. We should all be encouraging you to ask questions, and we should all be striving to share with you the answers we have found.
---
I sincerely apologize to you if I have failed you by discouraging you from asking a question. Unfortunately, the only question I recall you asking me was what number (between one and a hundred) that you were thinking of. Apparently, you were under the impression I was clairvoyant, and had claimed an ability to read your mind.
I attempted to answer your question to the best of my ability.
I suggested that there were other things, some more important things, which you could think about instead. Again, I apologize to you if I discouraged you from seeking after the truth by asking questions.
Among the things you expect readers to accept as unquestionably true:
1) There is a God;
2) There is a day of judgment;
3) On the day of judgment, God will declare our eternal punishment for thoughtcrime unless we have put on the proper parachute;
4) No nonbeliever is aware of the Christian beliefs regarding points 1,2 and 3; we need to be reminded of these "facts" by "helpful" believers;
5) There is no such thing as a good question regarding Christian beliefs, only sinful challenges to God Himself.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Jeffrey.
But I expect nothing of the sort from you. Actually, I encourage you to ask questions as a way to seek after truth.
I myself was brought to the knowledge of the truth by seeking answers to questions. I encourage anyone who seeks truth to ask questions. I will respond to each of the points you make with an answer that I found.
Q: 1) There is a God;
A: 1) I know that God exists, because the Creator has provided ample evidence of his existence. The entire book of nature testifies to it. The Bible testifies to it. I recognize that not everyone has reached the same answer that I did.
Q: 2) There is a day of judgment;
A: 2) On the appointed final day, I will stand before the throne. I will be held accountable for all my words and deeds, and a verdict will be delivered by the perfect Judge.
Q: 3) On the day of judgment, God will declare our eternal punishment for thoughtcrime unless we have put on the proper parachute;
A: 3) The Judge's verdict will be perfect and just. The judge has made me personally aware of his standards, and his sentencing guidelines. So I know the verdict that he will hand down.
I will have no need for a parachute on judgement day. Sentence will be passed and payment of the penalty will be due. On that day, my hope is in the one who has already paid the penalty.
Q: 4) No nonbeliever is aware of the Christian beliefs regarding points 1,2 and 3; we need to be reminded of these "facts" by "helpful" believers;
A: 4) Some people have a desire to share their understanding of what the Bible says. Some demonstrate they have good understanding, others do not.
Some people egregiously misrepresent what the Bible teaches. Some do so out of an apparent ignorance, others appear to do so with a wilful malevolence towards God.
Some people will offer responses to what they view as misstatements others make about what the Bible teaches. Some of these people are earnest in their desire to be helpful. Their efforts are imperfect at best. People make mistakes.
Q: 5) There is no such thing as a good question regarding Christian beliefs, only sinful challenges to God Himself.
A: 5) Not all questions are equally good. Some questions are excellent. Some are better than others, and some are not really questions at all. Some statements punctuated by a question mark are really opinions and objections.
A good question is interrogative, and it's intent is to seek the truth.
Asking a question is only the starting point; finding the right answer is the ultimate goal.
A question asked sometimes receives an answer. The first answer received is frequently not the best answer. Very often, an answer serves to raise more questions.
If a Christian has chastised you, and discouraged you from asking questions, we owe you a sincere apology. We should all be encouraging you to ask questions, and we should all be striving to share with you the answers we have found.
---
I sincerely apologize to you if I have failed you by discouraging you from asking a question. Unfortunately, the only question I recall you asking me was what number (between one and a hundred) that you were thinking of. Apparently, you were under the impression I was clairvoyant, and had claimed an ability to read your mind.
I attempted to answer your question to the best of my ability.
I suggested that there were other things, some more important things, which you could think about instead. Again, I apologize to you if I discouraged you from seeking after the truth by asking questions.
what is it?
JeffreyK622 said...
I'm thinking of a number between one and a hundred. What is it?
(If you're as good at mind-reading as you're implicitly claiming, that should be no trouble.)
Jeffrey,
What is it?
It's a number between one and a hundred. Unless, of course, it isn't, because you are actually thinking about something else.
I can suggest to you something else you can think about. Why not think about what is going to happen on the appointed day of judgement, when God returns to this world, to bind Satan forever, and to judge the living and the dead.
Think about your fate on that day, when you stand before the judge, to give account for all your thoughts, words, and deeds. That's something to think about.
I'm thinking of a number between one and a hundred. What is it?
(If you're as good at mind-reading as you're implicitly claiming, that should be no trouble.)
Jeffrey,
What is it?
It's a number between one and a hundred. Unless, of course, it isn't, because you are actually thinking about something else.
I can suggest to you something else you can think about. Why not think about what is going to happen on the appointed day of judgement, when God returns to this world, to bind Satan forever, and to judge the living and the dead.
Think about your fate on that day, when you stand before the judge, to give account for all your thoughts, words, and deeds. That's something to think about.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
potential political rivals
Steven_J says...
From the standpoint of the Gibeonites, it was "retaliation."
Yes, retaliation, as in meaning the Gibeonites were seeking just compensation for an evil done to them. Yes, we see that in the text.
Steven_J says...
From David's point of view, who knows? I personally suspect David saw it as a way to get rid of potential political rivals, but I admit I cannot prove that.
Not only can you "not prove that", Steven there is not any suggestion of that in the text. There is no verse or passage that supports your inference.
Rather, the text clearly states David's intent. David was seeking a blessing on Israel, he was seeking an end to the drought. But you disregard the statement that is made in the text, and you instead ascribe to David a motive of your own invention.
You also suggest that David is "utterly ignorant" of God's principles of justice, when the text clearly tells us that David received word from God. You suggest that David's response to God's instruction is to "get rid of potential political rivals".
For some reason, you find it necessary to infer ideas that are contrary to what the author of the text says, and then use those ideas to bolster your other peculiar interpretations of the text. It's almost as if you are choosing to reject outright any reading which would allow the author's meaning to be represented by the author's words.
From the standpoint of the Gibeonites, it was "retaliation."
Yes, retaliation, as in meaning the Gibeonites were seeking just compensation for an evil done to them. Yes, we see that in the text.
Steven_J says...
From David's point of view, who knows? I personally suspect David saw it as a way to get rid of potential political rivals, but I admit I cannot prove that.
Not only can you "not prove that", Steven there is not any suggestion of that in the text. There is no verse or passage that supports your inference.
Rather, the text clearly states David's intent. David was seeking a blessing on Israel, he was seeking an end to the drought. But you disregard the statement that is made in the text, and you instead ascribe to David a motive of your own invention.
You also suggest that David is "utterly ignorant" of God's principles of justice, when the text clearly tells us that David received word from God. You suggest that David's response to God's instruction is to "get rid of potential political rivals".
For some reason, you find it necessary to infer ideas that are contrary to what the author of the text says, and then use those ideas to bolster your other peculiar interpretations of the text. It's almost as if you are choosing to reject outright any reading which would allow the author's meaning to be represented by the author's words.
seems utterly ignorant
Steven J says...
David, for example, seems utterly ignorant of the principle when he kills many of the surviving descendants of Saul in retaliation for Saul's murder of the Gibeonites),
Actually, Steven, if you read the account a little more clearly, you will see that 'The LORD said, "There is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house, because he put the Gibeonites to death."'
In response to God's instruction, David sought atonement for Saul's sins. He offered to give the Gibeonites just compensation for the evil that Saul had done.
You opt to use the word "retaliation" to identify David's motive; I suspect that for many readers, that word has a familiar connotation which is beyond the author's meaning, which would really be rendered more accurately as "adequate compensation" or "atonement".
The account tells us that David was seeking a blessing on Israel; it doesn't tell us that David was satisfying some sort of bloodlust rage.
We also note that it was not David that killed Saul's descendants. Rather, it was the Gibeonites who put the men to death. David equitably satisfied the compensation requested by the Gibeonites.
You likely consider this a minor point, that David handed over the men to the Gibeonites to be put to death, rather than killing the men himself. You are likely to see this as a trivial distinction unworthy of note.
But I suggest to you that the author of the account does deem this particular point to be "worth noting". It's of sufficient importance to be noted by the author.
You also suggest that David is "utterly ignorant" of the LORD's principles. Yet in the account we read that it is the LORD himself that gives David instruction, pointing out that there has been no atonement made for Saul's sin.
David, for example, seems utterly ignorant of the principle when he kills many of the surviving descendants of Saul in retaliation for Saul's murder of the Gibeonites),
Actually, Steven, if you read the account a little more clearly, you will see that 'The LORD said, "There is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house, because he put the Gibeonites to death."'
In response to God's instruction, David sought atonement for Saul's sins. He offered to give the Gibeonites just compensation for the evil that Saul had done.
You opt to use the word "retaliation" to identify David's motive; I suspect that for many readers, that word has a familiar connotation which is beyond the author's meaning, which would really be rendered more accurately as "adequate compensation" or "atonement".
The account tells us that David was seeking a blessing on Israel; it doesn't tell us that David was satisfying some sort of bloodlust rage.
We also note that it was not David that killed Saul's descendants. Rather, it was the Gibeonites who put the men to death. David equitably satisfied the compensation requested by the Gibeonites.
You likely consider this a minor point, that David handed over the men to the Gibeonites to be put to death, rather than killing the men himself. You are likely to see this as a trivial distinction unworthy of note.
But I suggest to you that the author of the account does deem this particular point to be "worth noting". It's of sufficient importance to be noted by the author.
You also suggest that David is "utterly ignorant" of the LORD's principles. Yet in the account we read that it is the LORD himself that gives David instruction, pointing out that there has been no atonement made for Saul's sin.
create something imperfect
Joshua asks...
How does something perfect like God create something imperfect? How is something omniscient like God not know ahead of time that Adam was going to sin? If He did know before hand, why not stop him?
Joshua,
God creates things that perfectly suit his purpose. What you view as imperfect, God sees as entirely complete and suitable, with the capacity for being re-made perfect. God is a maker. God has the ability to re-make things, in a way that perfectly suits his purpose.
For by that one offering he forever made perfect those who are being made holy. Hebrews 10:14 NLT
Perhaps it is in the process of re-making tin soldiers into men that God sees perfection.
How is something omniscient like God not know ahead of time that Adam was going to sin?
God did know.
You aren't suggesting here that eternal God, creator of time, beyond the bounds of time... you aren't suggesting here that there was something God did not already know, before there was time.
If He did know before hand, why not stop him?
Because it did not suit God's purpose to "stop him". God's purpose was served by allowing Adam to disobey. God's purpose was served by allowing sin to enter the world through Adam's disobedience.
How does something perfect like God create something imperfect? How is something omniscient like God not know ahead of time that Adam was going to sin? If He did know before hand, why not stop him?
Joshua,
God creates things that perfectly suit his purpose. What you view as imperfect, God sees as entirely complete and suitable, with the capacity for being re-made perfect. God is a maker. God has the ability to re-make things, in a way that perfectly suits his purpose.
For by that one offering he forever made perfect those who are being made holy. Hebrews 10:14 NLT
Perhaps it is in the process of re-making tin soldiers into men that God sees perfection.
How is something omniscient like God not know ahead of time that Adam was going to sin?
God did know.
You aren't suggesting here that eternal God, creator of time, beyond the bounds of time... you aren't suggesting here that there was something God did not already know, before there was time.
If He did know before hand, why not stop him?
Because it did not suit God's purpose to "stop him". God's purpose was served by allowing Adam to disobey. God's purpose was served by allowing sin to enter the world through Adam's disobedience.
never heard of
Steven_J says...
God acts as if He's never heard of Deuteronomy 24:16, and still thinks that it is fair to punish children for the sins of their fathers.
This is because the injunction given in Deuteronomy 24:16 is not a description of any eternal principle of God's justice. Rather, this instruction pertained to human affairs adjucated by a human court.
We note that Saul's offense to God was not brought before the judicial system. Rather, God himself was dealing with Saul's affront.
There many accounts in the Bible you could choose to point to, Steven, and to which you could say that Deuteronomy 24:16 appears to have had no bearing on whatsoever. But if care to take a closer look at those accounts, you will also note that in each of them it is God himself (and not a human court) that is dealing with offenses against him.
You suggest that the account of David illustrates a "contradiction". You attempt to resolve this contradiction by concluding that David was "utterly ignorant" of Deuteronomy 24:16. "More to the point", you say, God appears to be utterly ignorant of it.
Of course a more plausible explanation is that David is not only familiar with the injunction against vicarious punishment, but that he was also completely aware that this rule constrained only the human judicial system, and that God himself was not bound by this rule.
David was fully aware that this instruction was given specifically in the context of human affairs. David did not share your illusion that this instruction was given as an illustration of God's eternal principles.
Steven, you seem keen to read into verse 16 ideas that are just simply not there. You read into this verse "reasons" that this rule is given to Israel, variously, because it is "fair", or because this is a principle that governs God's dealing with people. You choose to inject your own meaning in place of what the author actually said.
You have failed to demonstrate that it is incumbent upon God to be governed by every rule that he has given to Israel. And you have failed to show any reason (beyond wishful thinking) that we would even imagine this might be or should be so.
Yet you insist that this specific instruction is somehow applicable to God, and should govern how God deals with affronts against him.
In short, there is no real contradiction.
In spite of your claim to the contrary, the simple fact is that Deuteronomy 24:16 is not a repudiation of God's principle of corporate responsibility.
God acts as if He's never heard of Deuteronomy 24:16, and still thinks that it is fair to punish children for the sins of their fathers.
This is because the injunction given in Deuteronomy 24:16 is not a description of any eternal principle of God's justice. Rather, this instruction pertained to human affairs adjucated by a human court.
We note that Saul's offense to God was not brought before the judicial system. Rather, God himself was dealing with Saul's affront.
There many accounts in the Bible you could choose to point to, Steven, and to which you could say that Deuteronomy 24:16 appears to have had no bearing on whatsoever. But if care to take a closer look at those accounts, you will also note that in each of them it is God himself (and not a human court) that is dealing with offenses against him.
You suggest that the account of David illustrates a "contradiction". You attempt to resolve this contradiction by concluding that David was "utterly ignorant" of Deuteronomy 24:16. "More to the point", you say, God appears to be utterly ignorant of it.
Of course a more plausible explanation is that David is not only familiar with the injunction against vicarious punishment, but that he was also completely aware that this rule constrained only the human judicial system, and that God himself was not bound by this rule.
David was fully aware that this instruction was given specifically in the context of human affairs. David did not share your illusion that this instruction was given as an illustration of God's eternal principles.
Steven, you seem keen to read into verse 16 ideas that are just simply not there. You read into this verse "reasons" that this rule is given to Israel, variously, because it is "fair", or because this is a principle that governs God's dealing with people. You choose to inject your own meaning in place of what the author actually said.
You have failed to demonstrate that it is incumbent upon God to be governed by every rule that he has given to Israel. And you have failed to show any reason (beyond wishful thinking) that we would even imagine this might be or should be so.
Yet you insist that this specific instruction is somehow applicable to God, and should govern how God deals with affronts against him.
In short, there is no real contradiction.
In spite of your claim to the contrary, the simple fact is that Deuteronomy 24:16 is not a repudiation of God's principle of corporate responsibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)