This blog is called Dead Theologians because I prefer to read the works of Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Edwards, Whitefield and the like rather than 99% of today's wasted ink on paper.
The content on this page is my honest attempt to go over things that pertain to Christianity and its mouthpiece, the church.
I also plan to write about many other topics that relate to my life as a Christian. My goal is to comment throughout the week on one subject while changing subjects every week or so.
... I dont know about Joel Osteen; he seems like a very sweet man. Sure, he annoys me. But in this particular interview, he seems to be referring simply to the doctrine given in James 2.
As for the possibility of salvation for non-Christians, that's a trickier one. Christians know that salvation is possible *only in Christ; but are we warranted in denying the possibility that God, in His incalculable mercy, may not attribute the merits of Christ to someone who never knew to call on Christ explicitly, but nevertheless sought God according to his utmost capacity? I'm not sure...
A professor of mine always used to say- "does *everyone* get to Heaven? I'm counting on it!" Tee hee.
Eph 2: 8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
James 2: 18But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder! 20Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"-- and he was called a friend of God. 24You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.
Romans 3: 9What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10as it is written:
"None is righteous, no, not one; 11no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."
13"Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." 14"Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." 15"Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16in their paths are ruin and misery, 17and the way of peace they have not known." 18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."
Romans 4: 1What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." 4Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
7"Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."
9Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
Romans 10: 17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Eph 2 and James 2 speak of the same works by faith. You are not saved by your own work, and the post-salvific works we do, are the Father's works also, the justification, i.e. evidence of the faith "given" to us. So we are justified by faith alone, which is proven by the doing of God's kingdom works, not our own ideas. Larry King said that some of his ministry guests said that our record does not count. That is not true. Our "post-salvation" record counts. This is what 1 Cor 3:5-15 is about, our work as ministers of the Gospel (not purgatory). Those who are unredeemed, possess no record that either saves, or proves that they His. As for "seeking God" Romans 3 and 4 speak for themselves. I seek God after, and only after, He has revealed Himself to me.
John 6: 27Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal." 28Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" 29Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."
The Book of Life,(its entire contents), is already written. We however do not know all who are in it.So we must faithfully and obediently proclaim the Word of Christ so that faith may come to "he who has an ear to hear".
Exodus 32:32 But now, if you will forgive their sin--but if not, please blot me out of your book that you have written."
Philippians 4:3 Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.
Revelation 3:5 The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.
Revelation 13:8 and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain.
Revelation 17:8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come.
Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.
Revelation 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Revelation 21:27 But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.
Revelation 22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Oh Come On, Approved! Even our Lord Himself allowed that He who was not against Him was for Him. Mr. Osteen is neither denying that Jesus is the Christ nor is he denying that Christ has come in the flesh... that's the I John criteria for identifying "idiots and unbelievers."
Melissa, Larry King is a secular/reformed Jew. I've heard, however, that he has the highest respect for Evangelicals like Billy Graham and even Tammy Fay Baker! :)
Galatians 1: 6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 7not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. 10For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ. 11For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel.
John was dealing with the gnostics, Paul with false teachers, and false apostles. John's writings dealing with the gnostic heresy fall under the overall definition given here by Paul. I don't care if Joel says Jesus came in the flesh. Which Jesus in the flesh is he preaching; one of his own creation, or the one that came from the Father? Those who are gnostic and those who preach the universalist/prosperity gospel Jesus both preach a diffrent Gospel than Paul did. Jeus said he who is not against ME, is for ME. I am for the Christ of the Word, not the Jesus who gives me the American dream. Joel Osteen is an idiot and an unbeliever.
Larry respects Billy Graham and Tammy Faye? Of course; he respects anyone that gets ratings for his show.
You are not even a semi-pelagian papist. You are fully pelagian.
Just because a reformed Jew claims to respect Billy Graham and Tammy Faye, that does not make him a heaven bound child of God. If they aren't Messianic Jews, than they aren't going to heaven. Larry King is just as lost as Joel Osteen. Joel tries to answer direct questions with evasive answers that amount to nothing. If he is a Christian, he's a failure. He can't even speak the truth of Christ without being afraid of upsetting someone. But perhaps he is afraid because he doesn't believe the truth of Christ. I'm going with that one.
I am concerned that your definition of a Christian goes far beyond what Scripture allows. Is respecting someone the same as being a follower of Christ? Does being a Jew automatically make you born again?
I must agree with Approved. Larry King is only interested in ratings which equal bucks.
May I respectfully ask where you got the idea that I am a *Pelagian, of all things?
Dead,
A Christian is one who confesses with his mouth and believes in his heart that Christ is the Lord (Romans 10:9!..."if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
I'm not questioning this guarantee. Im only suggesting that the mercy of God is perhaps great enough to extend even to those (non Christians) who for various reasons may never have had the opportunity that you and I have had to confess Christ the Lord.
On the contrary! I'm not a universalist- I believe that there is only *one way to the Father, the Mediator Christ Jesus.
You will recall that Pelagius, given his emphasis on human merit in salvation, allowed much less room for the "universalism" of grace than the orthodox Augustine. So no, Im not a Pelagian. I am a Catholic! I (like my funny professor) rely entirely on the grace of God, since I, like you, have no merits of my own that would compel Him to save me.
...And in as much as while I was a sinner Christ died for me, I can imagine that His mercy may extend to other sinners as well in the most expansive ways... it's just a possibility.
mm, I think approved and DT belong to the group of people who profess 'faith alone' as long as some one is not catholic, not part of any of the traditional churches, not believing anything 'they' are convinced of, as interpreted by 'them' from the scriptures (for some reason, they trust the selection of scriptures by the traditional churches and quote Jerome etc. ). I just wonder how they would react when they find people of other churches when they stand before God.
I never said that there wouldn't be people of "other churches" standing before God. I am saying that no institution can make the claim of being the "one true Church" There are many in the one true church around the world. Most, I would dare say, not from any of the Roman tradition and the various spinoffs. Rome does not teach the Jesus of Scripture, and its aberrant dogma is not manifested as scriptural practice.
I do not feel that your comments need to be answered anymore since your cowardice or lack of knowledge has not permitted you to answer ANY questions that have been put in your court. I think your goal is to throw out red herrings and avoid answering anything.
You asked "how they would react when they find people of other churches when they stand before God."
Well, with your belief system, I will be shocked but happy for you. The question is... How will you feel if you are standing before God at the Great White Throne Judgement?
I finally understood all that you have been saying. You have your own version of Christianity (aka Universalism). There's nothing like hearing from a heretic's own mouth such as yourself.
Gentlemen, please. The only reason I returned to this blog today was to see how you all would answer Abraham's question re Approved's view of the Nicene Creed, and for that matter, all creeds of the Church. It's an excellent, insightful question- and the answers will be quite revealing. I hope that you all will provide an answer, as I for one am quite curious.
You all are so funny! It's a trip to read your quick conclusions (condemnations?) about a commentor's total belief system...sort of like a blogging Wheel O' Fortune....or The Price is Right... :) :) :)
The creeds are fine, as far as they go. You cannot proclaim Jesus is Lord, and then worship a wafer. The creeds do not cover every essential point. Non-biblical and non-essential are not synonymous: We do not literally eat His flesh, Mary was not a perpetual virgin,or born sinless. Doctinal teachings and practice such as the mass, purgatory,Jesus plus works etc (too many to list here.) These types of teaching lead people into idolatry, therefore they are not part of the Gospel yet they are viewed as sacrosanct i.e. essential by Rome. I would call this an "essential" debate. Irenaeus wrote the regula fide, which is the basis of the creeds but he was also one of the most important fighters of heresy in the church. The creeds were never meant to leave open doors for heresies to enter, by disguising them in the garb of non-essentials.
mm out of respect for the fact that you are a woman, I bite my tongue.
DT, Did I not reply to your question about Tyndale, etc? From the beginning, I have also been stressing that my intention was not to engage in a doctrinal discussion. I also have mentioned before I won't try to justify everything that my church does. This should have answered most of your questions.
Now that 'approved' does approve the nicene creed, I think we have achieved a major breakthrough as far as doctrine is concerned, dont you think? We confess this faith in almost all our church services. So if we could first concentrate on what we have in common, I think would make our Lord very happy. My grandfather used to say, before we discuss somebody's faults, we should first discuss the good things about that person first. In the same way, don't you also think you should mention that the foundation of the traditional churches, which is the nicene creed is very much scriptural? As you very much stand for truth, you should not hide this part of the truth.
"The question is... How will you feel if you are standing before God at the Great White Throne Judgement?"
I believe this is a future event. So when I stand before the Great White Throne, I hope I would fully realise how great a sacrifice God did for mankind and how blessed I am to be called to believe in Jesus. I am very certain I also would feel that I could have lived in a much better way (yes, the works + faith that St James exhorted us) for all that Jesus did for us. I could have loved others more, I could have helped others more, I could have said no to the temptations of the world more, the list is endless. I would most definitely know how wrong I was in judging others. I might also feel that I spend a little too much of time putting comments in this blog.
"Luther personally preferred secret bigamy to divorce and remarriage, when a marriage had irretrievably broken down. He sanctioned such an arrangement for women with impotent husbands as early as 1521. If a woman in such a situation could not take her case to the divorce court out of fear of notoriety, he advised that she enter with her husband's consent a secret marriage with his brother or another male mutually agreed upon, and raise any children of this second union as if they were those of the impotent husband."
When I started looking at your site, I used to think that protestants knew more about the scriptures and our traditional churches might have, over the centuries started giving less importance to the scriptures. But as I study more about our church and about Luther etc, I can easily see major issues with protestants from the very beginning. I also know more about our church now and things that I used to think not scriptural, like praying to saints etc, I feel are infact very much supported by the scriptures.
Once again, I am feeling guilty discussing about Martin Luther, whom I know very little. May be I should never visit your site again.
You have given evidence of papists following people more than than the Lord of Scripture.
What's with the diatribe on Luther? I like reading old theologians who are not perfect. The RCC likes to make old theologians saints and idolize them. I have never raised up Luther as being the pinnacle of godliness.
Whether you choose to visit my blog again or not is your business. Making comments like "May be I should never visit your site again" leaves me scratching my head wondering if you want me to beg you to stay.
Don't worry, I only want people who want to comment or dialog in a productive manner to keep coming back.
Again, you really don't want to discuss the issues that I have brought up. You bring up issues that are totally irrevelant to what approved, jsu and myself have mentioned.
Abraham, apparently you did not read my comment on the creed very closely.
It is one thing to say that I believe in Jesus Christ, and then proclaim another Jesus as Lord who is not found in the Scriptures.
As for praying to the saints, give me a Scripture that says this is so.
DT is right. No one holds Luther up as perfect, although virtually every pope and "saint" is portrayed as light years beyond us,i.e. the poor struggling congregants who can never be sure if they are redeemed or not, outside of the church saying so. As is usual with the roman and eastern churches, they know neither the Scriptures, nor the power of God.
Just out of curiousity, what religion are you currently part of? Are you one of those that don't attend anywhere regularly, but "worship" at home with a few others; or do you hold to a major religion? I don't see any consistency.
"Again, you really don't want to discuss the issues that I have brought up. You bring up issues that are totally irrevelant to what approved, jsu and myself have mentioned."
Let me try one last time. Either my english is so terrible, or you need to improve your listening.
I believe that when a person is saved after repenting of his sins and believes that God has forgiven his sins through the sacrifice of His Son on the cross, the most important thing for that person to do is not to fall back in the sins that he was committing. For example, if a person was a pedophile, he should never again turn back to pedophilia. Same goes with murderers, adulterers, idolators, theives, which we all have been in the past.
My original question to you was, is it not more important for you as a pastor to worry more about the new life of the members in your congregation, or whether you think it is more important to worry about the doctrines of the hundreds and hundreds of other pastors, churches etc. This was a simple question.
One possibility that I see is you don't agree with me, because you believe that once a person is saved, it doesn't really matter how he /she leads his / her life. (Adulterers can occassionally commit adultery, thieves can steal once in a while) The saved person needs to just trust in Jesus. If this is the case, then there is nothing more to discuss. I would say there is something wrong with your interpretation of the Bible.
Do you now understand why I am not discussing the issues that you have brought up?
Approved,
You said
"As is usual with the roman and eastern churches, they know neither the Scriptures, nor the power of God".
When did Martin Luther know the Scriptures? After he "came out of her"? Please be slow to make judgements. Whether any of them know the scriptures or the power of God, why can't you leave it to God to judge?
I will discuss with you about praying to the saints, if we have an agreement on what I asked DT.
JSU,
Why do you want me to tell you which church I go to? To classify me into one of the 'cult' groups that you have in your mind? But you already have judged me before, in a previous post:
"I finally understood all that you have been saying. You have your own version of Christianity (aka Universalism)."
Finally DT, approved and JSU, I understand all three of you are pastors/ ministers. May I request you all to please give more importance to listening, than just trying to push your points?
1. you said "Let me try one last time. Either my english is so terrible, or you need to improve your listening."
You arrogance is very unbecoming. It is not your english that is so terrible. It is your greased pig approach to answering questions. If you don' want to answer things, you just ask another question. Works with a child, not an adult.
2. you said "I believe that when a person is saved after repenting of his sins and believes that God has forgiven his sins through the sacrifice of His Son on the cross, the most important thing for that person to do is not to fall back in the sins that he was committing. For example, if a person was a pedophile, he should never again turn back to pedophilia. Same goes with murderers, adulterers, idolators, theives, which we all have been in the past. "
I have no problem with this. The problem with this definition though is according to you a man, woman, boy or girl has to rely on his strength to remain holy. I attest that once a person is saved God gives him a new heart to love God and want to please Him. Does he mess up? Yes, but his heart will grieve at the thought of displeasing God.
3. you said "My original question to you was, is it not more important for you as a pastor to worry more about the new life of the members in your congregation, or whether you think it is more important to worry about the doctrines of the hundreds and hundreds of other pastors, churches etc. This was a simple question."
I find it interesting how many people can coach or in your case pastor from the sidelines. Do you lock your doors at night? If so, why? Why don't you tell your family about the virtuous things that your neighbors do and forget about the bad guys that wish others harm?
As a pastor, which you have no conception of, I have to teach them and warn them.
Are you aware of Matt. 7.15? "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
How do you reconcile this verse with your Rodney King theology?
4. you said "because you believe that once a person is saved, it doesn't really matter how he /she leads his / her life. (Adulterers can occassionally commit adultery, thieves can steal once in a while) The saved person needs to just trust in Jesus."
This is totally moronic on your part to assume this. I have never stated such and think you are attempting to give a low blow.
5. you said "Do you now understand why I am not discussing the issues that you have brought up?"
No, you still have not shared why you wont. I think it is because you don't have any answers. You just ask questions when you don't have an answer.
6. I said...Tyndale or Huss?
Remember this? Do you have any idea as to why these men were executed?
7. I said...Have you ever heard of The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre?
Remember this? You never answered
8. You said "I thought I had made it clear why I was not commenting on any specific event, or doctrine, that is, I believe discussing doctrine, let alone writing in an offencive manner about what others believe cannot convince people of anything."
You have just been discussing the doctrine of salvation.
9. You said "The reason I asked you about Martin Luther and Servetus was because I didn't see any post about issues with the protestant church."
Luther was a Roman Catholic.
I have never declared that the protestant church is perfect just as you would not declare the Syrian Orthodox Church is perfect. But we have to be careful of the those who want to subvert the truth openly or covertly. Would you not agree?
DT, 1. My apologies for loosing my temper, as I was not able to get across to you the only issue I had with your posts. I should have kept my cool. But as you will see below, I did answer a few of your questions. I still feel you should listen more intently.
2. You said "The problem with this definition though is according to you a man, woman, boy or girl has to rely on his strength to remain holy."
But I didn't say we should do that with our own strength. In a previous comment, I did say "of course, with the help of Holy Spirit"
So if a person was a pedophile and then after he is saved, if he commits that sin again, is it sufficient that "his heart grieves"? Should he not rather have faith in God to overcome that evil? Can he not do "all things through Christ who strenghths him"?
If he doesn't do that, either he doesn't have the true faith in God to overcome that, or he doesn't think it is 'that important' not to sin. Remember how Paul responded when he found out that there was a member in the Corinthian church who committed adultery. Do you give such importance in your church when you find out a similar thing? Or do you just let that person deal with the 'grief' when he commits the sin? Are you aware of the level of adultery in your church? I am stressing too much on adultery, as in this generation, it is not seen as much as a sin.
2. I had said before,
"Tndale, Hus, St Barthelomeo's day massacre.. any violence in the name of Jesus, I would say is not in line with God's mercy for us through Jesus."
3. You again didn't answer the simple question. I never said you shouldn't warn believers of false prophets. However, a true believer can easily differentiate between false and true prophets. Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice". Today, scriptures are so easily available and hence so much easier to find out who is a thief. But again, it is more important to concentrate on one's own life that look around for false prophets. Because the former is hard, while the latter is easy.
4. No low blow intented. I was suspecting that you were of the same view as Martin Luther, who, as I quoted earlier thought it was more important to gratify the sexual desire, than follow a simple scriptural commandment on adultery.
5. Please see item 3 above. I wouldn't give much importance to what happened to Tyndale or on St. Bartholomeos day etc, as these things do not happen now a days. And also because the protestant church has done similar things in the past that you also agree.
6. Please see above. Also, I did respond to this earlier in a previous comment "Tndale, Hus, St Barthelomeo's day massacre.. any violence in the name of Jesus, I would say is not in line with God's mercy for us through Jesus"
7. Please see above.
8. If you call it doctrine, then yes. But as I indicated above, if we really believe that we have been saved from deep ****, then we wouldn't want to go back there, not just have a 'grief'. We shouldn't be like dogs that turn to its vomit. That is the most important thing for a christian, not worry too much about false teachers.
9. I agree. We must be very careful. We should examine the scriptures, to verify 'whether it is really so, as did the church in Berea'.
In reference to Tyndale, Huss and the St. Bartholomew issue; these were not just a few isoloated deaths. The later one mentioned was a wholesale attempt at the extermination of a group of people called the Hugenots.
Huss challenged the mother church as to some of its teachings and refused to recant.
Tyndale, which should alarm any Christian, was killed for translating scripture into the "Common Tongue" which was abhorrent to the papacy and its underlings.
I will not bring these up anymore.
I will cut to the chase with a major concern that I have.
Does your church believe in justification by faith ALONE in Christ ALONE?
Absolutely. We believe that "the wages of sin is death and the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord." We absolutely rely on Jesus for forgiveness of sins.
You said..."My original question to you was, is it not more important for you as a pastor to worry more about the new life of the members in your congregation, or whether you think it is more important to worry about the doctrines of the hundreds and hundreds of other pastors, churches etc. This was a simple question."
How do you worry about their new life without warning them of wolves in sheep's clothing that want to rip out their throat or at at best want to trip them up in their belief system?
Of course, I cannot worry about the "hundreds and hundreds of churches" as you say. But I can and should deal with the ones that are on my doorstep.
I said "Does your church believe in justification by faith ALONE in Christ ALONE?"
You said "Absolutely. We believe that "the wages of sin is death and the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord." We absolutely rely on Jesus for forgiveness of sins."
What about mortal sins? Can mortal sins ruin or cancel the forgiveness that you have?
DT, We dont believe forgiveness covers all future sins. If you sin again, you need to repent again and ask for forgiveness in the name of Jesus. Do you believe, saved means forgiveness without repentance?
Ah! So you don't believe in faith alone in Christ alone.
According to you we need to add your works of repentance AFTER you are saved to either maintain or re-gain salvation again. So, Christ did not die for ALL sins hence; it cannot be in faith alone in Christ alone.
1Cor. 15.3 "...that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures."
Hebrews 7.27 "He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself."
Your belief opens up a whole other issue. Eternal Security. According to you we are not secure in Christ. We are secure as long as WE repent to Christ. So in reality, we are not living in a state of forgiveness.
What about venial sins? Do they separate us from Christ?
Things are becoming much clearer now. At least I know where you are coming from.
DT, Yes it looks like there is a major difference in what we believe. Can you confirm, you believe that after being saved, if you commit adultery, you don't really need to repent? I get the impression that for you, repentance is 'once and for all'.
1Cor. 15.3 "...that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures."
Here, Paul doesn't mention about repentance. So you don't need repentance at all?
Hebrews 7.27 "He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself."
Here it means Jesus having died once is sufficient to cover the sins of all. Again Paul doesn't mention about repentance. You are taking one or two verses in isolation and creating theology. You need to consider each verse in relation to other verses.
It is nice to know that you are a theologian so that you could set me straight on the proper hermeneutical approach to these scriptures.
We repent to be saved. After salvation we repent to restore fellowship not relationship.
Since you know scripture so well can you tell me where in the Bible mortal and venial sins are listed?
You did not answer my question about venial sins.
You said "Can you confirm, you believe that after being saved, if you commit adultery, you don't really need to repent?"
I have to repent yes. But not for the continuance of my salvation. That would make salvation depend on me instead the "faith alone through Christ alone" that you said you claim to believe in.
I have to repent because I have sinned against God and others. It is a matter of restoration of priorities and love of the Lord that I repent.
If you do not REALLY believe in faith alone through Christ alone then salvation has not come to your heart and this blog will continue to be a nuisance to you.
DT, I am not a theologian! Just someone who depends on Jesus for salvation.
Like many, I haven't studied theology before being saved, so occassionally I will have to refer to Google, or talk to someone else to answer your questions.
"We repent to be saved. After salvation we repent to restore fellowship not relationship."
Could you please quote some scripture?
"Since you know scripture so well can you tell me where in the Bible mortal and venial sins are listed?"
I think I don't know scriptures too well to answer all your questions from the top of my head. I don't know where the mortal sins and venial sins are listed. Could you please tell me? As far as I understand, all sins are bad, some sins are especially so. All sins need to be repented of.
"It is a matter of restoration of priorities and love of the Lord that I repent."
Again, could you quote some scrptures?
Faith and salvation, I believe cannot be separated from repentance. If you want me to, I can quote from scriptures about the relationship between faith and repentance. But you should already know those verses. Just that you have separated them out. If you think salvation hasn't come to my heart, so be it. I am not convinced about that (me being not forgiven of my past sins and that Jesus wouldn't intercede for my sins).
I did not say you were not saved. I said "If you do not REALLY believe in faith alone through Christ alone then salvation has not come to your heart."
Please do not put words in my mouth.
The Greek word for repentance, "metanoia," while it means "to have another mind," cannot properly be defined to exclude a sense of hatred of and penitence for sin. The biblical concept of repentance involves far more than merely a casual change of thinking. Biblically, a person who repents does not continue willfully in sin. Repentance is a turning from sin, and it always results in changed behavior (Luke 3.8). While sorrow from sin is not equivalent to repentance, it is certainly an element of scriptural repentance (2Cor. 7.10).
Repentance is essential to salvation. One cannot truly believe unless he repents, and one cannot truly repent unless he believes. Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin (but they are not synonymous terms). Acts 11.18 and 2Peter 3.9 are two of the many verses that teach that repentance is necessary for salvation. Perhaps 2Tim. 2.25 best sums up the relationship between repentance and saving faith when it speaks of "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" (see also Acts 20.21).
Off the top of my head I do not have all the verses on repentance. Some things we consider common sense. We don't use drugs but there is not a specific verse stating that prohibition.
I compare it to my son. My son can sin in the greatest of forms. He is still my son and remains my son but his fellowship with me is hindered and ackward until he comes to me and tells me how broken he is about his sin.
Whether you believe it or not I am concerned for your soul and that is why I keep this conversation going.
DT, Thanks for your concern for my soul. But I am increasingly becoming concerned with your version of 'faith alone' doctrine. I don't find it scriptural at all. Compare your attitude to sin with that of Paul. He said "I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous... But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is a fornicator... not even to eat with such a person"
Again he says
"But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body"
Paul again says
"But I discipline my "body" and bring it into subjection, lest when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified."
Then we have the epistle of James, which beyond doubt talks about the importance of the 'works' of a believer.
I don't believe the works are to please God for us to earn our salvation, but a 'reasonable service' as Paul says, as far as a believer is concerned. If our life do not reflect the works that the apostles have exhorted us, then there is something wrong with the believer's faith.
DT, I sincerely believe what you are preaching is not what we have received from the Apostles. May be, the church that you belong to wanted to stress the importance of the Grace of God, but you have greatly neglected some very important teachings. Since you are a pastor, I would think that you are more or less stuck with your church's teachings, but may I plead that you please read the scriptures with an open mind?
I don't mean to jump in the discussion, but I wanted to bring up two things. Abraham you asked for Scriptures regarding the mortal and venial sins; but there are none. Your denomination has built an entire doctrine on those sins that don't exist in Scripture.
As for reading Scripture with an open mind... why? After reading Scripture in the Greek and Hebrew, studying the hermeneutics, you don't get much more open. I think your defintion of open minded is to be more open to other beliefs and religions. Would you want to be more open minded with muslims and hindus in regards to your faith? They might be able to give you some insight on what they think of the Bible.
JSU, Lets not get into mortal and venial sins, as we don't agree in some basic teachings.
By open mind, I meant open to God. To elaborate, when we study the scriptures, it should be to know the perfect will of God, not what we as human beings interpret the scriptures. We should do that in all humbleness. At least now I know your doctrine better. I wouldn't have put in any comments in this blog, had I known it this way. Not that I hold any judgements against you, but that there is some very fundamental differences.
DT, I very much agree with you that there is no point in continuing this discussion.
From the epistle of James:
"God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble"
42 comments:
Awesome image, Dead! :)
... I dont know about Joel Osteen; he seems like a very sweet man. Sure, he annoys me. But in this particular interview, he seems to be referring simply to the doctrine given in James 2.
As for the possibility of salvation for non-Christians, that's a trickier one. Christians know that salvation is possible *only in Christ; but are we warranted in denying the possibility that God, in His incalculable mercy, may not attribute the merits of Christ to someone who never knew to call on Christ explicitly, but nevertheless sought God according to his utmost capacity? I'm not sure...
A professor of mine always used to say- "does *everyone* get to Heaven? I'm counting on it!" Tee hee.
I was watching the interview, Larry King looked a little uneasy talking to Joel Cottoncandy-steen. Do you know King's religious views?
Apologies fo the length here:
Osteen is an idiot and an unbeliever.
Eph 2:
8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
James 2:
18But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder! 20Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"-- and he was called a friend of God. 24You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.
Romans 3:
9What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10as it is written:
"None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
13"Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips."
14"Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
15"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16in their paths are ruin and misery,
17and the way of peace they have not known."
18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."
Romans 4:
1What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." 4Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
7"Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."
9Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
Romans 10:
17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Eph 2 and James 2 speak of the same works by faith. You are not saved by your own work, and the post-salvific works we do, are the Father's works also, the justification, i.e. evidence of the faith "given" to us. So we are justified by faith alone, which is proven by the doing of God's kingdom works, not our own ideas.
Larry King said that some of his ministry guests said that our record does not count. That is not true. Our "post-salvation" record counts. This is what 1 Cor 3:5-15 is about, our work as ministers of the Gospel (not purgatory). Those who are unredeemed, possess no record that either saves, or proves that they His.
As for "seeking God" Romans 3 and 4 speak for themselves. I seek God after, and only after, He has revealed Himself to me.
John 6:
27Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal." 28Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" 29Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."
The Book of Life,(its entire contents), is already written.
We however do not know all who are in it.So we must faithfully and obediently proclaim the Word of Christ so that faith may come to "he who has an ear to hear".
Exodus 32:32
But now, if you will forgive their sin--but if not, please blot me out of your book that you have written."
Philippians 4:3
Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.
Revelation 3:5
The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.
Revelation 13:8
and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain.
Revelation 17:8
The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come.
Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.
Revelation 20:15
And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Revelation 21:27
But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.
Revelation 22:19
and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Oh Come On, Approved! Even our Lord Himself allowed that He who was not against Him was for Him. Mr. Osteen is neither denying that Jesus is the Christ nor is he denying that Christ has come in the flesh... that's the I John criteria for identifying "idiots and unbelievers."
Melissa, Larry King is a secular/reformed Jew. I've heard, however, that he has the highest respect for Evangelicals like Billy Graham and even Tammy Fay Baker! :)
Galatians 1:
6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 7not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
10For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.
11For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel.
John was dealing with the gnostics, Paul with false teachers, and false apostles. John's writings dealing with the gnostic heresy fall under the overall definition given here by Paul. I don't care if Joel says Jesus came in the flesh. Which Jesus in the flesh is he preaching; one of his own creation, or the one that came from the Father? Those who are gnostic and those who preach the universalist/prosperity gospel Jesus both preach a diffrent Gospel than Paul did.
Jeus said he who is not against ME, is for ME. I am for the Christ of the Word, not the Jesus who gives me the American dream. Joel Osteen is an idiot and an unbeliever.
Larry respects Billy Graham and Tammy Faye?
Of course; he respects anyone that gets ratings for his show.
You are not even a semi-pelagian papist. You are fully pelagian.
Just because a reformed Jew claims to respect Billy Graham and Tammy Faye, that does not make him a heaven bound child of God. If they aren't Messianic Jews, than they aren't going to heaven. Larry King is just as lost as Joel Osteen. Joel tries to answer direct questions with evasive answers that amount to nothing. If he is a Christian, he's a failure. He can't even speak the truth of Christ without being afraid of upsetting someone. But perhaps he is afraid because he doesn't believe the truth of Christ. I'm going with that one.
MM,
I am concerned that your definition of a Christian goes far beyond what Scripture allows. Is respecting someone the same as being a follower of Christ? Does being a Jew automatically make you born again?
I must agree with Approved. Larry King is only interested in ratings which equal bucks.
DT
Approved,
May I respectfully ask where you got the idea that I am a *Pelagian, of all things?
Dead,
A Christian is one who confesses with his mouth and believes in his heart that Christ is the Lord (Romans 10:9!..."if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
I'm not questioning this guarantee. Im only suggesting that the mercy of God is perhaps great enough to extend even to those (non Christians) who for various reasons may never have had the opportunity that you and I have had to confess Christ the Lord.
Best!
mm
"A professor of mine always used to say- "does *everyone* get to Heaven? I'm counting on it!" Tee hee."
Very funny.
Your apparent agreement with your professor is a good indicator that you are a universalist, and therefore pelagian.
Rome itself is heavily in the pelagian camp.
Gods' mercy is great, and is also applied at His discretion.
Romans 9:14-24
God is not arbitrary but he is sovereign. Job 1:20-22
Approved, my dear misanthrope,
On the contrary! I'm not a universalist- I believe that there is only *one way to the Father, the Mediator Christ Jesus.
You will recall that Pelagius, given his emphasis on human merit in salvation, allowed much less room for the "universalism" of grace than the orthodox Augustine. So no, Im not a Pelagian. I am a Catholic! I (like my funny professor) rely entirely on the grace of God, since I, like you, have no merits of my own that would compel Him to save me.
...And in as much as while I was a sinner Christ died for me, I can imagine that His mercy may extend to other sinners as well in the most expansive ways... it's just a possibility.
Best! -Go get a massage or something ;)
mm,
I think approved and DT belong to the group of people who profess 'faith alone' as long as some one is not catholic, not part of any of the traditional churches, not believing anything 'they' are convinced of, as interpreted by 'them' from the scriptures (for some reason, they trust the selection of scriptures by the traditional churches and quote Jerome etc. ). I just wonder how they would react when they find people of other churches when they stand before God.
Abraham
I never said that there wouldn't be people of "other churches" standing before God. I am saying that no institution can make the claim of being the "one true Church" There are many in the one true church around the world. Most, I would dare say, not from any of the Roman tradition and the various spinoffs.
Rome does not teach the Jesus of Scripture, and its aberrant dogma is not manifested as scriptural practice.
approved,
What is your view of the Nicene creed?
Abraham,
I do not feel that your comments need to be answered anymore since your cowardice or lack of knowledge has not permitted you to answer ANY questions that have been put in your court.
I think your goal is to throw out red herrings and avoid answering anything.
You asked "how they would react when they find people of other churches when they stand before God."
Well, with your belief system, I will be shocked but happy for you. The question is...
How will you feel if you are standing before God at the Great White Throne Judgement?
Abraham,
I finally understood all that you have been saying. You have your own version of Christianity (aka Universalism). There's nothing like hearing from a heretic's own mouth such as yourself.
Gentlemen, please. The only reason I returned to this blog today was to see how you all would answer Abraham's question re Approved's view of the Nicene Creed, and for that matter, all creeds of the Church. It's an excellent, insightful question- and the answers will be quite revealing. I hope that you all will provide an answer, as I for one am quite curious.
You all are so funny! It's a trip to read your quick conclusions (condemnations?) about a commentor's total belief system...sort of like a blogging Wheel O' Fortune....or The Price is Right... :) :) :)
The creeds are fine, as far as they go.
You cannot proclaim Jesus is Lord, and then worship a wafer.
The creeds do not cover every essential point.
Non-biblical and non-essential are not synonymous:
We do not literally eat His flesh, Mary was not a perpetual virgin,or born sinless. Doctinal teachings and practice such as the mass, purgatory,Jesus plus works etc (too many to list here.)
These types of teaching lead people into idolatry, therefore they are not part of the Gospel yet they are viewed as sacrosanct i.e. essential by Rome.
I would call this an "essential" debate. Irenaeus wrote the regula fide, which is the basis of the creeds but he was also one of the most important fighters of heresy in the church.
The creeds were never meant to leave open doors for heresies to enter, by disguising them in the garb of non-essentials.
mm
out of respect for the fact that you are a woman, I bite my tongue.
DT,
Did I not reply to your question about Tyndale, etc? From the beginning, I have also been stressing that my intention was not to engage in a doctrinal discussion. I also have mentioned before I won't try to justify everything that my church does. This should have answered most of your questions.
Now that 'approved' does approve the nicene creed, I think we have achieved a major breakthrough as far as doctrine is concerned, dont you think? We confess this faith in almost all our church services. So if we could first concentrate on what we have in common, I think would make our Lord very happy. My grandfather used to say, before we discuss somebody's faults, we should first discuss the good things about that person first. In the same way, don't you also think you should mention that the foundation of the traditional churches, which is the nicene creed is very much scriptural? As you very much stand for truth, you should not hide this part of the truth.
Abraham
DT,
Let me try to answer your question
"The question is...
How will you feel if you are standing before God at the Great White Throne Judgement?"
I believe this is a future event. So when I stand before the Great White Throne, I hope I would fully realise how great a sacrifice God did for mankind and how blessed I am to be called to believe in Jesus. I am very certain I also would feel that I could have lived in a much better way (yes, the works + faith that St James exhorted us) for all that Jesus did for us. I could have loved others more, I could have helped others more, I could have said no to the temptations of the world more, the list is endless. I would most definitely know how wrong I was in judging others. I might also feel that I spend a little too much of time putting comments in this blog.
Abraham
sorry for my grammar. Please read 'spent' in the last line.
Abraham
I am not sure whether the following is true
"Luther personally preferred secret bigamy to divorce and remarriage, when a marriage had irretrievably broken down. He sanctioned such an arrangement for women with impotent husbands as early as 1521. If a woman in such a situation could not take her case to the divorce court out of fear of notoriety, he advised that she enter with her husband's consent a secret marriage with his brother or another male mutually agreed upon, and raise any children of this second union as if they were those of the impotent husband."
When I started looking at your site, I used to think that protestants knew more about the scriptures and our traditional churches might have, over the centuries started giving less importance to the scriptures. But as I study more about our church and about Luther etc, I can easily see major issues with protestants from the very beginning. I also know more about our church now and things that I used to think not scriptural, like praying to saints etc, I feel are infact very much supported by the scriptures.
Once again, I am feeling guilty discussing about Martin Luther, whom I know very little. May be I should never visit your site again.
Abraham
Abraham,
You have given evidence of papists following people more than than the Lord of Scripture.
What's with the diatribe on Luther? I like reading old theologians who are not perfect. The RCC likes to make old theologians saints and idolize them. I have never raised up Luther as being the pinnacle of godliness.
Whether you choose to visit my blog again or not is your business. Making comments like "May be I should never visit your site again" leaves me scratching my head wondering if you want me to beg you to stay.
Don't worry, I only want people who want to comment or dialog in a productive manner to keep coming back.
Again, you really don't want to discuss the issues that I have brought up. You bring up issues that are totally irrevelant to what approved, jsu and myself have mentioned.
Abraham,
By the way, the Great White Throne Judgement is for the lost. The Judgement Seat of Christ is for the saved.
DT
Abraham, apparently you did not read my comment on the creed very closely.
It is one thing to say that I believe in Jesus Christ, and then proclaim another Jesus as Lord who is not found in the Scriptures.
As for praying to the saints, give me a Scripture that says this is so.
DT is right. No one holds Luther up as perfect, although virtually every pope and "saint" is portrayed as light years beyond us,i.e. the poor struggling congregants who can never be sure if they are redeemed or not, outside of the church saying so.
As is usual with the roman and eastern churches, they know neither the Scriptures, nor the power of God.
Come out of her my people!
Abraham,
Just out of curiousity, what religion are you currently part of? Are you one of those that don't attend anywhere regularly, but "worship" at home with a few others; or do you hold to a major religion? I don't see any consistency.
DT,
You said
"Again, you really don't want to discuss the issues that I have brought up. You bring up issues that are totally irrevelant to what approved, jsu and myself have mentioned."
Let me try one last time. Either my english is so terrible, or you need to improve your listening.
I believe that when a person is saved after repenting of his sins and believes that God has forgiven his sins through the sacrifice of His Son on the cross, the most important thing for that person to do is not to fall back in the sins that he was committing. For example, if a person was a pedophile, he should never again turn back to pedophilia. Same goes with murderers, adulterers, idolators, theives, which we all have been in the past.
My original question to you was, is it not more important for you as a pastor to worry more about the new life of the members in your congregation, or whether you think it is more important to worry about the doctrines of the hundreds and hundreds of other pastors, churches etc. This was a simple question.
One possibility that I see is you don't agree with me, because you believe that once a person is saved, it doesn't really matter how he /she leads his / her life. (Adulterers can occassionally commit adultery, thieves can steal once in a while) The saved person needs to just trust in Jesus. If this is the case, then there is nothing more to discuss. I would say there is something wrong with your interpretation of the Bible.
Do you now understand why I am not discussing the issues that you have brought up?
Approved,
You said
"As is usual with the roman and eastern churches, they know neither the Scriptures, nor the power of God".
When did Martin Luther know the Scriptures? After he "came out of her"? Please be slow to make judgements. Whether any of them know the scriptures or the power of God, why can't you leave it to God to judge?
I will discuss with you about praying to the saints, if we have an agreement on what I asked DT.
JSU,
Why do you want me to tell you which church I go to? To classify me into one of the 'cult' groups that you have in your mind? But you already have judged me before, in a previous post:
"I finally understood all that you have been saying. You have your own version of Christianity (aka Universalism)."
Finally DT, approved and JSU,
I understand all three of you are pastors/ ministers. May I request you all to please give more importance to listening, than just trying to push your points?
Abraham
Abraham,
I am going to go point by point.
1. you said "Let me try one last time. Either my english is so terrible, or you need to improve your listening."
You arrogance is very unbecoming.
It is not your english that is so terrible. It is your greased pig approach to answering questions. If you don' want to answer things, you just ask another question. Works with a child, not an adult.
2. you said "I believe that when a person is saved after repenting of his sins and believes that God has forgiven his sins through the sacrifice of His Son on the cross, the most important thing for that person to do is not to fall back in the sins that he was committing. For example, if a person was a pedophile, he should never again turn back to pedophilia. Same goes with murderers, adulterers, idolators, theives, which we all have been in the past. "
I have no problem with this. The problem with this definition though is according to you a man, woman, boy or girl has to rely on his strength to remain holy. I attest that once a person is saved God gives him a new heart to love God and want to please Him. Does he mess up? Yes, but his heart will grieve at the thought of displeasing God.
3. you said "My original question to you was, is it not more important for you as a pastor to worry more about the new life of the members in your congregation, or whether you think it is more important to worry about the doctrines of the hundreds and hundreds of other pastors, churches etc. This was a simple question."
I find it interesting how many people can coach or in your case pastor from the sidelines.
Do you lock your doors at night? If so, why? Why don't you tell your family about the virtuous things that your neighbors do and forget about the bad guys that wish others harm?
As a pastor, which you have no conception of, I have to teach them and warn them.
Are you aware of Matt. 7.15?
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
How do you reconcile this verse with your Rodney King theology?
4. you said "because you believe that once a person is saved, it doesn't really matter how he /she leads his / her life. (Adulterers can occassionally commit adultery, thieves can steal once in a while) The saved person needs to just trust in Jesus."
This is totally moronic on your part to assume this. I have never stated such and think you are attempting to give a low blow.
5. you said "Do you now understand why I am not discussing the issues that you have brought up?"
No, you still have not shared why you wont. I think it is because you don't have any answers. You just ask questions when you don't have an answer.
6. I said...Tyndale or Huss?
Remember this? Do you have any idea as to why these men were executed?
7. I said...Have you ever heard of The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre?
Remember this? You never answered
8. You said "I thought I had made it clear why I was not commenting on any specific event, or doctrine, that is, I believe discussing doctrine, let alone writing in an offencive manner about what others believe cannot convince people of anything."
You have just been discussing the doctrine of salvation.
9. You said "The reason I asked you about Martin Luther and Servetus was because I didn't see any post about issues with the protestant church."
Luther was a Roman Catholic.
I have never declared that the protestant church is perfect just as you would not declare the Syrian Orthodox Church is perfect. But we have to be careful of the those who want to subvert the truth openly or covertly. Would you not agree?
DT
DT,
1. My apologies for loosing my temper, as I was not able to get across to you the only issue I had with your posts. I should have kept my cool.
But as you will see below, I did answer a few of your questions. I still feel you should listen more intently.
2. You said
"The problem with this definition though is according to you a man, woman, boy or girl has to rely on his strength to remain holy."
But I didn't say we should do that with our own strength. In a previous comment, I did say "of course, with the help of Holy Spirit"
So if a person was a pedophile and then after he is saved, if he commits that sin again, is it sufficient that "his heart grieves"? Should he not rather have faith in God to overcome that evil? Can he not do "all things through Christ who strenghths him"?
If he doesn't do that, either he doesn't have the true faith in God to overcome that, or he doesn't think it is 'that important' not to sin. Remember how Paul responded when he found out that there was a member in the Corinthian church who committed adultery. Do you give such importance in your church when you find out a similar thing? Or do you just let that person deal with the 'grief' when he commits the sin? Are you aware of the level of adultery in your church? I am stressing too much on adultery, as in this generation, it is not seen as much as a sin.
2. I had said before,
"Tndale, Hus, St Barthelomeo's day massacre.. any violence in the name of Jesus, I would say is not in line with God's mercy for us through Jesus."
3. You again didn't answer the simple question. I never said you shouldn't warn believers of false prophets. However, a true believer can easily differentiate between false and true prophets. Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice". Today, scriptures are so easily available and hence so much easier to find out who is a thief. But again, it is more important to concentrate on one's own life that look around for false prophets. Because the former is hard, while the latter is easy.
4. No low blow intented. I was suspecting that you were of the same view as Martin Luther, who, as I quoted earlier thought it was more important to gratify the sexual desire, than follow a simple scriptural commandment on adultery.
5. Please see item 3 above. I wouldn't give much importance to what happened to Tyndale or on St. Bartholomeos day etc, as these things do not happen now a days. And also because the protestant church has done similar things in the past that you also agree.
6. Please see above. Also, I did respond to this earlier in a previous comment
"Tndale, Hus, St Barthelomeo's day massacre.. any violence in the name of Jesus, I would say is not in line with God's mercy for us through Jesus"
7. Please see above.
8. If you call it doctrine, then yes. But as I indicated above, if we really believe that we have been saved from deep ****, then we wouldn't want to go back there, not just have a 'grief'. We shouldn't be like dogs that turn to its vomit. That is the most important thing for a christian, not worry too much about false teachers.
9. I agree. We must be very careful. We should examine the scriptures, to verify 'whether it is really so, as did the church in Berea'.
Abraham
Abraham,
In reference to Tyndale, Huss and the St. Bartholomew issue; these were not just a few isoloated deaths. The later one mentioned was a wholesale attempt at the extermination of a group of people called the Hugenots.
Huss challenged the mother church as to some of its teachings and refused to recant.
Tyndale, which should alarm any Christian, was killed for translating scripture into the "Common Tongue" which was abhorrent to the papacy and its underlings.
I will not bring these up anymore.
I will cut to the chase with a major concern that I have.
Does your church believe in justification by faith ALONE in Christ ALONE?
DT
Absolutely. We believe that "the wages of sin is death and the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord." We absolutely rely on Jesus for forgiveness of sins.
You still haven't replied to my 'simple question'
Abraham
Abraham,
You said..."My original question to you was, is it not more important for you as a pastor to worry more about the new life of the members in your congregation, or whether you think it is more important to worry about the doctrines of the hundreds and hundreds of other pastors, churches etc. This was a simple question."
How do you worry about their new life without warning them of wolves in sheep's clothing that want to rip out their throat or at at best want to trip them up in their belief system?
Of course, I cannot worry about the "hundreds and hundreds of churches" as you say. But I can and should deal with the ones that are on my doorstep.
DT
Abraham,
I said "Does your church believe in justification by faith ALONE in Christ ALONE?"
You said "Absolutely. We believe that "the wages of sin is death and the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord." We absolutely rely on Jesus for forgiveness of sins."
What about mortal sins? Can mortal sins ruin or cancel the forgiveness that you have?
DT
DT,
We dont believe forgiveness covers all future sins. If you sin again, you need to repent again and ask for forgiveness in the name of Jesus. Do you believe, saved means forgiveness without repentance?
Abraham
Abraham,
Ah! So you don't believe in faith alone in Christ alone.
According to you we need to add your works of repentance AFTER you are saved to either maintain or re-gain salvation again. So, Christ did not die for ALL sins hence; it cannot be in faith alone in Christ alone.
1Cor. 15.3 "...that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures."
Hebrews 7.27 "He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself."
Your belief opens up a whole other issue. Eternal Security. According to you we are not secure in Christ. We are secure as long as WE repent to Christ. So in reality, we are not living in a state of forgiveness.
What about venial sins? Do they separate us from Christ?
Things are becoming much clearer now. At least I know where you are coming from.
DT
DT,
Yes it looks like there is a major difference in what we believe. Can you confirm, you believe that after being saved, if you commit adultery, you don't really need to repent? I get the impression that for you, repentance is 'once and for all'.
1Cor. 15.3 "...that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures."
Here, Paul doesn't mention about repentance. So you don't need repentance at all?
Hebrews 7.27 "He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself."
Here it means Jesus having died once is sufficient to cover the sins of all. Again Paul doesn't mention about repentance. You are taking one or two verses in isolation and creating theology. You need to consider each verse in relation to other verses.
Abraham
Abraham,
It is nice to know that you are a theologian so that you could set me straight on the proper hermeneutical approach to these scriptures.
We repent to be saved. After salvation we repent to restore fellowship not relationship.
Since you know scripture so well can you tell me where in the Bible mortal and venial sins are listed?
You did not answer my question about venial sins.
You said "Can you confirm, you believe that after being saved, if you commit adultery, you don't really need to repent?"
I have to repent yes. But not for the continuance of my salvation. That would make salvation depend on me instead the "faith alone through Christ alone" that you said you claim to believe in.
I have to repent because I have sinned against God and others. It is a matter of restoration of priorities and love of the Lord that I repent.
If you do not REALLY believe in faith alone through Christ alone then salvation has not come to your heart and this blog will continue to be a nuisance to you.
Kindest Regards,
DT
DT,
I am not a theologian! Just someone who depends on Jesus for salvation.
Like many, I haven't studied theology before being saved, so occassionally I will have to refer to Google, or talk to someone else to answer your questions.
"We repent to be saved. After salvation we repent to restore fellowship not relationship."
Could you please quote some scripture?
"Since you know scripture so well can you tell me where in the Bible mortal and venial sins are listed?"
I think I don't know scriptures too well to answer all your questions from the top of my head. I don't know where the mortal sins and venial sins are listed. Could you please tell me? As far as I understand, all sins are bad, some sins are especially so. All sins need to be repented of.
"It is a matter of restoration of priorities and love of the Lord that I repent."
Again, could you quote some scrptures?
Faith and salvation, I believe cannot be separated from repentance. If you want me to, I can quote from scriptures about the relationship between faith and repentance. But you should already know those verses. Just that you have separated them out. If you think salvation hasn't come to my heart, so be it. I am not convinced about that (me being not forgiven of my past sins and that Jesus wouldn't intercede for my sins).
Abraham
Abraham,
I did not say you were not saved. I said "If you do not REALLY believe in faith alone through Christ alone then salvation has not come to your heart."
Please do not put words in my mouth.
The Greek word for repentance, "metanoia," while it means "to have another mind," cannot properly be defined to exclude a sense of hatred of and penitence for sin. The biblical concept of repentance involves far more than merely a casual change of thinking. Biblically, a person who repents does not continue
willfully in sin. Repentance is a turning from sin, and it always results in changed behavior (Luke 3.8). While sorrow from sin is not equivalent to repentance, it is certainly an element of scriptural repentance (2Cor. 7.10).
Repentance is essential to salvation. One cannot truly believe unless he repents, and one cannot truly repent unless he believes. Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin (but they are not synonymous terms). Acts 11.18 and 2Peter 3.9 are two of the many verses that teach that repentance is necessary for salvation. Perhaps 2Tim. 2.25 best sums up the relationship between repentance and saving faith when it speaks of "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" (see also Acts 20.21).
Off the top of my head I do not have all the verses on repentance. Some things we consider common sense. We don't use drugs but there is not a specific verse stating that prohibition.
I compare it to my son. My son can sin in the greatest of forms. He is still my son and remains my son but his fellowship with me is hindered and ackward until he comes to me and tells me how broken he is about his sin.
Whether you believe it or not I am concerned for your soul and that is why I keep this conversation going.
DT
DT,
Thanks for your concern for my soul. But I am increasingly becoming concerned with your version of 'faith alone' doctrine. I don't find it scriptural at all. Compare your attitude to sin with that of Paul. He said
"I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous... But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is a fornicator... not even to eat with such a person"
Again he says
"But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body"
Paul again says
"But I discipline my "body" and bring it into subjection, lest when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified."
Then we have the epistle of James, which beyond doubt talks about the importance of the 'works' of a believer.
I don't believe the works are to please God for us to earn our salvation, but a 'reasonable service' as Paul says, as far as a believer is concerned. If our life do not reflect the works that the apostles have exhorted us, then there is something wrong with the believer's faith.
DT, I sincerely believe what you are preaching is not what we have received from the Apostles. May be, the church that you belong to wanted to stress the importance of the Grace of God, but you have greatly neglected some very important teachings. Since you are a pastor, I would think that you are more or less stuck with your church's teachings, but may I plead that you please read the scriptures with an open mind?
Abraham
Hello DT & Abraham,
I don't mean to jump in the discussion, but I wanted to bring up two things. Abraham you asked for Scriptures regarding the mortal and venial sins; but there are none. Your denomination has built an entire doctrine on those sins that don't exist in Scripture.
As for reading Scripture with an open mind... why? After reading Scripture in the Greek and Hebrew, studying the hermeneutics, you don't get much more open. I think your defintion of open minded is to be more open to other beliefs and religions. Would you want to be more open minded with muslims and hindus in regards to your faith? They might be able to give you some insight on what they think of the Bible.
Abraham,
I finally see that our discussion has been fruitless. I am moving on.
I do recommend that you study Eph. 2.8-9 and the book of James.
I will not be continuing this discussion.
DT
JSU,
Lets not get into mortal and venial sins, as we don't agree in some basic teachings.
By open mind, I meant open to God. To elaborate, when we study the scriptures, it should be to know the perfect will of God, not what we as human beings interpret the scriptures. We should do that in all humbleness. At least now I know your doctrine better. I wouldn't have put in any comments in this blog, had I known it this way. Not that I hold any judgements against you, but that there is some very fundamental differences.
DT,
I very much agree with you that there is no point in continuing this discussion.
From the epistle of James:
"God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble"
"Faith without works is dead"
Abraham
Post a Comment