The Upper Room

12:00 AM

In ancient Israel, if a non-Israelite was to become a believer, they were to be circumcised and then had to follow the law of Moses, which most definitely included the Ten Commandments. This is the context of the Council of Jerusalem. The Judaisers were arguing that the old way of conversion must still be followed, and that proselytised Gentiles must follow this old way (circumcision followed by obedience to the ENTIRE law of Moses).

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie It's not clear because your founding theologians have read Paul completely out of context, and have set up a whole structure of doctrine that is completely ahistorical and unbiblical. This has confused the minds of Protestants ever since, so that they cannot even read and understand the plain words of the Bible.

@Birdie So do you really think that the leaders at the Council of Jerusalem were giving Christians a license to violate the Ten Commandments? Do you really think they were saying it is okay for Christians to kill, commit adultery, steal, covet, worship other gods, worship idols, and so on?

Birdie

No, I don't think that. O_O

As a side note, you continually make reference to Protestants being confused, stupid, simplistic, not using brains, ignorant. This kind of subtle ad hominem has no place in polite discussion. I would request that you refrain from that kind of comment, although I cannot enforce it; I will strive to do the same.

2

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie They were well aware of the difference between the Ten Commandments and the ritual law of Moses, for which "circumcision" was a code word.

Birdie

Please read Acts 15 here: "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10

Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”"

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie I haven't said they are stupid. I've said they are misled. And that Luther and Calvin were wrong on their key doctrines of justification by faith alone and penal substitution. This has caused Protestants ever since to misunderstand and misread the Bible.

Birdie

12:05 AM

THIS is the conclusion of the Council. That not only were the Gentiles not saved by the keeping of the law of Moses (Ten Commandments included), but the Jews and their fathers, down to Abraham and before, were also not able to bear the yoke of the law. Because the Israelites were also not saved through keeping the works of the law. No one is.

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie And by "works of the Law" they meant the Jewish ritual law. That's what the whole argument was about. It wasn't about keeping or not keeping the Ten Commandments. As I said, Jesus himself affirmed that the Ten Commandments are still in force, and that we must still keep them if we wish to be saved.

Birdie

You have not yet proven that the clear words of Scripture, which say "the law of Moses", which by your own admission includes the Ten Commandments, are not actually talking about the law of Moses but only a subset.

All you have said was that the word circumcision was mentioned nearby so it therefore (?) must mean the ritual law only. This is a non sequitur.

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie Do you think that it is no longer necessary for Christians to obey the Ten Commandments? Do you think that Christians who kill, commit adultery, steal, worship idols, and so on, can be saved and go to heaven?

Do I really have to demonstrate to you that there's a difference between the Ten Commandments and the ritual law of circumcision, sacrifice, purification, and so on?

Birdie

If they continue in that practice then they are not Christians, but certainly those who do those things can be saved, and can even be saved and do those things and still be saved. See King David for a clear example of a murderer and adulterer who is saved and will go to heaven.

You do not have to demonstrate that. You have to demonstrate that in Acts 15, when they said "the law of Moses", they were talking about JUST the ritual law. It is not clear from the text alone.

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie First of all, the Bible doesn't actually say that David went to heaven. Second, the reason David could be God's anointed was that he was willing to repent of his sins when they were pointed out to him, as in the story of Bathsheba and God sending Nathan the prophet to confront him about it. Saul, by contrast, continued to insist on his own rightness even when God's messenger (Samuel) pointed out his wrongs. That's why Saul could not remain as King.

Birdie

12:11 AM

If a man after God's own heart does not go to heaven then I don't know who can.

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie If David went to heaven, it was because he was willing to humble himself before God, and repent of his sins when God's messenger pointed them out to him. But as to whether he actually went to heaven, we don't know that from the Bible, because the Bible is silent on the subject.

Birdie

On the contrary, if he went to heaven, it was because he was justified by faith apart from works of the law. Regardless, if we could return to Acts 15 and the law of Moses rather than running down another rabbit trail, that would be great :)

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie Even Paul recognized that the Jews were saved by keeping their law. Once again, read Romans 2. It's just that that Law would no longer suffice. Jews were justified by keeping their law because it meant that they were being faithful to God. And what Paul really means is that we are saved by faithfulness apart from doing the works of the Jewish ritual law.

Birdie

Romans 2 does not say that the Jews were saved by keeping the law. Rather, that if someone keeps the law then they are justified by it. But who has ever kept the law perfectly outside of Christ?

Lee Woofenden

"Faith" in the OT does not mean "belief." It means faithfulness, which is being faithful to God by keeping God's commandments. And the Greek words in the NT also take on that meaning because the Gospels were written by people steeped in Jewish thought. You can see the influence of Hebrew thought everywhere in the New Testament. Paul himself was a Pharisee by his own account, and heavily steeped in Jewish scripture, largely via the Septuagint.

If one doesn't understand this, one simply can't understand the New Testament in general, and Paul in particular.

Birdie

12:21 AM

Am I right in saying that you think the Israelites in the OT were saved by keeping the law?

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie They were because that was how they showed their faithfulness to God. Do you think that all of the ancient Israelites were damned to hell? Keeping the Law was their covenant with God. If they broke it, they were being unfaithful to God, and we can't be saved if we are not faithful to God. Christians have a new covenant, so it's no longer necessary for us to keep the Jewish ritual and sacrificial law.

Anyway, I've gtg now. Good talking to you.

Birdie

1:19 AM

@LeeWoofenden "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." Rom 3:19-20

In the clear words of Scripture, no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by observing the law. This includes the Israelites. Instead, they were saved by faith, e.g. Romans 4, where Abraham is shown to be justified not by his keeping of the law, but by his faith. And here it is shown also that the promise, that is, the covenant

may "be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all". This is us today, who are Gentiles in flesh, but children of Abraham in spirit, because we share his faith.

As per Romans 3:10-12, no one is righteous, and no one keeps the law. The Israelites could not possibly have been saved through their keeping of the law, and if their only covenant was the covenant of works, then none of them were saved. But Scripture teaches that there is a second covenant, since the time of Adam, which is the covenant of grace.

This is the covenant which all believers throughout time have been saved by, because no one but Christ can keep the covenant of works.

Joshua

12:43 PM

@Birdie @LeeWoofenden By the way, Peter seems to think that David has not (yet at least) ascended to heaven. So, no, scripture is not silent on it. Acts 2:29,34 I'm not saying David wasn't or won't be saved, just that he's not in heaven

@LeeWoofenden So you're saying that we read the plain text of scripture with definitions and presuppositions from these "founding theologians" so we get it wrong. But you are able to read the text and understand the plain meaning correctly because...? Because you didn't approach the text with any incorrect definitions or presuppositions?

Or because you just don't have any? You're a clean slate? I wonder how we judge which presuppositions are right or wrong apart from the text, which we clearly can't rely on because our presuppositions might be wrong?

Joshua

1:01 PM

@LeeWoofenden that's basically a reverse appeal to Authority. Saying that because we align with a certain Authority you believe is wrong that everything we say is therefore wrong. If you want to specifically address where I or others are wrong or where those authorities were wrong that's fine. Make your argument.

But attacking what I am saying because of what somebody else said is not valid. Again I ask, please stop making statements that presume to tell me what I believe if you are not going to provide a source.

Paul Vargas

2:20 PM

@LeeWoofenden By the way, what is the point of view of the circumcision in the Swedenborgian Church? is still practised today?

@Birdie "Oneness Pentacostals" Those are new for me!

Oneness Pentecostalism

Oneness Pentecostalism (also known as Apostolic or Jesus' Name Pentecostalism and often pejoratively referred to as the "Jesus only" movement in its early days) is a category of denominations and believers within Pentecostalism which adhere to the nontrinitarian theological doctrine of Oneness. The movement first emerged in America around 1914 as the result of doctrinal disputes within the nascent Pentecostal movement and claims an estimated 24 million adherents today. For a list of denominations in this movement, see List of Christian denominations. Oneness Pentecostalism derives its distinctive...

Lee Woofenden

3:14 PM

@Birdie These are huge subjects, to which I can't do justice in a chatroom such as this. However, the overall issue is that Paul was speaking of a new covenant, in contrast to the old covenant. He was speaking of what we today would call a paradigm shift in our relationship with God. The old covenant was based on strict obedience to law, and was therefore an external, behavioral, covenant--"of the flesh," in biblical terms.

The new covenant that Paul was expounding upon was a new, inner covenant "of the spirit." It was and is based, not on external, behavioral obedience to law, but rather on internal understanding and faithfulness to the spirit of the law, which Paul calls "the law of faith."

Does Elisha speak?

0

Q: Attention needed to question What views are there about the necessity of Christ's murder?

The question What views are there about the necessity of Christ's murder? asked: I would now like an overview of what different denominations teach about the subject. (That is, what are the main distinctive opinions?) This could either mean that the questioner (a) would like representativ...

discussion

Lee Woofenden

We do good deeds, not merely because the law requires us to, but because we are internally prompted to do them because we know and understand that it is good and right to do so, and because we know and understand that being faithful to God by loving God and serving the neighbor is the right way to live.

Under the old covenant, the ancient Jews showed their faithfulness primarily by behavioral obedience to a code of laws given for their culture by God. It didn't matter so much why they did so, as long as they did so. They were "kinesthetically" religious, meaning that their religion was primarily in their actions and their behavior.

That was not going to be how the new covenant made by Jesus Christ with his people would be. It would not be mere behavioral obedience to law. It would be an inner spiritual life and dictate called "faith" or "belief" that would guide us to follow the "law of faith," meaning laws critical to loving God and loving the neighbor, by a freely made internal assent to following God's ways in our life.

If we don't understand the overarching paradigm shift as a framework in which Paul's letters were written, then we fall prey to what Peter described:

> So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other writings. You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability. (2 Peter 3:15-17)

And Paul, too, was at pains to say that he was not nullifying the law, but upholding it, yet through faith, or faithfulness, of the kind I just described:

> Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. (Romans 3:31)

It's not that Christians are no longer required to obey any laws. It's not that Christians are no longer required to obey the Ten Commandments. Rather, our reason for obeying the law is different than under the old covenant. We no longer obey them due to simple obedience, but because we are now "in Christ," meaning we obey them for internal reasons.

And those laws of ritual and sacrifice that were given for the older, non-spiritual, flesh-oriented culture of the ancient Jews were no longer necessary because we have passed from behavioral obedience to living a spiritual life of loving God and the neighbor from an internal dictate and faithfulness to the spirit of the law.

And there is one further step. From the old covenant of external obedience to law we pass, in Christianity, to the new covenant of being guided by the spirit and light of Christ within us, so that we act from understanding, belief, and faithfulness in the fullest sense of those words. And from there we progress to acting not from faith first, but from love, as Paul says:

> Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13:10)

and:

> For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Galatians 5:14)

So we progress from obedience through understanding to love as the center and foundation of our covenant with God. Paul was shepherding the shift from obedience to understanding, which he called "faith." Now I believe we are making the transition that Paul and the other Bible writers predicted, from understanding to love.

@Joshua Good catch on Acts 2:29-36. Still, the point remains that the Bible doesn't say that David is in heaven. Meanwhile, the Bible does mention others going to or being in heaven, such as the thief on the cross, Abraham and Lazarus, and presumably Moses and Elijah as seen with Christ at the time of the Transfiguration.

@Joshua It's a fair question. And of course, we must all make up our own minds what we will believe, and how we will read the scriptures.

@Joshua However, I am not as skeptical as you are of our ability to read and understand the plain words of scripture, at least on the critical issue of our eternal salvation, without an interpretive lens. I believe that the Scriptures are actually quite clear on this critical issue.

@Joshua And the basic answer to your question is disarmingly simple: The Bible doesn't speak plainly of the fundamental Protestant doctrines of salvation, whereas it does speak plainly of the fundamental doctrine of salvation explained by Swedenborg.

@Joshua On this, see, respectively: "Christian Beliefs" that the Bible Doesn't Teach and: Christian Beliefs that the Bible Does Teach.

@PaulVargas Circumcision is not a requirement among Swedenborgians. It's largely left to prevailing cultural and medical practices. My own belief is that it's unnecessary religiously or medically. I don't think God made a mistake in creating the human body the way it is, and I don't think it's necessary for us to remove part of it.

Joshua

3:53 PM

@LeeWoofenden Actually I'm only willing to grant you Enoch(you missed him) and Elijah going up to heaven(up) Everyone else is said to be in Paradise (thief) or Abraham's Bosom or simply the grave (Moses), all down. I'll leave the transfiguration out of it, that gets tricky (was that just who Peter thought they were? Jesus rejects his suggestion but is he also rejecting Peter's identification?)

@LeeWoofenden I wasn't saying I am skeptical of our collective ability. I'm saying I'm skeptical of your ability being superior to mine for some unknown reason. Every time I ask you why or how you shift. Please answer the question. What makes the presuppositions I bring to the text less valid than yours?

I agree the only way is to examine the text on its own basis. But you are no longer dealing with the text when you claim I am incapable of understanding them due to my presuppositions. You are putting me in an endless loop of errors that you are somehow (yet to be explained) outside of and not subject to.

Just because because Protestant doctrine says X about a verse why does that mean when I read it and come to a reasoned conclusion you claim I'm wrong because X is wrong. So what if I agree with X or not, address my reasoning about the verse, not what you think X means.

@LeeWoofenden I'm asking that you simply own up to the fact you have presuppositions and definitions that you were taught and that you approach scripture with now just like the rest of us. Identify them and we can move on to discuss any issue on its own merits. Stop taking shots based on (or against) our doctrinal presuppositions if you aren't going to admit you have your own.

You are 3rd or 4th generation Swedenborg if I recall you saying. For goodness sake, that's as many generations of indoctrination as I have I my own family! You cannot put yourself in some unique position to discern truth above the rest of us and expect us to be fine with that. Come down to our level and discuss the issues.

Does Elisha speak?

5:26 PM

0

Q: Please delete my account

After a recent answer of mine was deleted, I went back and found several other past answers of mine have been deleted. I have been an active member on this site and have put a great deal of thought and effort into many of these answers, many of which were also upvoted. I am struggling to unders...

support

Paul Vargas

5:53 PM

@LeeWoofenden Other question, if you allow me: how do you understand Mark 4:20?

> And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred. Mark 4:20 KJV

Lee Woofenden

6:35 PM

@Joshua That wasn't intended to be an exhaustive list. We could quibble about who should be on it. But if anyone is on it, my point stands: The Bible says that some individuals went to heaven, but it does not say that David went to heaven.

@Joshua Of course I have an interpretive framework, and of course it is derived heavily from my background in the Swedenborgian Church--though I do have my own individual take on it as well. I'm not much of an institutional, toe-the-line sort of guy.

A key part of that interpretive framework is that when it comes to the basics required for salvation, no interpretation is necessary. Only reading comprehension. IOW, the Bible states in its own plain words what we need to know to be saved. There's no need for Swedenborg, Luther, Calvin, Anselm, Athanasius, Tertullian, or anyone else.

To believe otherwise, in my view, would be to charge God with incompetence. It would be saying that God requires human assistance to deliver his message of salvation, beyond the assistance of the humans who wrote down the words God gave to them. So when it comes to the basic Christian beliefs needed for salvation, I strenuously object to the idea that we must "interpret" the text. No. We must simply read it.

On many others issues not essential to our salvation, such as the exact nature of God, the exact nature of the afterlife, and the best way to handle particular situations that may arise in our daily life, there is certainly plenty of room for interpretation. Different people and churches are going to come to different conclusions. I understand that.

Now, if you reject the idea that the Bible tells us plainly what we must believe and do in order to be saved, then obviously your interpretive framework is fundamentally at odds with mine, and we have no common ground on which to have a productive discussion. We will simply talk past each other.

But based on the idea that God is competent to tell us plainly and clearly in his Word what we must believe and do in order to be saved, I reject the fundamental Protestant doctrines regarding salvation for a very simple reason: They are simply not stated in the Bible's own plain words. They require human beings to "derive" them. And therefore they imply that God is not competent to give us the message of salvation in his own words.

From my perspective, a fundamental part of the Incarnation was that God became his own priest, prophet, and mediator. There was no longer the need for a priesthood to stand between the people and God, to deliver God's message to the people and the people's prayers to God. We now each have a direct relationship with God in Jesus Christ.

And we can each enter into that relationship through our own direct reading of the Word of God, without the need of human theologians and intermediaries to tell us what it means. At least, not on the basics of what we need to believe and do to be saved.

I'm not sure I can be much clearer than that in explaining why I believe my beliefs about salvation are superior to those of Protestantism. Quite simply, my beliefs on the subject are stated plainly in the Bible, in the Bible's own words. Protestant beliefs on the subject are not. And that's enough for me.

@PaulVargas As Jesus himself explains, the parable is about how various people receive the word of God when it is preached to them or they read it. The people represented by the good ground are those who accept it deeply in their heart and mind, and live according to it so that they bear the "fruits" of good deeds toward their fellow human beings. Some bear more of these fruits, others bear less.

Joshua

7:15 PM

@LeeWoofenden That's just it. We keep telling you in our own words, and have provided examples from past theologians, that we also believe the Bible tells us clearly what we need to be saved. I agree with much of what you say above. Yet even as you say that you presume to tell me that how I understand it is not plain, or, that I wasn't able to read the scripture and reach an understanding without reading some old theologian. That's not correct.

@LeeWoofenden That is your interpretation of what is stated in the Bible. That is your presumption about what is plain. And that is your definition of Protestant beliefs on the subject. I disagree with all of them. I am not sure how I can I can be much clearer either.

Lee Woofenden

7:33 PM

@Joshua Simply put: The Bible does not say in its own plain that we are justified by faith alone. In fact, it says in its own plain words that we are not justified by faith alone. And the Bible does not say anywhere that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. In fact, it rejects the whole premise of penal substitution in very plain language.

This isn't really an argument about interpretation. It's about what the Bible does and doesn't say.

Paul never uses the word "alone" in conjunction with "faith." Adding "alone" to what he said is an unwarranted intrusion on the text.

And there simply isn't any passage anywhere in the Bible that says that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. But the Bible specifically rejects punishing the innocent and exonerating the guilty, in passages I quoted yesterday, and could quote again if you like.

There are, however, many passages throughout the Bible that say plainly, in the Bible's own words, that if we wish to be saved we must repent from our sins, believe in and be faithful to God--and for Christians, Christ--and do good deeds of love for our neighbor. I could quote you dozens, if not hundreds of passages that say these things, both in the OT and in the NT.

Paul himself says these things in Romans 2. Jesus says them throughout the Gospels. The book of Revelation says the same thing. And the same thing is said throughout the Law and the Prophets of the Old Testament.

It's not a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of reading what the Bible says, and noticing what it does not say.

You cannot quote me a single passage from the Bible that says we are justified by faith alone. You cannot quote me a single passage from the Bible that says that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. You can't, because the Bible simply doesn't say those things.

For over twenty years now I've been challenging Protestants to quote me even one verse from the Bible that says either one of those things. No Protestant has ever been able to do so.

Can you?

Lee Woofenden

8:02 PM

@LeeWoofenden My, my, how the time does fly when you're having fun! It was actually several days ago that I quoted those passages.

Joshua

@LeeWoofenden Earlier you said God was not incompetent in communicating his revelation to us. And he gave us quite a bit of it. Yet now you are demanding it be summed up in one verse? And if I put together several passages will you accuse me of deriving it? I think the combined message is clear and I think there are many passages that contain most of not all of it( just not always in detail). But I suspect there is no one verse that contains it all in enough detail to satisfy you.

That is how you can continue to deny anyone has shown it to you in 20 years even though I suspect they have many times.

@LeeWoofenden Because as soon as you don't like what you see you can claim its derived interpretation, not plain reading. You can get technical with definitions and terms like demanding it say "alone". You repeat over and over "the Bible doesn't say that". You can say my interpretation has been corrupted by those that came before me. But at the end of the day the truth is evident: you simply don't play fair.

Lee Woofenden

8:36 PM

@Joshua No. The truth is evident that you get upset and angry because I ask you to quote me any verses that say that we are justified by faith alone or that Jesus paid the penalty for our sin, and you can't do it. That should call your faith into question. But instead you get mad at me. Don't shoot the messenger. It's the Bible that doesn't say these things.

I'm not asking you to do anything I can't do for my own theology. I can quote single verses, groups of verses, and whole chapters all of which say clearly and exactly what I believe about how we are saved. I've done a brief job of it in the article I already linked: Christian Beliefs that the Bible Does Teach. And there are many more passages where those came from.

Lee Woofenden

9:58 PM

@Joshua Oh, and I wasn't the one who put the "alone" next to "faith." That was Luther. And the doctrine is sola fide--"faith alone." So it wasn't my idea to insist that it is faith alone that saves. It was Luther's. And those who follow Luther's theology must be able to show where that "alone" comes from in the Bible, or admit that it's not biblical. That's why I insist upon it saying "faith alone." Because that's what Protestant doctrine says.

Ditto for Jesus paying the penalty for our sins. If that's supposedly a biblical doctrine, the Bible should say it somewhere. Why can't any Protestant show me a passage where it does? I don't care if it's one verse, five verses, ten verses, or a whole chapter. But if Jesus paid the penalty for our sins, then somewhere the Bible should say so. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't.

@Joshua I've had long debates with Protestants who doggedly insist that it's essential that we believe that faith alone saves. I once even had a Protestant try to get my to say "faith alone with charity" saves (!). If it's so important to believe that faith alone saves, where does the Bible doggedly insist that it's faith alone that saves? The Bible does say that faith saves us (among other things). But it never says that faith alone saves us.

But it does specifically deny justification by faith alone:

> You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)

Why does that specific denial of justification by faith alone make no impression whatsoever on Protestants? It's because they are not actually reading the Bible. They're hearing what their preachers say, and forcing the Bible to say it when it simply doesn't, but denies it.

Joshua

@LeeWoofenden Wow I underestimated you. Bravo. You just rolled several derailment tactics into one beautiful post. Accusing me of getting angry, of hurting my own cause and "I'm just saying". A trifecta! Actually, I simply have not quoted any verses. That does not mean cannot or will not. Not that that distinction would matter.

Lee Woofenden

@Joshua Perhaps instead of continually talking about everything else, and distracting from the subject at hand, you should get busy and quote me those verses that say that faith alone saves, and that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins.

Perhaps you should know that when I was a teenager, I didn't study the Acts and the Epistles because they weren't part of our canon. I studied the Gospels and the book of Revelation. And when I heard Protestants say that we are saved by faith alone, and that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins, I assumed it was somewhere in those books I hadn't studied.

Then in my twenties I began reading the Acts and the Epistles, and looking for the places where it said those things. And I was actually surprised that it simply wasn't there. I'd read Swedenborg saying it wasn't there, but somehow I thought it must be, because I couldn't believe that Protestants, who are so insistent on reading the Bible and basing doctrine on the Bible, would so loudly preach and insist upon doctrines that aren't actually in the Bible.

Joshua

@LeeWoofenden Oh the irony. Actually it's just a pain to do on my phone so I'll get to it later on my pc. However, in the meantime I can repeat the list of items you have still not responded to while you turned the conversation back to a Lee rerun on "Faith alone"

Lee Woofenden

So I read the Acts and the Epistles over and over. And though I could see how Protestants could twist the text to mean those things, I simply couldn't find anywhere that the text actually said those things.

Then I began asking Protestants to show me where it said those things. And they couldn't show me any passages either. After this had gone on for several decades, it became clear to me that these doctrines simply weren't in the Bible at all. That they were purely human inventions.

So it wasn't just my church dogma that convinced me of this. It was my own reading, my own discussions with Protestants, in other words, my own experience that convinced me of something I originally couldn't believe: that the key points of Protestant doctrine with regard to salvation simply aren't taught in the Bible.

You should also know that although I grew up in a Swedenborgian church, with a Swedenborgian Sunday School, our Sunday School focused almost entirely on studying the Bible, not Swedenborg. And we studied both the Old Testament and the New Testament. The doctrines I learned were taught to me by direct quotations of and studies of the Bible itself. That's how Swedenborg proceeded with his doctrinal teachings as well.

Joshua

10:20 PM

@LeeWoofenden Let's see 1) how you think you can read a verse and understand it's meaning without doing a basic act of interpretation. what's the difference between interpretation and reading comprehension 2) why you can read plain verses and understand them free of influence but you assume I cannot?

Lee Woofenden

Of course I was taught the Bible from a Swedenborgian perspective. But the main point is that the things I learned about God, the Bible, and salvation were taught to me primarily by reference to the what the Bible said. That is how I gained a strong sense that when it comes to the basic doctrines of Christianity, they should be taught in the plain words of the Bible itself.

@Joshua Reading comprehension involves knowing the meaning of words in the various contexts in which they occur, and being able to understand what the original writer was saying. Interpretation involves deriving further meaning about things not directly addressed or expressed by the original authors.

For example, "faith alone" has a specific meaning that is not the same as "faith" used without the word "alone." Being able to read and understand what "faith" means, and what "faith alone" means, is a matter of reading comprehension. And in fact, "faith alone" occurs only once in the Bible.

If I say, "That barn is red," in practice it means that's the predominant color of the barn. Even if it has white or black trim, people will still call it a red barn. But if I say, "That barn is only red," that means the barn is completely red, including any trim--that there are no other colors on the barn. The two are not the same.

Joshua

@LeeWoofenden I feel like you are connoting far more into the word Interpretation than is really there. Sure sometimes interpretation involves very complex correlation and derivation, but in it's basic meaning interpretation is the part of reading comprehension that takes a sentence from being a structured collection of words to actually having a meaning.

Lee Woofenden

@Joshua On your question 2), the main reason is that you are insisting upon doctrines, and insisting that they are based upon interpretation, and demurring when I ask you to show me where the Bible actually says these things. That leads me to believe that your doctrines really aren't based on the Bible, but on pre-existing doctrines that you then go to the Bible to try to prove via interpretation. And that's the wrong way to read the Bible when it comes to critical issues of salvation.

@Joshua So you think there is no difference whatsoever between "reading comprehension" and "interpretation"? If not, why are they even separate expressions?

Yes, in a basic sense, reading comprehension is a form of interpretation in that we must know the meaning of the words and how they are used in context. Meaning is not the same as black marks on paper. But "interpretation" as that is usually used is much more than simple reading comprehension.

Joshua

@LeeWoofenden I'm sorry I thought we covered the "I haven't gotten to it yet" thing? No need to slip in "demurring".

Lee Woofenden

When Paul said, "For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law" (Romans 3:28), he used a particular string of words that have particular meanings in a particular concept in order to convey a meaning. He didn't, for example, say "For we hold that a person is justified by faith alone apart from works prescribed by the law." If that's the meaning he wanted, he would have said so. We know he had the words at his disposal.

Joshua

10:30 PM

@LeeWoofenden when you said red barn I immediately had an idea in my mind of a red barn. Do you have a barn in mind? If we drew those barns and compared them, would they be exactly the same?

Lee Woofenden

The particular words that an author does and doesn't use are significant. We have to draw the meaning from the words and word combinations that they do use, not from the ones they don't.

Paul could have said "faith alone" if he had wanted to. But he didn't. Because that's not the meaning he wanted to convey. James did use "faith alone," because he wanted to convey that we are not justified by faith alone. The words they used and didn't use are important.

@Joshua There are lots of barns where I live. Some of them are red. And some of the red ones have white trim. Some of the red ones don't have white trim, but are completely red.

If I wanted to make it clear to you that I'm talking about a barn that has nothing but red paint, I'd put in a qualifier to that effect. I'd say something like, "That's a completely red barn." So if it were important to Paul that we understand that it is only faith that saves or justifies us, he would have put in such a qualifier at least some of the time to make his meaning clear. But he doesn't, even though James does.

It's not that no qualifiers were available to him. It's that that's not what he wanted to say.

IOW, the fact that Paul never said, "I tell you that a man is justified by faith alone" is very significant. He could have said that. If it were important to believe that, he would have said it. But he never did.

If Paul meant to say that we are justified by faith alone, why did he never actually say that?

Joshua

@LeeWoofenden I'm actually on record here in chat, with you, about my thoughts on Faith alone, so I'm not sure what doctrine you think I'm pushing. But I believe in salvation by Faith. It was important in the reformation to clarify that a Faith alone. I do not think it was meant as a hard literal definition but simply making a distinction. What I include under "Faith" in "Faith alone" would encompass much of what you say too. Think of the barn.

We're reading different things when we read "Faith"

Lee Woofenden

@Joshua "Faith" and "faith alone" are not the same thing.

I also reject the entire concept that it is only faith that justifies or saves us. I think it's just wrong, and that it's completely contrary to everything that the Bible teaches.

Birdie

@LeeWoofenden Right, so you're also dispensationalist. It is important to understand that the Israelites were NOT saved under the old covenant. Indeed, no one (except Christ arguably) has ever been saved under the old covenant. The Israelites were under the covenant of grace, just as you and I were. And both covenants have been in the Bible since the first few chapters of Genesis.

Adam and Eve were not saved on the basis of their works (how could they be? They are the instigators of the fall!), but rather in their faith in the coming seed that would crush the devil.

Lee Woofenden

If I say, "I was saved by the bell," does that mean that it is only the bell that saved me? What about the guy ringing the bell? What about my opponent's hearing, so that he heard the bell and stopped punching me? What about the referee who stepped between us when the bell rang? The bell has a critical function. But when we are "saved by the bell," we are not saved by the bell alone.

Joshua

10:41 PM

So you think a very plain revelation from God that is not meant to confuse us would say "you are saved by faith" and end the sentence there and the reader should be able to plainly see that clearly it's not just Faith?

Lee Woofenden

Faith comes as part of a package. Without the rest of the package, it accomplishes nothing at all. Yes, it's an essential part of the package, but faith alone does not justify us, and is dead.

Birdie

For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Lee Woofenden

Paul was explaining that what is no longer a part of the package for Christians is "the works of the Law," which he also calls "circumcision. He is talking about the ancient Jewish code of ritual and sacrificial law. These, he said, are not necessary for our salvation.

Birdie

No, that's your interpretation. The plain words of scripture say that one is justified by faith, apart from works of the law.

Lee Woofenden

And Christians have believed that ever since. So much so that most Christians have forgotten that this was not taken for granted by the early Christians, but had to be debated and decided upon, as recounted in Acts 15. Without that historical context, Paul's letters come out as gibberish.

Birdie

10:48 PM

And as we discussed yesterday, Paul was not arguing against just ritual law, but the entire law of Moses as necessary to be followed for salvation. He didn't make an exception for the moral law.

Joshua

Got to run. Hopefully be back later and on the pc

Birdie

Is there any context to James?

Lee Woofenden

@Joshua But the sentence doesn't end there. It keeps going. And if the one sentence doesn't make it clear, the rest of the context does. Why does Paul quickly start talking about circumcision everywhere he speaks about being saved by faith and not works? He's making it clear that the "works" he means are the "works" of observing the Jewish ritual law, which observant Jews took great pride observing. See Luke 18:9-14.

@Birdie Then how do you explain Romans 2:1-16?

Paul, like Jesus, is very clear that those who do good works will be saved, while those who do evil works will be condemned.

And how do you explain Jesus' statement in Matthew 19:17:

> "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Was Jesus lying to him? Did Jesus really know that it's only faith that saves us, but he told that guy if he wanted to "enter into life," meaning be saved, he must keep the commandments anyway, just to fool him?

And when the man pressed Jesus further, Jesus listed several of the Ten Commandments as the commandments he must keep if he wished to enter life.

And then when the man pressed him still further, did he say, "All you have to do is have faith that I paid the penalty for your sins?" No, he did not. Instead, he laid yet another commandment on him: that he must sell all he had and give the money to the poor.

How could Jesus have been so wrong?

Birdie

Does anyone do good works to the standard that God requires?

Has anyone in history outside of Christ done good works to the standard that God requires? Has anyone followed the law perfectly?

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie That's a red herring. I don't see anywhere in the Bible where it says that if we aren't perfect, God will damn us to hell. Rather, it says that we must repent of our sins, follow him, love God, and love our neighbor. It doesn't say we must do it perfectly, even if that is held up to us as an ideal.

In fact, no person in the Bible was perfect other than Christ. And yet, God worked with and brought salvation to dozens of imperfect human beings in the Bible. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, Jonah, on and on. Every one of them had flaws. And yet God was with them, and did not condemn or reject them.

The idea that if we're not perfect, God will condemn us and send us to the eternal flames of hell is simply not biblical.

Birdie

11:02 PM

You will have to give me some time to find some particularly clear scripture references as to why we must keep the law perfectly if we are to be saved by the law. However, I do agree that there are many imperfect people who have been saved. I do NOT agree that they were saved by the covenant of works, though. They were all saved through faith in Christ :)

Lee Woofenden

As a father has compassion for his children,
so the Lord has compassion for those who fear him.
For he knows how we were made;
he remembers that we are dust. (Psalm 103:13-14)

Birdie

An initial example would simply be that Adam was required to keep the law perfectly, and he broke it once and was immediately consigned to death, kicked out of the garden of Eden, no longer allowed access to the tree of life, because he broke the covenant. He only had to break it once for that to happen.

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie They couldn't be saved by faith in Christ before Christ came. They were saved by faithfulness to God. Keeping the covenant of the law was the way they showed their faithfulness to God. It wasn't the law itself that saved them. It was their faithfulness to God as shown by their faithfulness in keeping God's law and God's commandments.

Birdie

Why can they not be saved by faith in Christ before Christ came?

Lee Woofenden

That's what the old covenant was based upon.

Birdie

11:03 PM

Where is this old covenant defined, please?

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie Just do a Bible search for "covenant" or "testament," depending on the translation, and you will find the various covenants that God made with the people. The ones in the OT were almost all based on the people obeying God and God blessing the people in return--or cursing them if they did not obey.

Birdie

Were there multiple separate covenants, or one covenant of works, and one covenant of faith?

Lee Woofenden

The Ten Commandments themselves are identified as a covenant, as in the phrase, "the Ark of the Covenant," which means the Ark containing the Ten Commandments.

@Birdie "Works" and "faith" cannot be separated from one another. That is the whole message of James. So there are no separate covenants of works and of faith. Every covenant must include both. But "faith" in the OT should be translated "faithfulness" instead.

Birdie

Were there multiple separate covenants, then?

Or just two?

Lee Woofenden

However, the OT covenants were characterized primarily by obedience to law. That is how people in the OT showed their faithfulness to God. Through what Paul called "the works of the Law." In the NT, the covenant was changed from an external behavioral one to an internal one of the mind and heart. That was inherent in the OT covenants as well, but the people were too materialistic to focus on that, so they had to focus on behavior.

@Birdie There is a series of covenants in the OT, starting with the covenant with Noah symbolized by the rainbow, and culminating in the covenant at Sinai involving the Ten Commandments and the associated laws God gave to Moses for the people. And then in the Prophets a new covenant, one involving a new heart, is prophesied--a prophecy that was fulfilled in Jesus, and for those who accept the new covenant that Jesus offers.

Birdie

11:09 PM

There was also a covenant between God and Adam, was there not?

And what about the covenant between God and David?

Lee Woofenden

The earliest covenants in the OT were more like promises that God made to the people. But as the people became more and more worldly, the covenant between God and the people became more and more behavioral and law-based. That is the old covenant that Jesus superseded with the new covenant, which was a covenant of the spirit, not merely of the flesh.

Birdie

The definition of a covenant is surely a mutual promise between two people. I promise to do X if you promise to do Y.

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie I don't believe there was a spelled-out covenant between God and Adam. It would probably be more accurate to say that there was a relationship between God and Adam. A covenant is simply a more spelled out and defined form of relationship, however.

@Birdie Yes, but with Adam, God simply said how things would be. Adam didn't make any promises in return. But he did violate what God told him to do, together with Eve.

Anyway, whether or not it was technically a covenant isn't really important. The covenant is all about the relationship between God and human beings. And that exists whether or not it's called a "covenant."

Birdie

I don't think in any of the covenants the human recipients made a promise specifically; God set out the terms, and humans could either choose to follow it or not follow it.

Lee Woofenden

For purposes of Paul, the Old Covenant, or Old Testament, meant especially the law of circumcision and sacrifice. These, he said, were superseded by Christ, and were no longer binding upon Christians. Christians no longer needed to observe those ritual laws in order to show their faithfulness to God.

Birdie

11:15 PM

Also, just to clarify, were the Israelites saved through faith AND partial obedience to the law? Or just partial obedience to the law as an outward example of faith, even if the inward faith was non-existent?

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie That's how covenants, or in modern terminology, contracts, generally work. It's rare that a contract is written mutually by both sides. Most often, one side writes the contract. When both sign it, the contract becomes binding between them. And God did give the people the opportunity to accept or reject the covenant at Sinai. They gave their verbal assent to the contract, which made it binding on both parties even though God was its author.

This was all affirmed at Ebal and Gerizim some years later.

Birdie

Sure, but Noah, Adam, David, Abraham did not give verbal assent if I recall correctly, or not all of them.

Lee Woofenden

And the people affirmed their assent to the covenant at various other times along the way.

@Birdie I think you're right about some, if not all, of them. They showed their assent by their behavior, though. But especially on the earliest ones, that's why I'm not insisting that these were covenants as that is usually understood.

Jacob made a deal, or covenant, with God at Bethel.

The people also explicitly accepted the covenant of Sinai in Exodus 19:8; 24:3, 7.

Birdie

Can I get an answer on the partial obedience/inward faith question a little higher, just so I understand your position correctly? To clarify, could the Israelites be saved just by outward obedience (which you presumably agree was not perfect obedience)?

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie The Israelites were not introspective people. For them, behavioral obedience was faithfulness to God. Technically they were not saved by the law, as I said. Rather, they were saved by their faithfulness to God, which was demonstrated by and actually consisted in obeying God's commandments as expressed in the Law of Moses.

For them, there was no distinction between "faith," and "obeying the Law."

Practically speaking.

Even today, the Law, and keeping it, is central to Judaism.

Even if they have had to modify the way they keep it due to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Even today observant Jews show their faith in God through "the works of the Law," meaning obeying the various laws of Moses as they are able given their changed circumstances. Even today, in Judaism there is no practical distinction between "faith" and "observing the Law."

Today, if a Jew refused to be circumcised, that would be a serious offense, and in most Jewish communities would warrant exclusion from the Temple and the religion.

Birdie

11:28 PM

Do you think modern Jews can still be saved, without accepting Christ as the Messiah?

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie Yes, but as I've said previously, for Swedenborgians that's a trick question. See: Is Jesus Christ the Only Way to Heaven?‌. Even if they don't accept Jesus as the Messiah, if they are saved, it is still Jesus who saves them, because there is no other God who could save them.

Birdie

Sure, but they don't need faith in Christ specifically to be saved; rather, they just need to follow the works of the law. According to you, at least?

As an expression of their faith in God generally

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie They need to follow the basic teachings of Christ, which is what "faith" really means. And the basic teachings of Christ are to love God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love our neighbor as ourselves. Those laws are taken from the Old Testament, which the Jews follow as their Scriptures. So if they keep those laws, then they in fact have faith in Christ even if they intellectually do not.

Eagle

Could someone just upvote something, a question or answer,comment or whatever to get me over 50?

Lee Woofenden

Jesus says who, from all the nations, will and won't be saved in Matthew 25:31-46. And the Jews are part of "all the nations," so Jesus' words about who will be saved and who will not apply to them just as they do to everyone else everywhere in the world.

Birdie

11:37 PM

@Eagle

if you link me something that you did which is particularly good then sure

@LeeWoofenden what do you think about Romans 4? Can we conclude from it that Abraham was saved before he did the works of the law?

Lee Woofenden

Paul says basically the same thing in Romans 2:1-16.

Birdie

So if Abraham was not saved by the works of the law, and the works of the law in the OT are the same as faith, and necessary to be saved, how was he saved then?

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie This is another clear indication that Paul was talking about the Law of Moses, and specifically the ritual law contained especially in Leviticus, which had not yet been given in Abraham's time. Paul is saying that the Jewish covenant is not necessary for salvation, because Abraham lived before it, and he was saved by his faithfulness to God before the covenant of Moses existed.

Eagle

@Birdie christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/50953/… christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/46699/…

Lee Woofenden

Paul did not mean that Abraham was saved without doing anything good. He meant that Abraham was saved without "the works of the Law," meaning the Jewish ritual law, which wasn't given until many centuries later.

Eagle

11:42 PM

@Birdie Thank you!

Lee Woofenden

And James clarifies that Abraham's faithfulness to God in actually doing what God required of him was what saved him. Neither Paul nor James meant "faith" as that is often defined in the minds of Christians today. They meant faithfulness to God.

Birdie

@Eagle :)

Lee Woofenden

But by NT times, the meaning of "faith" had already begun to shift. So James had to make it crystal clear that faith, without works, is dead, does not justify, and in the end really isn't faith at all.

Birdie

But in the NT, faith is specifically defined not as a work: faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Lee Woofenden

Paul meant the same thing, as he makes clear in Romans 2 and many other places where he insists that we must do good works or we will be condemned.

Birdie

11:43 PM

assurance and conviction are both purely intellectual processes, and not to do with actions at all

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie No, they're not both purely intellectual processes. Keep reading in Hebrews 11, where the author gives examples of what faith means. It's all about various actions people took due to their faith, and inseparable from their faith.

For example:

> By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance; and he set out, not knowing where he was going. (Hebrews 11:8)

Abraham's faith was inseparable from his actions in setting out to a place that he had never seen. Without his taking action, the faith would mean nothing, and would not even be faith.

Birdie

Yes, he obeyed because he had faith in the promises of God. He had an intellectual absolute trust that God was telling the truth, and because of that faith, he took action. But the faith preceded the action.

You're almost there! Our actions certainly are a good PROOF of faith :)

"without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him."

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie Not really. The faith and the action were together. If you read the stories of Abraham, you will see that he didn't think it out, hesitate, or argue with God about whether something was right or wrong. When God told him to do something, he simply did it. That was his faith. Faith wasn't "prior" to his actions. Faith was in his actions.

Birdie

We have to have faith that he exists and rewards those who seek him, BEFORE we draw near to God through our actions. Otherwise, our actions are not pleasing to God. Without faith, our works are never going to be sufficient to please God.

Eagle

@Birdie Are you of the BY Faith alone Doctrine! ?

Birdie

11:48 PM

But faith is defined as an intellectual process, not as an action.

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie But without works, our faith is not faith at all. The two must be together for either one of them to be anything. That is what James explains in his letter.

Birdie

@Eagle certainly :) our salvation is by faith alone, as Romans 3:28 says "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law."

Lee Woofenden

And really God's love is first, prior even to faith. It is by "grace," meaning God's love, that we are saved, through faith, not "by" faith. And that love of God touches our heart first, and from there touches our mind, where we experience it as faith. But the works actually don't come from the faith. They come from the love and proceed through faith.

Birdie

@LeeWoofenden yes, you are correct that without works, faith is dead. But we are not saved by our works, we are saved by our faith in Christ. And even this faith is not a work that we do ourselves; rather, it is a gift of GOd.

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie Umm. . . Romans 3:28 does not say, "For we hold that one is justified by faith alone apart from works of the law." There is no "alone" there. That was added by Luther. It is not in the Bible.

@Birdie No, we are not saved by our faith in Christ. We are saved by Christ, and that happens through our faith.

@Birdie Further, everything is a gift from God:

> I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing. (John 15:5)

Birdie

11:52 PM

@LeeWoofenden Romans 3:28 gives two options for justification: works of the law, and faith. And then says that it is not the works of the law, giving only one option left: faith. "Alone" is implicit. It doesn't need to be specifically mentioned to be as clear as the nose on my face :)

Lee Woofenden

Our faith is not our own. It is God's in us. Our works are not our own. They are God's love working through us. We can take no credit, we get no merit, for anything we believe or anything we do. Neither our faith nor our works saves us. God's love saves us. And God's love saves us when we have faith in him and obey his commandments.

Birdie

Faith is the instrument through which God saves us, clearly. Certainly it is the gift of God, and I am glad we agree on that. But we do not need to and cannot obey his commandments prior to faith leading to salvation.

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie No. Because "the works of the Law" has a specific meaning. And he makes that meaning clear in the context. "The works of the Law" is not everything else besides faith. There are many other things. God's love. God's grace. Our love for our neighbor. Our love for God. Our good deeds for our neighbor. None of these are "the works of the Law." And they are all necessary for our salvation, along with faith.

Birdie

But God specifically says that we are saved by grace, through faith. So God saves us, through the instrument of faith. Not by anything else.

Lee Woofenden

"Faith alone" would even exclude God's grace, which Paul explicitly tells us is what saves us, through faith. Faith alone does nothing at all. Faith alone does not justify us. Faith without works is dead. And dead faith is not faith.

Eagle

11:56 PM

I think both can be wrong.Faith alone is impossible ,you can't have faith without works.And faith and work seems strange also because it sounds like where talking about two things,because faith will guide you into the works that the Lord has created for us.Why no just say faith,why say faith alone or faith and works?

Birdie

"Our love, our good deeds" how are these not the works of the law? There are two great commandments, which are representative of the law, and they specifically have to do with love.

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie Because that's not the "Law" Paul is talking about. He is talking about the law of circumcision. The Ten Commandments don't tell us that we must be circumcised. The Ten Commandments are not part of "circumcision" as Paul uses that term.

Birdie

But you're wrong :P he isn't talking about the law of circumcision. He is talking about the law of Moses, which includes the ten commandments, which Jesus summarised in the two great commandments.

Lee Woofenden

@Birdie The simple fact of the matter is that Paul never says that we are saved or justified by faith alone. And James specifically denies that we are saved by faith alone. The Bible denies it. Paul doesn't say it. It was Luther, not the Bible, who originated the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Birdie

Show me PROOF that he is only talking about the ritual law. You claim it over and over but have not shown it.

"The simple fact of the matter is that Paul never says that we are saved or justified by faith alone. And James specifically denies that we are saved by faith alone." you have repeated this perhaps 20 or more times, but I have shown MULTIPLE times that Romans 3 DOES say we are justified by faith WITHOUT the works of the law. Which is what is meant by faith ALONE.

Transcript for