@Birdie Read the context in Romans, Ephesians, etc. Why does he keep talking about "circumcision"? Then read Acts 15. The context, and the debates with the Jerusalem Christians that Paul, Peter, and the other apostles who were evangelizing in Gentile areas, gives all the context and understanding we need to know what Paul was talking about, and what "Law" he meant.
@Birdie No. That's not what's meant by faith alone. You can't show me a single passage in the Bible that says we are justified or saved by faith alone. That's because we aren't justified by faith alone. That is Luther's teaching, not the Bible's.
If Paul had wanted to say that we are justified or saved by faith alone, he was perfectly capable of doing so. He knew Greek. He knew the Greek word for "alone." He could have specified that the faith he was talking about was faith alone if he had wanted to. But he never did. And the fact that James specifically rejects justification by faith alone is sufficient to be assured that this was not what Paul meant. Otherwise you make the Bible contradict itself.
@Birdie I believe you were looking for Galatians 3 earlier. It covers both faith, works of the law and the requirement to fulfill ALL that is written in the book of the law (so just calling it ritual law is insufficient)
The point is,is faith connected to love?Can you have faith without love? NO,because in faith there is trust and hope.And you can't have love,trust,hope without works,so I think faith are connected to works in the bibel.
I don't think you can say you need works to get saved but there is work in faith
@LeeWoofenden Do you think you have to work on your salvation?
@Eagle I think Jesus focused on the heart a lot because he knew that without a heart and love for God one will not have a real faith. Only such a heart will love God, trust him and follow in his footsteps, doing the good works that HE has prepared. Only a right heart can do good works from love. God judges the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Jesus spent a lot of time preparing the disciples and teaching them about their own hearts so that they could understand when Jesus' work was finished. They would not have understood without that instruction before his death, and likewise they would not have understood if he had tried to explain it all without doing it.
@Joshua Well, there's a little trick about that verse. The original Hebrew does not have "all." That comes from the Septuagint, which is what Paul was referring to. The Hebrew Bible itself is not so restrictive.
@LeeWoofenden You're right...but wrong. The Hebrew is not restrictive, it is inclusive. When it says "and do them" it means "them" and "them" is "all of them" not just some. The translation carries the Hebrew understanding.
@Eagle Well, Philippians does tell us to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12). So yes. That is something we all must do.
@Eagle Nope. I'm.....uhh...Well probably the closest denomination I can identify with is Puritanism, theologically, but even then with a healthy dose of Reformation.
@Joshua The Hebrew is not focused on observing every single law, but rather with establishing and doing the Law. In other words, it is enjoining people to observe and obey the law.
@LeeWoofenden Is there a difference between "whole law" and "every single law"? only in emphasis. I'd say the whole law is a fitting translation. The focus isn't on every single one, but its also assumed it doesn't mean NOT this or that one. It is all.
@LeeWoofenden Wait you really take that as meaning "do good works for your salvation?"
But in general, in Galatians, too, Paul was not speaking of good deads, or of good works in general, He was there, too, speaking of "the works of the Law." This was still part of his argument against the Jerusalem Christians, who believed that followers of Christ must also be circumcised and follow the ritual law of Moses. Once again, read Acts 15.
@Joshua The whole fallacy of the Protestant reading of Paul is not distinguishing "the works of the Law" from "good works." The two are distinct. Unfortunately, Paul uses the word "works" in both senses, and doesn't always add "the Law" to specify which he means. But the context, and his general message, makes it clear which he means in each instance.
Paul does not say we can be saved without doing good works. In fact, he specifically denies this in Romans 2. And Jesus' teaching in Matthew 25:31-46 and many other places in the Gospels should make it crystal clear that if we cannot be saved without doing good works. What Paul is saying is that we can be saved without observing the Jewish law of circumcision, etc.
@Joshua Right. "Circumcision," meaning observing Jewish ritual law, makes no difference anymore. That's what Paul was talking about. He didn't mean, and never said, that faith, faith, and nothing but faith saves us. That would be a total contradiction to his own teachings in many places in his letters, and a total contradiction to everything Jesus teaches in the Gospels.
Paul himself puts love above faith. And he speaks of love as fulfilling the law. And he affirms the law of faith, meaning faithfulness to the spirit of the law. He distinguishes between the law of the flesh and the law of the spirit, or of faith. He simply does not say that we are saved by faith alone. And that dogma contradicts the entire teaching of the Bible.
@LeeWoofenden As far as i know Sweedborgians are not that big on miracles,and Jesus talks about signs that follows the deciples,don't you have a major problem there?
@LeeWoofenden I've read your understanding of Romans 2-3 and its far too involved to get into now, but I definitely disagree. Your understanding seems disjointed from the flow of Paul's overall progression in the book.
@Eagle Signs and miracles were necessary early on, because the people were still very physical-minded and sense-oriented. But as the new covenant of Christianity took hold, and people began to be more spiritual-minded, the miracles faded away because they were no longer necessary to reach people. Jesus said that we would do "greater works than these," meaning our works would not be merely physical miracles, but spiritual miracles of salvation and new life.
@Joshua And your understanding requires reading into Paul things he never said, and ignoring the entire historical context of his letters.
@LeeWoofenden Context does matter, who and for what purpose the books were written matters as well. Would you agree that James is writing to believers? And that Romans is written to a church Paul did not know personally?
@Eagle No, not physical miracles. Though the reality is that there are still many physical-minded, sense-oriented people in the world. So many churches to flourish by doing "miracles" of various kinds that attract such people. But really, physical miracles are for baby Christians. Once Christians begin to grow from physical-minded ("fleshly") to spiritual-minded ("of the spirit") they no longer need physical miracles.
@Eagle The true miracles are the miracles of a new heart of flesh replacing the old heart of stone. In other words, they are inner, spiritual miracles.
When a person's life is transformed from a living death to real life in Christ, that is a true miracle!
@LeeWoofenden I can't disagree more.Dunno where to start.I think its clear,we are here like Jesus to show God's kingdom to the world with power and healing and destroy the works of the devil.That Jesus did overcome.Why can't a spiritual minded person be healed of cancer?
Off course the change in Christ is a miracle but why not both?
@Joshua I would say that the New Testament in general is addressed primarily to believers. Not understanding this leads to many misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the text. These were books written by the early apostles to strengthen the faith of believers and give them instruction.
@Eagle It's possible. But being healed of cancer is nowhere near as great a miracle as being turned around from an evil, hell-bound life to a good, heaven-bound life. Being cured of cancer affects our life here an earth. And if we can be physically cured, it is a good thing. But being saved from eternal death is a far greater miracle.
I don't reject physical miracles. I simply don't think they are anywhere near as important as spiritual miracles. One is temporary. The other is permanent.
@LeeWoofenden yes ,but to say to someone sick,Hey! don't be sad your saved and going to heaven ! Is just not the Kingdom of heaven message.The gospel is much better,there is more and there should be many more miracles!And a gift in the spirit,it is for people of strong faith to work in that gift! And this is a part of the permanent message of the kingdom of God
Much of my christian life about 17 years,has been trying to understand my faith.And most of all.. where is the miracles? And i have seen them so I know there HERE TODAY.But im studying still to understand why there is not more of them
I think it is because the lack of faith.. a faith in living holy and to live in the reality of God's kingdom is to heavy for people who want to live both in the world and in the spirit
@LeeWoofenden Can you show me the passages that clearly delineate between ritual law and the moral law, and also passages that clearly show that circumcision only refers to the ritual law, and also passages that clearly show that when Paul refers to the Book of the Law or the works of the law or the law of Moses that he is not referring to the moral law?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how people in both the NT and OT are saved, and I'm not sure that I can convince you of this as you don't seem to show any desire to change your beliefs, but I do pray that the Spirit will work in you to show you the truth of the Scriptures :) I will continue trying for now though.
@Eagle I don't believe so I find it to be a notch on the Skeptics side of the board. But from my understanding of theology there should be too many to count.
@Joshua Yes, if God is so perfectly capable of communicating truth to us, why does he need anyone else at all? Shouldn't personal revelation be the only source of truth?
@fredsbend I'm not sure what your and curiousdanii's beef is with that edit to be honest. The wording of the unedited sentence seemed clumsy - it implies denying even the true return of Christ (if such a thing were possible).
@bruisedreed I think it's fine now. An improvement, certainly.
But what the anon. user submitted was not an improvement at all. It was a little hard to make sense of it, actually, and with the comment:
> I see no reason why He would not claim His name and title. If the reasoning is concerning His statement that there will be false claimants and prophets showing great signs and wonders, that is not saying that one claimant will be telling the truth. Also, he will surely show signs and wonders Himself
it seemed like he was trying to reply or something.
I guess I could have clicked reject and edit, then fixed it myself, but I didn't really want to commit to that. Sometimes the review queue only shows you part of the post being edited. I don't know if it's only a few paragraphs or 20.
The most upvoted question :"This question exists because it has historical significance, but it is not considered a good, on-topic question for this site, so please do not use it as evidence that you can ask similar questions here."
@Eagle There are lots of questions that were asked in August and September of 2011 that got tons of votes because the site was brand new. It didn't take long before folks started realizing that there are lots of questions on the site that don't work well for this format, but since the content was already there, some of those very old, very popular questions got locked instead of deleted.
@Eagle Read some of the really old meta posts sometime, or talk to people like Caleb and Flimzy – they'll have a different take on it =). There are lots of online forums where people can ask basically anything they want. Here, we are more strict, and it results in a cleaner site where it is easier to get actual answers, instead of discussion.
@Eagle Yes, it might. But the way I look at it is that C.SE is one tool in my toolbox for getting my questions answered. Sometimes I have a personal issue – for that I talk to my pastor or a friend. Sometimes I just want to discuss things – for that I talk to a friend, or perhaps post on a discussion forum. Sometimes I just want an answer to a specific question – for that I use C.SE.
@Nathaniel I wish there was a bibel verse against shouting preachers,when they shout the whole sermon you get so tierd.If you listen to shouting preachers you have to come here to ask questions
so you can get a calm answer
A site like this tells us that we are not getting all the answers in church and that people are doing alot of studying at home
That's true. I don't like burdening my pastor with all my theological and philosophical and historical questions, when he has more important things to do like comfort the sick and confront sinners. This site is well-suited for intellectual/academic questions.
I wish there was a more mystical conversation also and deep spiritual questions was asked.Most is on doctrine and church fathers.You do not really get under the skin alot.
I did call my pastor on a saturday night,i did not think before i made the call,so i was burdening my pastor.Stupid of me.
But pastors today do often not have deep theological insight,sometimes just nice guys taking the job
@Eagle It depends on your church. In my denomination, all pastors have to graduate from seminary and then pass rigorous exams on theology and the Bible, among other things.
"Deep spiritual questions" are indeed difficult to make work here, unless they can be generalized in some way. Care for one's spiritual health should always rest on people in real life (pastors, friends, etc.), not internet strangers.
@Birdie The Bible is not a theological treatise, nor is it a dictionary. It does not provide a list of the definitions that it uses of "the Law," nor does it provide a detailed analysis of the various kinds of laws and their precise boundaries and relationships to one another. These things are implicit rather than explicit. We must glean them from the context.
@Birdie However, it is not very difficult to notice that the Bible does use "the Law" differently in different contexts simply by reading the various usages of that term throughout the text and noticing what it is applied to. Doing so here would take far too much time and space. However, my friend Swedenborg provides the basics, along with a solid list of references for two out of the three levels of meaning of the Law, in specific reference to what Paul means by "the works of the Law."
You can find this explanation and supporting references in his work True Christianity#288. (By "the Word" he means the Bible.)
Short version: "the Law" has (at least) three meanings and applications, from narrow to broad: 1. The Ten Commandments 2. The rules that Moses gave to the children of Israel 3. The entire Bible
Swedenborg provides quotes from the Bible illustrating the second and third. He took it as a commonly known fact that in the narrowest sense "the Law" refers to the Ten Commandments. If you really need "proof" of that, I could dig up references for you. But it is actually quite a common way to refer to the Ten Commandments in the Bible.
Paul, he says, is clearly, from the context in his letters, using "the works of the Law" in the second meaning: the rules that Moses gave to the children of Israel.
Really, it's amazing to me that we even have to have this argument. It's so obvious what Paul was talking about from everything he writes, and from the controversy detailed in Acts 15, that this shouldn't even be an issue for discussion. Paul was arguing that Christians don't have to be observant Jews. This should be a no-brainer.
@Eagle I was agreeing with you that a lack of Miracles is a problem. There should be many many miracles, considering how many Christians there are. I was pointing out though that I'm not a believer so I don't need to justify my faith. Instead the lack of Miracles looks like evidence that Christianity is false.
Jesus himself considered the miracles, and physical proofs in general, to be a lower level thing for the common people. After his resurrection his words to Thomas make it clear that those who must have physical proof are nowhere near at the level of those who see things from an inner perspective.
@fredsbend Your not grasping this is a major part of the reason you have rejected Christianity. You are expecting some sort of physical, visible, or audible proof of the reality of God and spirit.
@fredsbend As I said, I'm not opposed to miracles. And if anything, the number of miracles claimed by various Christians today far exceeds anything described in the New Testament. I'm saying, rather, that our eternal health / salvation is far more important than our temporary, physical health.
In fact, many times it is critical illness and death that finally brings people to consider "ultimate things" and turn their life toward God, or at least toward a life of love and benevolence rather than of self-centeredness, greed, and personal pleasure.
If God were to heal these people, they would be physically better, but they would be spiritually worse. They would just go back to whatever they were doing before, which was generally living in a stupid and foolish way.
@Joshua I know. I asked me a similar question just a bit earlier and it was also starred. But I'm turning the tables on everybody. Why is anybody needed at all if God is able to reveal truth to us personally? Why would God choose to not reveal truth to us personally?
God operates from an eternal perspective and for eternal goals.
@fredsbend This assumes that most individuals are open to such communication. Most are not. They may think they are, but in fact they are focused entirely on material things such as making the money to pay the rent, or getting drunk, or having sex. These people are simply not listening to any voice from God from within.
That's why an external, written revelation is necessary.
@LeeWoofenden I don't know which claimed Miracles you're thinking of, but the ones I always hear are somebody with some sort of internal medical problem, receiving Medical Care, then they get better and thank God instead of the doctor.
@fredsbend Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. You've boxed yourself into a corner, and even though people are opening up doors for you all over the place, you refuse to walk through.
How's that for mixing metaphors?!?
@fredsbend If you go by reported miracles, as I said, there are far more today than the number of miracles that are reported in the Gospels. But presumably you don't believe they are miracles at all, but simply the working out of biological processes. So on the one hand, you demand miracles, and on the other hand, you reject every reported miracle as not really a miracle.
@Joshua we can hardly explain how the disease works. Why should explaining recovery be possible? Much in the same way recovery from flu 300 years ago was also a "miracle".
What did the Children of Israel do after they saw all the miraculous things happening at Mt. Sinai? They made a golden calf and worshiped it. Clearly, the miracles they saw with their own eyes, heard with their own ears, and that caused them to shake in their sandals had very little lasting effect on them.
@fredsbend hmm...there are a lot of things going on under the surface there. You at the same time seem to suggest a doctor wouldn't understand a cancer that he just told someone would kill them within 5 months, and suggesting a flu was the equivalent to our cancer 300 years ago which makes me question some of your historical suppositions
> Eagle I was agreeing with you that a lack of Miracles is a problem. There should be many many miracles, considering how many Christians there are. I was pointing out though that I'm not a believer so I don't need to justify my faith. Instead the lack of Miracles looks like evidence that Christianity is false.
@fredsbend I absolutely put criteria on what my 3 year old must do if he wants to communicate to me...if he walks up and declares I want some juice, I reply "what? Try again"
@fredsbend And when I've given a command or made a decision, at some point I stop responding to his complaints. The communication has already been given.
@fredsbend It's all a matter of what you expect to get. What God wants to give you isn't necessarily what you want to receive. And if there's a mismatch, is it really God's job to change his mind and give you what you want instead of what God knows is good for you?
@Joshua even if I concede that all of those are miracles, there is a Darth of Miracles for people who have obvious external ailments like a missing limb. They are never healed apparently.
In fact, the whole problem of a fallen humanity is that our will is generally diametrically opposed to God's will. So what God wants to give us is exactly the opposite of what we want to receive from God.
@fredsbend Ooh, that's a juicy speech engine fail! ;-)
@bruisedreed no don't buy that. God could choose to be heard of he wanted. And in Revelation makes sure he's heard with the sound of trumpets and so forth. This kind of explanation doesn't fit with the eschatology in Revelation.
@fredsbend And yet, the majority of humans on earth don't believe anything that's said in Revelation. Or if they do, they've got weird, superstitious ideas about it.
@fredsbend And what about those Israelites making a golden calf less than two months after hearing God's voice booming from the mountain, "Thou shalt not make for thyself any graven image"?
@fredsbend But it's we that are actually doing the choosing - God knows our hearts better than we do. You have said you'd like a personal revelation of God in the past. But that was on your terms - if God were to reveal himself in the way He wants to reveal himself to you, you would reject Him at greater cost to yourself.
@LeeWoofenden I agree that miracles always had a specific purpose. They were to identify or to overrule, but never to convince and certainly not to impart lasting faith somehow
@fredsbend Just to be contrarian, I think God actually wanted you to lose your faith, because it was a superficial faith, and was not doing you any good. To provide you with some miracle or audible voice or clear proof of his presence would have been to confirm you in a false, superficial, materialistic, and literal-minded faith that simply doesn't suit you and would not bring you to where God wanted you to go.
From what you've said, in your current lack of faith you're a lot better person than you were than you were a Christian. I'd call that an improvement.
@Joshua Agreed. Miracles don't provide lasting faith. That requires inner change and conviction.
This is why the most drastic miracles we do hear of today happen in the darker corners of the world. Now you can be a skeptic and say they just didn't happen, but I those cases it is to overcome the existing beliefs. Like Elijah on the mountain vs Baal
@fredsbend When God reveals himself, it changes people. You have to ask yourself "am I ready to be changed according to the will of another, or do I prefer to stay the way I am, or at least control the manner and pace of my own destiny?"
Jesus himself did them to prove his identity as being of God and to often make specific points (healing on the Sabbath, spitting to make mud on the Sabbath, giving preference to the poor and lame, etc)
@Joshua Yes. I think miracles still happen where people are at the lowest ebb spiritually, and are of the most earthly mindset. Those are the people for whom miracles have an effect.
@fredsbend Enjoy the fair! Do some pig calling for me! ;-)
@LeeWoofenden Now I do accept another category of miracle but it is more personal and not for public show. The healing the doctors don't understand. The accident that should have killed you by all reasonable evidence.
These are the things you start to become more aware of as you become more aware of God's presence. Most people are tripping through life head down, oblivious to the miracles around them and the revelation he has given even as they are saying "God doesn't care about us, he can talk to me if he really wants me"
@Joshua Agreed about miracles. I do think God is active even in our physical life. But I don't think miracles are about giving faith to faithless people.
I would agree. Reading through John 11, towards the end it describes people who know for a fact Jesus just raised someone from the dead, and how they then plotted to get rid of Jesus in the hopes to avoid troubles from Rome.
I wonder if Lord of the rings,Narnia,and many other movies are prophetic,not just because they had Christian writers but maybe they are prophetic .Maybe God is talking to the world in movies.
@Eagle In much the same way the Bible is The Living Word (In this context I mean God can teach us many different things at many different points in time, using the same scripture), I think that God can use anything to teach us. I remember God using some random movie I watched called "Listen to your heart" to really hit me with a couple things.
@LeeWoofenden Observant Jews were observant on the basis of their following the ten commandments, which are further expounded in the rest of the Mosaic law. Not on their following of the Mosaic law minus the ten commandments.
My basic position is that both in the New and Old Testaments, nobody was saved by following the works of the law. They were all saved by faith in Christ (whose incarnation was either future or past for most of the Bible), and then obeyed the commandments of God after the fact. Plenty of people obeyed the commandments of God outwardly but had no inward faith, and those were not saved. This is because they did not and could not obey the commandments perfectly.
An important part of this is that the commandments of God ALL applied equally to all the people of God at a particular point of history. That is, the entirety of humanity at the time of Moses became subject to the Mosaic law, and were guilty through not following it perfectly. Without faith in Christ, which would then be followed by becoming an Israelite (through circumcision and following the Mosaic law), they could not be saved.
But the faith in Christ is what saved them; the works of the law were only a proof of that faith. Without the works of the law proceeding forth afterwards, there was no evidence that God had saved them and renewed their hearts from hearts of stone into hearts of flesh that desired to obey God.
In the New Testament, the state of Israel, along with many laws specific to Israel, and other laws not specific to Israel, were specifically said to no longer be important to follow (circumcision, physical location of Israel being important, temple worship, clean and unclean foods etc.). But nowhere does it say that the law in its entirety was removed or replaced.
It had the same functions then as it has now: as a scourge to our conscience to drive us to Christ (because if we didn't know the law how could we know our sin?), as a picture of the character of God, and as a guide to life after salvation.
But at no point does our following the works of the law ever save us or have any impact on our salvation. It is only important AFTER the act of salvation, which is carried out by God alone, that the law becomes important as a guide to life. Because, having been saved from eternal destruction, what else should we do but ask of God "what do I do to make you happy?"
This is the same for the Israelites, the same for the early church, the same for Adam and Noah, and the same for us today. Obedience to the law of God is impossible; salvation through faith in Christ is possible.
The Upper Room
The Upper Room