« first day (1834 days earlier)      last day (2793 days later) » 

12:01 AM
@curiousdannii I wonder how much was read before the son of man was thrown out. Yet when does the son of man have a place to rest his head?
 
@fredsbend I think the penal substitution makes a lot of sense from a shame culture too, not just a guilt culture. God's honour has been attacked by sin, and though he may forgive people, his own honour must be seen to be upheld. God punishes to show he is the powerful king he says he is, but he absorbs that punishment himself showing that he is not shamed to be reconciled to his subjects.
Without penal substitution then either we never truly shame ourselves or God (which is what many people who reject PSA would think) or God's honour is not worthy of being upheld.
I think that our views of the atonement are dependent on our views of sin: whether our sin truly shames and offends God
 
12:34 AM
@fredsbend i think you're aware the Catholic Church is against the penal substitution concept; I'll have to look into its arguments against and see what you make of them.
 
@curiousdannii Let's put into the perspective of a wife that spends to much on the credit card. He knows that she goes to counseling every Saturday, and that the other girls talk all day long about how they appreciate their husbands, and their all very sad that the husband constantly gets upset about how much they spend.
They talk about how they plan on spending less, and come to agreement every Saturday.
Then during the week, the spending spree continues, and they feel that they can not control themselves.
Again and again the husband tells them about the spending spree.
Then one day he disguised himself as a woman, and went to the counseling session.
He came saying, "Stop your spending! And receive forgiveness!"
I am the credit card bill, I come to start arguments, and cause division.
You must hear what I say and stop your spending.
Who ever loves the items in the store more then me is not worthy of the low credit card bill.
You must think of me always!
Whoever thinks of me thinks of the husband.
Whoever denies me, denies the husband as well.
Then he makes plans to die on a cross.
Showing how we need to crucify the credit card bill.
But when the women went home, they thought to themselves, the credit card bill was crucified, lets go shopping!
Then the credit card bill came, and they felt deceived.
Thinking that liar, he said there would be peace if we believed him.
Some people said, "He was talking about a credit card bill after we die."
Yet if unable to realize the metaphorical usage in this example, here is the key:
The husband = God
The husband disguised himself as a woman = Jesus in the form of a man.
The credit card bill = life or the lack there of.
Shopping = sin
The counseling every Saturday = Church
@LeeWoofenden The works, that stopping the shopping spree.
 
12:55 AM
@curiousdannii Each will die for his own sin. That's pretty solid. Sin is non-transferable.
@MattGutting I'd be interested to read it.
@curiousdannii Do you oppose or support psa doctrine? If you support it then how do you explain the verses I listed above especially the two in Hebrews.
@MattGutting I thought that the Catholics believe that the super abundant works of Christ and the works of the Saints are transferred to us, thereby justifying us.
So the Catholics believe that works outweigh sins and that is what saves us. And further works are transferable. Exactly how seems mystery.
Honestly that seems like the same thing only you're doing someone else's community service instead of claiming an execution sentence.
 
1:14 AM
@fredsbend Would you like to understand why sex gets picked out with highly restrictive rules on it?
 
Sure.
 
2:02 AM
@fredsbend As the old saying goes, one man's crap is another man's ice cream. :-D
 
2:41 AM
I believe there's another saying about not thinking one's own crap stinks?
 
3:14 AM
@Joshua Never worked for me . . . .
@fredsbend Have you really never encountered the Dick and Jane readers?
@fredsbend Who ever said that reading comprehension is simple? It's an enormously complex process. And for the most part, it works quite well. So much so that we ordinarily have no awareness of just how complex the process actually is.
But it's still a different process than interpretation of the text.
 
@fredsbend Jealousy. "...for the LORD "Jealousy his name", tis God of Jealousy" (Exodus 34:14)
 
@fredsbend The Bible, also, is a complex books. Some parts are simple and straightforward. Others are poetic, mystical, and so on. What I'm saying is that the parts that tell us what we must believe and do in order to be saved are simple and straightforward. The Creation story in Genesis 1 is not one of those parts.
@fredsbend Hebrews 10:10 says nothing at all about Jesus paying the penalty for our sins. Why would we read it that way?
@fredsbend Once again, Ephesians 5:2 and Hebrews 7:27 say nothing at all about Jesus paying the penalty for our sin. Injecting that idea into those texts is entirely unwarranted.
Christ died for several reasons:
1. It was an integral part of his final battle against the power of evil.
2. It was an integral part of his process of "glorification," or becoming fully divine.
3. It showed humans on earth that God has power even over death.
4. It showed the nature of God's love for us: that God is willing to lay down his life for us.
I could list more, but these ones are key. None of them have anything to do with paying the penalty for our sin--something the Bible says in no passage at all, from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22. Penal substitution is purely a human invention.
@fredsbend The Gospel makes perfect sense without penal substitution. With penal substitution it makes God into a monster, for all the reasons you've indicated, and more.
Articles with some explanation of what the redemption accomplished by Christ actually was and is: Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit? starting with the section titled, "What is Redemption?"
A more personal and human view: The Logic of Love: Why God became Jesus, especially starting with the section titled, "What would you do?"
But if you really want to understand these things, I'd recommend reading the first several chapters of True Christianity, by Emanuel Swedenborg, especially chapter 2, on "The Lord the Redeemer" and "Redemption."
Penal substitution is utterly unnecessary to understand the Gospels. That's why it is taught nowhere in the Bible.
 
3:32 AM
@fredsbend Therefore what does reason say provokes the wrath of Jealousy concerning sex? How about the self experience say the truth to the self. What does indeed need done to please the Jealousy? This explains the law "Do to others as you would have them do to you." If Jealousy arises from the cross when that man looks at the wife. Why should I look at another man's wife? However its good that Jealousy dies. And what needs to happen to have the living sacrifice of Jealousy happen?
 
@LeeWoofenden I disagree - it's a unbroken continuum, from the most basic levels of word identification through to post-feminist applications (or whatever)
 
@curiousdannii We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. Unfortunately, your position means that the Bible doesn't actually mean anything intrinsically. It means only what we "interpret" it to mean. And that means we can "derive" whatever doctrine we want from it. I reject that view of the Bible.
 
@LeeWoofenden Nonsense. Of course it has intrinsic God-inspired meaning. I've never said anything other than that. I've never said we can derive whatever doctrine we want from it.
@fredsbend Hebrews 7:27 and 10:10? I think they are both compatible with PSA, but are also compatible with other views of the atonement.
 
@fredsbend But the Bible never says that God punished Jesus instead of us. It says that Jesus suffered for our sins, was crushed for our iniquity, and so on. But that's a function of human evil venting its deadly wrath on Jesus. Unfortunately, understanding these things requires some study. If you really want to know what it is all about, read Swedenborg's True Christianity. Or at least spend some time in conversation with me so that I have a chance to explain it to you.
@curiousdannii But you are deriving critical doctrines that the Bible nowhere states in its own words. And you deny that the Bible can even say things in its own words. You say that we must interpret those words, so that even if the plain literal meaning is one thing, they can mean something completely different.
 
@LeeWoofenden Where does the Bible state in its own words that "God chooses all of us and some of us accept it"?
 
3:40 AM
@curiousdannii Despite the fact that the Bible explicitly denies justification by faith alone, you say that's what the Bible teaches.
@curiousdannii I've never claimed that everything I believe is stated in the plain words of Scripture. What I've said is that the teachings critical to our eternal salvation are stated in the plain words of the Bible.
 
@LeeWoofenden I'm denying that the plain literal meaning of a text is a meaningful concept. Nothing is self-evident, it all takes work to uncover. Sometimes the amount of work is little more than basic reading comprehension, sometimes it takes more. But the Christian Bible interpreter is never to do any more than uncover that meaning.
@LeeWoofenden So who decides what counts as "Critical"?????
 
> I'm denying that the plain literal meaning of a text is a meaningful concept.
Precisely. You're denying that the Bible is able to say something plainly and clearly in its own words.
 
@LeeWoofenden Not at all, and if you think I think that then you clearly haven't been listening!
 
And it is necessary for you to deny that because your doctrines are explicitly rejected in the plain literal meaning of the Bible.
 
I guess for you every text has a plain literal meaning, and then there are deeper allegorical meanings on top of many passages.
 
3:43 AM
@curiousdannii You just told me that "Nothing is self-evident, it all takes work to uncover." How else can I understand that but as a denial that the Bible is able to say anything plainly and clearly. In order to understand anything in the Bible, according to you, we must "work" to uncover the meaning. So there is no plain meaning at all.
 
Look at it through the eyes of Jealousy, and all becomes clear.
 
@LeeWoofenden Did you read the following sentence? Sometimes the amount of work to uncover the meaning is little more than basic reading comprehension. But that still counts. The Bible isn't written in an unambiguous symbollic language like Lojban
 
@curiousdannii In some passages the literal meaning is obscure, probably because there are cultural idioms and practices that we're not familiar with. But none of those passages affect the basic, clear message of salvation. And yes, I believe there are deeper meanings in all of the passages. But that's not where we get fundamental Christian doctrine. Doctrine should be drawn from the literal meaning.
@curiousdannii Basic reading comprehension does not require any work. Once we learn to read, and learn the vocabulary, we can simply read effortlessly. Sure, our brain is working. But it's more like our brain is functioning. It's not laboring and finding the work difficult. It's simply doing what it does: reading and understanding the text, and conveying that meaning to our thinking mind.
 
@LeeWoofenden I agree. Our brains are functioning. There is a scale of how quickly and how consciously we read texts. Some are simple, some are tricky. But none of it is written in Lojban. We always, whether consciously or unconsciously, are reading, comprehending, and interpreting.
 
@LeeWoofenden Without faith in Jesus, nothing would stop my Jealousy short of perfect retribution.
 
3:49 AM
There is always the possibility that we read it ineptly, that we miss the point, that we make mistakes, that we jump to an understanding that was not intended.
 
@fredsbend What Paul is saying here is much simpler. People opposed to God and God's ways find the message of the Gospels to be idiotic. But those who accept and believe in Jesus Christ find it to be full of meaning and power.
@curiousdannii But some parts of it are very easy to read and understand. The parts that tell us what we must believe and do to be saved are among those easy-to-understand parts. We don't need to "interpret" them in the usual sense of that word. The meaning is plain right on the surface.
 
@LeeWoofenden I agree.
 
@LeeWoofenden Believing that Jesus will do the vengeance for me, brings me peace.
 
@LeeWoofenden Many things are very simple. But you can't take that to then decide that all things which seem like they have a simple meaning and interpretation must most definitely have that simple meaning and interpretation.
 
@curiousdannii And I believe that is precisely what Protestant theology has done. Read it ineptly, missed the point, made mistakes, and jumped to an understanding that was not intended. And it did that because it ignored the plain teaching of Jesus Christ, and ignored the historical context of Paul's writings, and imposed an entirely alien doctrine on the Bible that is taught nowhere in the Bible itself.
 
3:51 AM
The simple reading of James 2:24 is contrary to sola fide, but you can't simply assert that the simple reading is correct. Because every passage has a simple reading.
 
@curiousdannii Once again, it appears to me that you are calling into question our ability to read and understand the Bible because you must do so in order to justify doctrines that are taught nowhere in the Bible, and are, in fact, explicitly denied in the Bible. If you were willing to accept the Bible's own plain teaching about salvation, you would have no need to continually fall back on "everything must be interpreted."
 
Faith without the works OF GOD has no value. Yet indeed what God does has value.
 
@curiousdannii You can if there is nowhere else in the Bible that says that we are saved by faith alone. If the Bible actually had contradictory statements on this point, then we'd have to fall back on interpretation. But it doesn't. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we are justified by faith alone. And in the absence of such a statement, James's statement is definitive.
Paul simply does not say that we are justified by faith alone. And he very well could have said that if that's what he meant.
 
We are justified by what God does
Present tense.
 
I continue to find it astounding that Protestantism insists upon a doctrine that is nowhere stated in the Bible, but is explicitly rejected in the Bible.
 
@curiousdannii It's not a logical fallacy to say, "Show me the passage where the Bible says that we are justified by faith alone." Especially when there is a passage that explicitly denies that we are justified by faith alone.
 
@LeeWoofenden Seriously, you can't conclude that we teach a doctrine which is not intended because we imposed a doctrine that's not taught.
 
@curiousdannii I can if that doctrine is explicitly rejected. If the Bible explicitly rejects a doctrine, and nowhere states that doctrine, then we can safely conclude that the Bible does not intend nor teach that doctrine.
 
@LeeWoofenden "And without faith it is impossible to please God..." (Hebrews 11:6a)
 
@LeeWoofenden You can argue that a doctrine is rejected, but you can't take a slogan, show that the opposite of the slogan is written, and conclude that the full doctrine is rejected.
 
3:58 AM
@fredsbend I agree that the church has imposed all sorts of unrealistic and ridiculously restrictive rules on its adherents. Most of those rules aren't actually in the Bible. The Bible is actually far more pragmatic about sex than traditional and conservative Christianity is.
 
@LeeWoofenden To demonstrate that a doctrine is rejected you have to show that the theology is denied, not just the words.
 
@curiousdannii I can if that "slogan" is the core, foundational soteriological doctrine of the church. And despite your apparent dismissal of sola fide as a "slogan," you stick doggedly to that slogan, and you parry and reject any attempts to weaken it in any way. So "methinks the gentleman doth protest too much." It's not just a slogan. It's the core of your doctrine.
 
There are arguments that James 2 denies the theology of sola fide, but they are arguments, not just an assertion that the words "not by faith alone" mean the whole thing is rejected.
@LeeWoofenden Lee, only you believe that core critical doctrines have to be stated in the literal words of the Bible.
Is that a Swedenborgian belief? It would be worth a question on the site.
 
@curiousdannii Yes. And that is actually surprising to me. I thought that Protestants actually believed that their doctrine must be stated plainly in Scripture. I'm discovering that I was wrong about that. And that truly is surprising to me.
 
@LeeWoofenden Why would you be surprised? We believe in the Trinity! The word Trinity never occurs of course! Nor even the conventional definitions of one essence and three persons
 
4:03 AM
I'm beginning to think that the Swedenborgian Church may be the only church on the face of the earth that insists that basic Christian doctrine must be stated plainly in the Bible's own words.
 
@LeeWoofenden Probably
 
@curiousdannii Apparently I was taken in by all the Protestant Bible thumping. Somehow I thought that meant they believed their doctrines were stated plainly in Scripture.
 
@LeeWoofenden Sure, we tend to "literal" readings as opposed to allegory, but we're not full literalists
 
But by now I've had too many conversations with Protestants in which they say, "That's what the Bible teaches," and I say, "Where?" and they quote me a whole pile of passages that don't actually teach that thing.
 
I can't bring peace. Good night.
 
4:05 AM
@LeeWoofenden In your interpretation they don't teach them. In theirs, those passages do. There's no objective judge of literalness, so that's when we start weighing up the arguments on both sides.
 
I find it highly ironic that Swedenborg, who is reviled by traditional Christians for his spiritual interpretations of Scripture, is actually the most thoroughgoing in insisting that Christian doctrine must be drawn from the literal meaning of the Bible.
@curiousdannii That's where you and I disagree. I think the Bible has a plain, literal meaning, which isn't subject to interpretation. It only requires reading comprehension. And yes, I'm aware that some passages in the Bible are difficult to understand. But most of them are not.
 
@LeeWoofenden Well all I can say to that is that the idea of "the literal meaning of the Bible" is nonsensical. Literalness never works.
 
@curiousdannii This statement, too, I find to be astounding.
It's tantamount to denying that the Bible has the capability of saying anything at all in its own words.
And that is tantamount to denying that God has the ability to say anything at all in God's own words.
 
@LeeWoofenden Not at all. It just means that it wasn't written in Lojban, so it all requires interpretation.
 
It is becoming clear to me that in reality, Protestantism has accepted the Catholic doctrine that the church can determine the meaning of the Bible, except that it devolves it down to particular theologians, who are given the power to determine what the Bible means. The apple really didn't fall as far from the tree as it appeared to.
 
4:09 AM
@LeeWoofenden Not at all. God invented human language, and for reasons known only to him, he didn't give us unambiguous language, but language of depth, ambiguity, and the possibility of misinterpretation.
@LeeWoofenden We don't determine the meaning of the Bible in the sense of inventing it. We uncover the meaning. But unlike the Catholic church, there is no infallible or definitive guide to that. We're all on an equal standing, even the Pope.
 
In fact, the more I learn about Catholic and Protestant doctrine, the more I realize that doctrinally, Protestantism is largely Catholicism, but with some additional twisting of the Bible's meaning.
@curiousdannii I think Protestantism does invent meaning. And the key doctrines that differentiate it from Catholicism are cases in point. None of them are stated in the Bible's own words. All of them began with known Protestant theologians at a particular point in history.
 
The wikipedia page for the New church says "Scripture will not be properly understood without doctrine, and doctrines of the church should be confirmed from scripture. True doctrine can only be known to those who are in enlightenment from the Lord" Is this accurate?
@LeeWoofenden Okay yes some, many people do invent doctrines. We all do in some sense, because we all have wrong beliefs. But Protestantism believes that there is true doctrine and true interpretation out there, even if we struggle to identify it at times.
 
@curiousdannii That's not quite how Swedenborg puts it. But it's not too far off. And "enlightenment from the Lord" is not as rarefied as it seems. For Swedenborg, "enlightenment" is tied in with a true and humble desire to love the Lord and love the neighbor. It is not a function of superior education.
 
@LeeWoofenden That's not true. Christ Alone for example is surely taught in the "Bible's own words" in 1 Tim 2:5
@LeeWoofenden So basic reading comprehension isn't enough? Basic reading comprehension would lead to heresy without knowing the doctrine of the church?
 
@curiousdannii I don't see "Christ alone" there. It says Christ is the one mediator. But mediation is not salvation. Regardless, I don't find "Christ alone" to be as objectionable as some of the other Solas. God is indeed the source of everything, and the only one who actually does anything in an ultimate sense. All of our doing is secondary and derived--though we are able to twist it into something it was never intended to be, thus "creating" evil.
 
4:16 AM
@LeeWoofenden The doctrine of Christ Alone is that Christ is the only mediator between us and Christ!
 
@curiousdannii Anyone who reads the Bible with a sincere desire to love God and love the neighbor can easily understand the Bible's basic teachings about salvation. It doesn't require theologians. Unfortunately, people's minds have been confused by false doctrines, which may require theologians to straighten them out.
But in the absence of false doctrine, "enlightenment" comes to those who sincerely wish to love God and love the neighbor, and who approach and read the Bible with that goal and intention.
@curiousdannii I still don't know why there has to be an "alone" on all the basic doctrines. It really isn't biblical. It's a human invention.
 
Acts 4:12 would be another verse for the salvation-is-only-through-Christ sense of Christ Alone (which is not the one I was taught, I don't know how common it is)
@LeeWoofenden We don't put it on all basic doctrines. Only five of them, of which only two would I really classify as "basic" (to the gospel)
 
@curiousdannii Luther's fundamental error was faith alone. I suspect that all of the other solas followed from that one, mimicking it.
@curiousdannii But faith alone is really the fundamental doctrine of Protestantism.
That is what makes Protestantism Protestantism.
 
With Grace Alone yes. The belief that the only basis of our salvation is the grace of God, to which we contribute nothing, which we obtain only by faith and not through the sacraments or our works, is the fundamental belief of Protestantism.
 
The key distinguishing characteristic, though, is faith alone. All Christian churches believe that we are saved by God's grace, or love. They differ primarily on the means by which God saves us. Protestants limit it to faith. Other Christians don't. So once again, it is faith alone that makes Protestantism Protestantism.
 
4:25 AM
@LeeWoofenden The Catholic Church still denies grace alone. Matt Gutting explained their position yesterday.
 
@curiousdannii Okay, they don't add an "alone" to it. But they still believe in salvation by grace. They reject faith alone, believing instead that we are saved by faith and works together.
Really, "grace alone" is nonsensical. And like faith alone, it is nowhere stated in the Bible. God's grace does not work alone. It works through means. Even Protestantism believes that grace works through faith. So it is not "alone." Nothing God does is "alone."
 
@LeeWoofenden "means" is a very broad word. The means of salvation include the scriptures, preaching, the work of the Spirit to regenerate us and produce repentance within us.
@LeeWoofenden Grace alone does not mean that God's grace works alone! If you can say that it only proves you don't understand the doctrine you are arguing against.
 
And though it's a bit tangential, I do think it's significant that the very first use of "alone" in the Bible gives it a negative meaning:
 
@LeeWoofenden Grace alone means the only basis is grace
 
> It is not good that the man should be alone. (Genesis 2:18)
 
4:29 AM
Grace alone means we never merit any aspect of our salvation.
 
@curiousdannii No. It proves that "grace alone" and "faith alone" are mere playing with words, without any real meaning. "We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone." Just word play. It has no connection with any reality.
@curiousdannii You don't need to use the word "alone" to convey that meaning. Adding "alone" everywhere is unnecessary and unwarranted.
 
@LeeWoofenden I agree that we don't need to use the word alone to convey that meaning. And I've already said that we don't add alone to everything.
 
It's all those non-biblical and anti-biblical "alones" that I object to. They skew and obscure the meaning of the Bible's words. They add a word that is not in the text. And all the word adds is confusion.
@curiousdannii And yet . . . you are utterly unwilling to drop the word "alone" from critical components of your doctrine. Even though the Bible itself doesn't use the word "alone" in its statements on those subjects. It was Luther, not the Bible, that insisted on those "alones." And Protestants have been adding them to the Bible's words ever since. Very unfortunate.
 
@LeeWoofenden Well, deal with it? They were slogans that were derived in the context of the medieval Catholic church which taught that our actions did in part merit our salvation, that we could obtain the grace of God through the sacrifices, and that Mary, the saints, and the priesthood needed to mediate between us and Christ.
 
And also very unfortunate is the fact that I have to get some sleep. Good night!
 
4:34 AM
@LeeWoofenden What would you like me to do? Rewrite every church history book? Rewrite every systematic theology textbook to teach the doctrine of "We Don't Merit Any Part Of Our Salvation (The Doctrine Previously Known By The Name Grace Alone)"? What a pointless exercise that would be.
@LeeWoofenden Good night! I'll hopefully have a question on the critical doctrines being stated plainly ready for when you wake up :)
@LeeWoofenden (Though some pop level books probably do have chapters with titles like "We Don't Merit Our Salvation" rather than "Grace Alone")
 
5:10 AM
"What I'm saying is that the parts that tell us what we must believe and do in order to be saved are simple and straightforward." how do you know that though? Does it say anywhere in the Bible that this is so?
"And though it's a bit tangential, I do think it's significant that the very first use of "alone" in the Bible gives it a negative meaning:" this is ridiculous :P
 
 
6 hours later…
11:30 AM
This is the real perspective, "Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?" (John 11:25-26 NASB)
Jesus shows two forms of faith, one that leads to death, and one that leads to life.
Perspective one: "Believing in me"
Perspective two: "Living and believing on me"
Perspective one: Faith alone people
Perspective two: Those that believe and live what he says.
 
12:18 PM
@curiousdannii I think that would be a very good idea, actually.
> Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away. It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?” Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?”
> No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe. (Deuteronomy 30:11-14)
@Decrypted It doesn't say, "Those who merely/only/alone believe in me."
@curiousdannii And if those systematic theology textbooks could also be revised to recognize that not all good works are done for merit, that would be a splendid thing! :-)
 
@LeeWoofenden I didn't get around to writing that question sorry :P But no textbook would say that!
 
@curiousdannii But every time "works" comes up with Protestants, the word "merit" is not far behind. The two seemed to be attached at the hip in Protestant theology.
It certainly gives the impression that Protestants believe that the only way works could be saving is if they saved through merit.
I don't have enough the fingers to count how many times Protestants have asked me, "Why do you think we can merit salvation through our works?" or "How many good works do you think we have to do to merit salvation?" As soon as "works" comes up, there's the idea that they must be for merit.
 
@LeeWoofenden Protestanism is not antinomian. Good explanations of our doctrine of work will say both that works are not the basis for salvation but are the natural, inescapable outworkings of our salvation, which we do in joy and in love for God and in time for their intrinsic joy of doing those works themselves as we are transformed into a person who likes to do good
@LeeWoofenden Well that's probably only after you've denied grace alone or faith alone. If the basis for our salvation is not strictly only the gracious work of Christ then something else has to be part of the basis, and the usual complementing basis is our works.
 
@LeeWoofenden Oh the irony that you are citing Deut 30 but miss Romans 10.
6But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down)
7“or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).
8But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
 
12:33 PM
Right. But works can be done for reasons that have nothing to do with merit, as I've said previously:
1. Because we love God and the neighbor
2. Because we know it's the right thing to do
3. Because God commands us to.
 
9because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
10For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
11For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”
 
None of these reasons for doing good works have anything to do with merit. And they are the real reasons we should do good works, an the real reason that faith and works must be together for our justification and our salvation. Faith alone does neither.
@Joshua Right. So even Paul agrees that the message is plain and simple. I could have quoted that passage as well. There are many passages throughout the Bible saying that the teachings we need for salvation are not difficult, but are plain and simple so that anyone can read, hear, and follow them.
@Joshua The error is in reading Paul as saying that faith alone does all these things. He never says that.
Anyway, I'm off now, so we'll have to continue the conversation later.
 
@LeeWoofenden I've just had a thought, which is that perhaps in Swedenborgianism, the only basis of salvation we need is being human, because without offence, or even much guilt, there's nothing stopping us being saved. So there could be means of salvation (accepting the promises of God in repentance) but there doesn't need to be a basis for salvation. Is that remotely accurate to how you think?
 
1:13 PM
I suppose it's easy to miss butthole is interpreting the word here as being Christ. Deuteronomy is just describing where the word is that we can understand it but Paul relates this to Christ. Christ and this word is in our heart and coming out from her mouth. It is a confessional faith.
Matthew 15:18-20 "18But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person.
19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.
20These are what defile a person..."
So we see it is not the acts we do which defile us but what is in our heart the acts are simply result or even a confession of the sin Within. So then how would righteousness be different? How can we become righteous simply by doing righteous acts if we are not first righteous of heart?
.....Miss butthole. Man that's almost as good as Darth Miracles. "miss, but Paul"
 
 
1 hour later…
2:39 PM
I want to ask a question,but it will get down voted before it is written... Is repenting the same for men and women?
Often if a major company mess up, the leader (male) often has to take the blame for everything,and you see that often.Not often do you see a woman leader take responsibility when something goes wrong the same way.And today you have a lot of female leaders.
And I remember I read a book from an known female author:She writes:Women does not want to take the blame.
Women feel alot of guilt but does often handel it in another way.
I know this might be controversial
 
3:28 PM
@Eagle I doubt that many people believe that this is true, so if you make this claim you really need to specifically defend it (and you'll still probably get downvoted for it).
@Eagle This may be true, but what makes you think that some branch of Christianity would take a position on the different ways that women repent from men?
 
 
1 hour later…
4:49 PM
@Nathaniel I've been told by more than one pastor that men hold more responsibility in the family and so are therefore held to a higher standard. So when repentance is needed it is needed more greatly.
@Eagle The way you're asking the question is too subjective. You would have to specify such a question to a denominational prospective.
There's also strong overtones of cognitive sciences, which being a science makes it strictly off topic.
 
@fredsbend Yes, that's probably related to what Eagle is thinking, but it's important to clarify the difference between "how much does person X need to repent?" and "how does person X repent?"
 
@Nathaniel That's where I think the conflation with cognitive sciences is coming in. It sounds like Eagle is saying that women don't repent the same as men and society is okay with it. That doesn't sound like a dogmatic proposition.
Now if eagle can show with external sources that this is indeed true a question asking about how this is dogmatically approached in Christian churches would actually be very interesting to me.
 
 
1 hour later…
6:31 PM
@fredsbend I think this would be a good question,just hard to write it well
 
6:46 PM
@Nathaniel well in much of the modern lutheran church women have it both ways,my opinion.In leadership, but do not carry the same weight when things gets complicated.Much might be because a gentelman would find it problematic to critique women in general very hard. Just if a man speaks very loud to a woman it looks like he is hurting her,but if a man speaks very hard and loud to another man,they are just having an argument or He is giving him a fair respons .
You can't be in a powerful position and not take the consequence.
"Christianity would take a position on the different ways that women repent from men?" iI think most would say right out:-off course,it is the same.(But reality its not.)
@fredsbend I think finding a source is not hard,but then we would start to debate the source As Women haters or trying to keep women away from leadership
Thats another problem,if you critique a woman when she is a leader ,your critique is not of her work but soon seen as of her and of women in leadership,super complicated
 
7:58 PM
I did try to write a question,dunno if it was well written,typos for sure,but i hope i did explain it in a good way
 
 
1 hour later…
9:15 PM
@curiousdannii I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "a basis for salvation." Being human doesn't mean we don't need to be saved. We still sin, and we are still guilty of that sin if we persist in it. Also, our natural, inborn tendencies are toward self-centeredness, greed, and a desire for power and dominance over others. That needs to be replaced with love for God and love for the neighbor--which is a lifelong process.
@curiousdannii What's stopping us from being saved is our own lower nature, and our natural preference for putting ourselves and our own pleasure, possessions, and power first, and considering other people, and especially God, relatively unimportant by comparison, and mere stepping stones in achieving our own purposes.
 
10:04 PM
@LeeWoofenden What is your point of view about the Biblical inerrancy?
 
10:35 PM
@PaulVargas while I wouldn't want to put words in his mouth, AFAIK swedenborgians don't believe the entirety of Scripture is inspired Scripture
Most of the NT and part of the OT, I believe, are discarded.
 
11:04 PM
@LeeWoofenden What kind of baptism (e.g. the Immersion baptism) does Swedenborgian Church practice?
 
@PaulVargas I don't find inerrancy to be a useful concept. Mostly, it just distracts people from focusing on what the Bible is really about, which is our spiritual rebirth and our eternal salvation. In practice, it's generally used to assert the Bible's literal authority, despite all the hand-wringing about how inerrancy is not the same as literalism.
@PaulVargas Traditionally it is not full immersion, but more symbolic. My denomination's tradition is for the minister to make a cross on the forehead and heart of infants and toddlers, and just on the forehead of older children and adults. In some of our less traditional churches adults will sometimes request full immersion, and the minister will generally accommodate them--usually at a local river or lake rather than in the traditional Baptist horse trough. ;-)
@Birdie Not "discarded." Just not considered divinely inspired. But our concept of divinely inspired goes far deeper than traditional Christian ideas on that issue, so it's not as big of a difference as you might think. See:
8
Q: What writings are held as "biblical canon" by Swedenborgians?

AndrewReading an article on Emanuel Swedenborg, I came across the following fact: It should be noted, however, that Corinthians is not included in the list of books that, according to Swedenborg, constitute the divinely inspired Biblical canon. (Source: Heaven and Hell (Swedenborg), on Wikipedia) ...

 

« first day (1834 days earlier)      last day (2793 days later) »