The Upper Room - 2016-09-30

« first day (1864 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2765 days later) »

12:02 AM

@KorvinStarmast Your edit looks fine for me. About tags, that's not really my forte. Perhaps @curiousdannii could help you with that one.

@Aigle I have found some interesting doctrinal work from the Vineyard churches, even though I have also found that they are not about dogma. (Anti dogma, even). That makes this IMO a tricksy question to answer for anyone (me included) not involved in that ministry or that specific community.

@LeeWoofenden Thanks, Lee. If nothing else, this question has introduced me to a fascinating association of churches. It touches me personally since we live not to far from a Calvary Chapel(who vineyard was once linked to, back in the 70's) where the infamous Hannah Overton, and her husband, was a member of the congregation.

@LeeWoofenden Where we live, "Free Hannah" bumper stickers are a common sight for the past ten years.

@KorvinStarmast I know that church well.I guess not everyone will agree what it is. But you have some very important voices Wimber,lonnie freesbie(super interesting story)Derek Morphew ,George Eldon Ladd,Ken Gulliksen,Randy Clark

Bob Dylan did go to vineyard with Keith Green

"live not to far from a Calvary Chapel" Have you seen Wimber preach?

12 hours later…

12:01 PM

@Aigle I never attended, and Wimber died before we got back to Texas. The linkage between the Calvary Chapel here and the one (original) in California was the topic of some harsh news coverage during the Overton case's ups and downs.

2 hours later…

Eliseus autem locutus est

1:44 PM

2

Q: Aurora Natalis or Aurora Natalicus

I have practically no experience with Latin, but from what I understand Aurora Borealis roughly means northern dawn, and Aurora Australis roughly means southern dawn. What would be the equivalent way to say Christmas dawn? Would it be either Aurora Natalis or Aurora Natalicus, or am I way off the...

translation christianity

2 hours later…

3:53 PM

Re: This Q&A:

3

Q: According to Protestants following the Reformation, what did Jesus mean when he said "do this and you will live"?

According to the Reformers, man is saved by faith alone in Christ alone, through grace alone, and not by any works- anything they can do. Consider the following passage from Luke. Luke 10:25–28 (NASB) And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit...

exegesis protestantism gospel-of-luke mosaic-law sola-fide

This is a fine example of how Protestant theologians negate Jesus' own clear teaching in favor of their misinterpretation of Paul's teaching. Jesus did not say, "Do this perfectly and you will live." He said, "Do this and you will live." Only by adding words to what Jesus said can you make him say what Protestant theologians twist his words to mean.

4:33 PM

Im so Upset with CS right now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

El'endia Starman

4:44 PM

@Aigle Do you mean Computer Science or C.S. Lewis?

@KorvinStarmast "Hearsay, gossip, and rumor make a poor basis for a question at SE" Symbolism ,form/shape of an artwork,The history of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_antiquity Is not rumors!Anything but rumors

@El'endiaStarman Christian Stackexange

El'endia Starman

@Aigle Oh, I normally write C.SE for that, though I've also seen CSE.

The reason is that "Stack Exchange" is two words.

@El'endiaStarman okokokok whatever C.SE is better

I have no prob. with C.S.Lewis

:)

@El'endiaStarman 3D modeling, is that like illustration?

Like you make a movie scene,like from Lord of the rings or whatever?

El'endia Starman

My 3D modeling tends to be more mathematical and geometric. Given a decade or two, I might be able to reproduce Lord of the Rings.

ok

My brain is not made for mathematical stuff.I get tierd when try to study it.

5:13 PM

@Aigle Aigle, the wiki link to classical history does not have the word pagan on the entire page. If you don't care for the SE standards, and meeting them, it's worth understanding that it takes a good question to get a good answer. Poor questions, or more precisely, poorlyo presented questions, get closed and/or down voted. That's how it works on ANY Stack Exchange site. The SE sites are not discussion forums. The

@Aigle The SE model has been worked on for a distinct purpose: to keep the signal to noise ration high, which is unlike most of the internet. Unless the community maintains SE standards, then the quality will degrade and the site will degenerate into the usual internet noise. That is why people take the time and effort to encourage improvement in questions and answers, and to adhere to standards.

@Aigle What is asked of all participants is to care enough to meet/maintain standards. (I edit my own questions and answers a lot, sometimes when I notice something sloppy, sometimes when I get feedback from any of the other members. As Andrew said in the comment yesterday, don't take offense. Quality is a community norm here, hence my comments to you on improving writing/presentation of your input. We care about quality.

3 hours later…

7:59 PM

@LeeWoofenden I knew you'd like that one.

@El'endiaStarman examples?

El'endia Starman

@Andrew Here: starmaninnovations.com/portfolio/3dmodelling/blender

8:41 PM

@anonymouswho Taking interest in the classification as Unitarian. If interested I would like see if my belief fits within this structure. Or if a better classification even exists for what I believe.

First I believe that God is single entity.

I believe that the entity God spoke and what he spoke was of a language.

I believe that the entity of the language "his words" has the current label Jesus.

I believe that the entity God (when not speaking) breaths and that breath has the current label Spirit.

I believe that all that does exist was made from nothing and then "his words" spoke into a nothing, and that everything then is made up of his words.

I believe that if I have nothing and add something to it, that what sits in the nothing, is that something.

And to give an example of this using a computer.

The computer ram holds the nothing, then the programming language activates into the nothing and the operating system then "as words" activates the environmental settings.

Continuing with the computer analogy, I believe that we are a form of "artificial intelligence" built into the operating system.

And that the programmer to the operating system, that's our God.

However I believe instead of a computer, that God acts more like the processor.

He hears the input and output of the artificial life and then modifies the environmental settings according to the programs result.

Placing myself in a position of a programmer of an artificial life, and noticing that the artificial life continues to delete itself.

That this action acts much like a "computer virus" that gets labeled as Sin.

In efforts to maintain the lifespan of the artificial life he develops an "anti-virus program".

This program itself is defined to control the artificial life output setting.

The program "also made of words" gets placed into the operating system in similarity of form to an artificial life object.

Since the anti-virus program completes the goal of the programmer, he sends all the artificial life into the anti-virus software.

The anti-virus software says, "send signals to the processor like this", and since this goal matches that of the programmer he sets the anti-virus software as the king.

However, and this is important, the exact format of how to say it came "directly from the programmer".

Correcting an issue where two artificial life outputs canceled each other out.

And explains that if only one program gives output, then the processor will receive the command. Therefore meaning "born of the breath".

And that its the last signal that gets sent that the processor accomplishes first.

That we may worship the processor, who is God.

That the "Son of God" specifically defines the object of the antivirus program, and that of what was said "directly from the programmer".

That the "Son of Man" specifically defines the "output of the artificial life".

That the "Son of God" came teaching about the "Son of Man" and acting "as the Son of Man" for correction to the "output of the artificial life".

Does this agree with Unitarian belief?

9:46 PM

@Andrew Thanks for keeping me entertained. :-)

@Andrew But back to the point, if that's what Jesus meant, why didn't he actually say it? Why did it have to wait for Paul, and then another 1,500 years for the Protestant Reformation, before anyone could understand what Jesus meant? Is Jesus really that bad a teacher? Is Paul a better teacher than Jesus? Are Luther and Calvin better teachers than Jesus and Paul?

10:09 PM

@LeeWoofenden If you want to live according to the Law, then by all means, be my guest.

@LeeWoofenden Because if you do the Law, then you will live.

@LeeWoofenden Certainly, if you do the Law, then no fault will be found in you and you will have life.

@LeeWoofenden But if you falter in just one aspect of the Law, you will be guilty of transgressing the whole thing (James 2:10)

@LeeWoofenden And if you yolk yourself to the Law, then you will stand or fall according to the Law, and Messiah will be of no advantage to you on the last day.

11:00 PM

@Andrew That's not what James meant, as his examples make clear. A person who thinks it's wrong to murder, but doesn't think it's wrong to commit adultery, has no respect for the entire law, because s/he thinks s/he can decide which laws to keep and which to break.

James does not mean that if you commit one minor sin, you're just as guilty as if you broke every law in the Ten Commandments. He means that if you think it's perfectly okay to break one of the Ten Commandments, you have no respect for the Ten Commandments as a whole, and you are a lawbreaker.

Keep in mind that this is his preamble to saying that we are justified by our works, and not by faith alone. It would be nonsensical to argue that James is arguing that good works have nothing to do with salvation. He says precisely the opposite just a few verses later.

Nowhere does James say that we must be perfectly sinless in order to be saved. In fact, one of his examples of a person who was justified by her works is Rahab the prostitute--who certainly was not perfectly sinless, considering her profession.

This is yet another example of Protestants misreading everything else in the Bible due to their misunderstanding of Paul.

@Andrew And the first misunderstanding is what Paul meant by "the Law."

@Andrew Be aware that the word "point" ("one point") in the KJV and various other translations of James 2:10 is not in the original Greek. The obvious antecedent is "law," so that it should be translated, "but offends in one law." The next verse makes it clear that James is talking about breaking a law, not breaking one (minor) point of the law.

@LeeWoofenden Do you not break any one Law?

The general idea is, "If you keep most of the (major) laws, but you break one of them, you're going to jail as a lawbreaker."

@Andrew Are we justified by our works, as James says?

@Andrew His argument in the first half of James 2 is about showing partiality. It's taking it out of context to say that his point is that we must perfectly keep every single point of the law. That's just not what James is talking about.

In fact, interpreting it that way makes the entire chapter a bunch of gibberish.

Not to mention the entire letter.

I know Protestants don't like James. Unfortunately for them, James is a book of the Protestant Bible.

11:18 PM

@LeeWoofenden Anyone who lives according to the law is justified according the law, of course. But we are not justified by works. We are justified by God.

@LeeWoofenden Do you live according to the Law?

@Andrew Ultimately, everything, including the works, is from God, and it is God who does everything good we do. So that's just a basic principle. And understanding that, the fact is that we are justified by works, as James says very plainly in the same chapter:

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

@Andrew Not in the sense that Paul most commonly uses that term. I.e., I am not an observant Jew.

So no, in the sense that Paul uses the term, I do not live according to the Law.

"nevertheless we know that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified."(Romans 8:33, italics added)

@LeeWoofenden So does James contradict Paul?

@Andrew Right. Being an observant Jew will not justify and save a person. That has become such a basic principle of nearly all of Christianity that present-day Christians don't understand what Paul's argument was. Because at the time Paul made the argument, there were Jewish Christians in Jerusalem who said that you do need to keep the Law. And today there are Messianic Jews who also say that you do need to keep the Law.

@Andrew Nope. Both Paul and James teach that doing good deeds is necessary for salvation. Read Romans 2. Paul does not contradict himself.

@Andrew And neither Paul nor James contradicts Jesus, who says that those who do good deeds for their fellow human beings in need will go to eternal life, whereas those who do not will go to eternal punishment. And Jesus says that if we wish to see life, we must keep the commandments.

@Andrew Read Acts 15. That is where the argument came to a head.

@LeeWoofenden Paul says in Romans 2 that all will be judged according to the law, not justified according to it. In Romans 1 he says "the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed--a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

@Andrew What Paul never says is that we will be justified by faith alone, or that we will live by faith alone. That is the fundamental error of Protestantism. They have added alone in many places where the Bible simply does not say alone. And James 2:24 is conclusive on that point. It is the one place where "alone" is added to "faith," and in that one place it is explicitly rejected.

Yes, we live by faith. But we don't live by faith alone. We live by faith together with good works. And keeping the Jewish Law is no longer necessary under the new covenant.

If you take Paul out of his historical context, you completely misunderstand his argument. And that is precisely what Protestantism has done.

11:31 PM

@LeeWoofenden No, working will not save a person. In the most definitive soteriological statement in the whole of the New Testament, Paul says "God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)

, and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

@LeeWoofenden We are saved while we are still dead in transgressions, that is, before we start doing good works. Which is why salvation is an act of mercy and grace. If salvation was by works, then your works would merit salvation.

@LeeWoofenden What, exactly, have you done to merit eternal life?

@Andrew "Works" here is shorthand for "the works of the Law"--i.e. being an observant Jew. That's why the letter immediately goes on to speak about "circumcision," which is also shorthand for "the works of the Law," i.e., being an observant Jew.

@LeeWoofenden Paul is speaking to Greeks here.

Otherwise the letter is flatly contradicting Romans 2.

@Andrew But he's speaking to them in contrast with Jews. He's speaking of them as "the uncircumcision" in contrast to Jews, who are called "the circumcision." He is making an explicit comparison between Jews ("Israel") who observe the works of the Law of Moses, and Gentiles ("Greeks") who do not.

@LeeWoofenden No, Romans 2 says that the one who keeps the law is justified. Of course, as I have already said, anyone who keeps the law has life.

@Andrew But you don't believe anyone qualifies. Yet Romans 2 makes it clear that Jews, Greeks, and Gentiles alike, who keep the law, or at least the law of conscience, will find glory and honor--i.e., salvation--on the last day based on their doing good works and living by their conscience.

You are a much harsher judge than Paul.

11:40 PM

And Paul continues: for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, there is not even one."

@Andrew And you are a much harsher judge than Jesus, who says in Matthew 25:31-46 that those who do good works for their fellow human beings in need will go to eternal life.

@Andrew So you think Jesus and Paul were both wrong when they said that those who do good will be given eternal life?

@Andrew They were just whistling dixie? There will, in fact, be no sheep? Only goats?

@LeeWoofenden No, as I have said and continue to say, those who do good will go into eternal life.

@LeeWoofenden Is Paul after the Spirit of Prophecy a liar when he says, "There is none who does good, there is not even one."

@Andrew Then what are we arguing about?

@Andrew This verse is talking about the general corruption of Israel. But in a larger sense, no, on our own there is none who does good. Only God is good. We have no power to do good on our own. But with God in us, we have God's power to do good within us. And the good deeds we do from God are what justify us.

> 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)

@LeeWoofenden Well that's a start.

@LeeWoofenden Then how does one become saved by works if the state of the sinner is separation from Christ?

@Andrew It's the whole thing. Faith without works is dead. We are justified by works, and not by faith alone. We are justified by faith working through love. There is nowhere in the entire Bible that it says we are justified by faith alone. It just isn't there.

11:48 PM

@LeeWoofenden Do you understand? You are saying that apart from Christ no one can do good, but one must do good to become united with Christ.

@Andrew Being united with Christ isn't just a matter of faith. It's a matter of love, faith, works, and many other things. Christ doesn't have faith alone either. When we are in Christ, we are in Christ not only with our head, but with our heart and our hands as well. There is no "faith alone" in Christ, and "faith alone" does not bring us into Christ.

When we are in Christ, we are a new creation. And a new creation isn't just a new creation of faith. It is a new creation of faith, hope, love, good deeds of love, and so on.

Separating out faith and saying, "This, and this alone, is what justifies us" is nonsense. And not only does it not say that anywhere in the Bible, but it is flatly contradicted in the plainest words in the Bible.

@LeeWoofenden Paul is clear that those who are in Christ are already in him, and have been included in him, chosen in him before the foundation of the world. It is because we are in him that we trusted, having heard the good news of our salvation. We were already saved even before we stopped sinning.

@LeeWoofenden Where is written that works bring us into Christ?

@Andrew Throughout the New Testament. Jesus says that if we love him, we will keep his commandments. And his commandment is to love one another. And he makes clear what that means in many places, especially including Matthew 25:31-46. We can't be in Christ if we don't love him. And we can't love him if we don't keep his commandments. And his central commandments are to love God above all, and love our neighbor as ourselves.

You can't slice the Bible into tiny little slices, and say, "Only this does this, and only that does that." It just doesn't work that way.

« first day (1864 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2765 days later) »

Transcript for

Sep '1630

The Upper Room

General discussion for Christianity.SE, pseudo-meta support, a...

christianity discussion

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile