« first day (1735 days earlier)      last day (2905 days later) » 
00:00 - 15:0015:00 - 21:0021:00 - 00:00

Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
3:01 PM
And for the most part, inerrancy is used to assert the same things that literalism is used to assert: that the Bible is without historical or scientific error. So although I do treat them in that blog post as being related rather than identical concepts, for the purposes of the laypeople I'm speaking to, I believe they're functionally identical.
@JackDouglas Aside from the injustice and irrationality of key Protestant teachings such as justification by faith alone and penal substitution, my main objection to them is simple: They are asserted to be key, fundamental Christian teachings, and yet the Bible never articulates them. And I believe that when it comes to the key fundamentals of Christian belief and life, the Bible is quite capable of stating plainly and clearly what it means.
My main argument against the Trinity of Persons is the same. It has been placed as the fundamental teaching of Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox belief, and yet it is never stated in the Bible. See:
6
A: What is the Biblical basis for disbelief in the doctrine of the Trinity?

Lee WoofendenYes, it's long! Yes, I know this is a long answer. Sorry about that! However, given the huge amount of ink (and pixels) that has been expended on the doctrine of the Trinity for almost two thousand years now, I do not see how justice can be done to the subject in the brief answers that are pref...

I have no problem with theologians interpreting the Bible on various points. But I believe that the key tenets of Christian doctrine that relate to what we must believe and do in order to be saved must be stated clearly in the Bible itself, so that anyone with average reading comprehension can grasp them. Otherwise we would have to charge God with incompetence in communicating what is necessary for us to spend eternity in heaven rather than in hell.
Quite simply, Protestant doctrine completely fails that test. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we're justified by faith alone, and nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. I'm aware that many passages are interpreted to mean these things. But the Bible never says either of them in its own words. Nor does it say God is a trinity of persons in its own words. That, to my mind, invalidates them as key, fundamental Christian doctrine.
The key tenets of Swedenborgian doctrine that relate to our salvation are stated clearly and repeatedly in the Bible, both in the Old Testament and the New. My article "Christian Beliefs that the Bible Does Teach" provides a bird's-eye view of these key teachings for Christians.
And for non-Christians see: "Is Jesus Christ the Only Way to Heaven?‌​"
After a couple of decades of challenging Protestants to show me where their key tenets are taught clearly, if at all, in the Bible, and having them consistently fail to do so, I have become quite confident that Swedenborg was correct when he said that the main dogmas of then-existing Christianity are not taught by the Bible, and are contrary to the Bible's plain teachings.
Protestant doctrine requires human theologians to "interpret" the Bible when it comes to the basics required for salvation. Swedenborgian doctrine does not. It's all right there in the plain, clear, literal statements of Scripture.
 
Eagel
Eagel
3:17 PM
Nice size for a comment
@LeeWoofenden "justification by faith alone " i dont think that anyone thinks that ,whatever life you live,you will get saved?
Just by thinking of Jesus
or have knowledge that Jesus is the messiah
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Eagel Lots of ordinary Protestant laypeople think that. Even if their ministers say it's wrong.
 
Eagel
Eagel
@LeeWoofenden ok might be some,but no ministries
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden I believe that understanding God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit in a community of love and equality and yet in diverse in roles is a core philosophical doctrine. And that comes right out of John 17 mostly. Otherwise.... Well God is Allah. Lonely, angry and demanding conformity. That it took both male and female reflect the image of God As One is a type of this love, the roles and yet diverse.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
I recently had a Protestant come to my blog and excoriate me because I said that criminal who had been jailed more than once for repeated crimes of forgery, false impersonation, and fraud would have to change his ways if he wanted to go to heaven.
@Eagel The Protestant ministries teach a false, non-biblical doctrine: justification by faith alone. When that false doctrine reaches the ears of ordinary people, it is quite naturally translated into the idea that believing the right thing is far more important than living a good life.
@Joshua John 17 doesn't call God a "community."
 
Eagel
Eagel
@LeeWoofenden 'Hard words ,i would say that if sweedborgian teaches that there are other ways to God then Jesus other doors,that might be worse.Both are a major problem
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
3:25 PM
@Joshua I understand why third and fourth century Christians came to the conclusion that God is three persons. But the Bible simply doesn't say that. And I believe they came to that conclusion because they were thinking physically and materialistically about Father, Son, and Holy Spirit rather than thinking spiritually about them.
 
Eagel
Eagel
@LeeWoofenden but anyway,What do they mean by faith alone,there must be some deeper meaning
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Eagel Swedenborgianism doesn't teach that there are other ways to God than Jesus. Swedenborgianism teaches that Jesus is God, and is the only savior of all people everywhere who are willing to be saved. What we reject is the idea that intellectual belief in Jesus as God is necessary for salvation.
@Eagel The very fact that you're unsure what it means indicts it as poor doctrine. If an average thoughtful person has to wonder what is the meaning of a doctrine that is asserted as essential to his or her salvation, that is bad doctrine.
 
Eagel
Eagel
@LeeWoofenden study it later,im right in a spiritual battle i need to work out but im thinking about some chocolate cookies in the kitchen.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Eagel lol that's not a spiritual battle!
 
Eagel
Eagel
@LeeWoofenden the worst there is
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
3:29 PM
@Eagel If so, then I envy you. ;-)
 
Eagel
Eagel
@LeeWoofenden you dont know what kinda cookies ,there chocolate with vanilla inside
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Eagel Still, if that's you worst spiritual battle . . . .
 
Eagel
Eagel
@LeeWoofenden Now Im eating cookies.
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden to equate poor teaching and application of a Doctrine by some individuals and groups as proof of its falsehood is illogical. Real reformed justification by faith is just describing the mechanism of your justification is through salvation alone. But that Faith must be a faith that works. If it is not then you were never truly trusting in Christ's righteousness and therefore it was never real faith to begin with.
 
Eagel
Eagel
@LeeWoofenden If i start a church:There would be a Burger King cafe,a gym,healing room ..where healing,prayer and exorcisme is going on.24 houre worship room or tower.full time pastors,a big garden for outdoor preaching.Teaching christianity,holy life,and spiritual understanding. Your welcome! I guess I will never start a church
 
Joshua
Joshua
3:42 PM
this is probably why that person was distinguishing between justification and salvation because salvation involves more than just the mechanism of justification. I agree in many contacts it is not worth distinguishing, but in some it is worth it to ensure we don't represent justification as the entire package of salvation
This is why we can say salvation isthrough or by faith alone. But that does not mean salvation is faith alone.
Anyone teaching a reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone that differs either has been taught incorrectly, understands it incorrectly, or is willingly miss representing it.
 
Eagel
Eagel
@Joshua Interesting,because i think by faith alone you enter into a life where you can live For God,you cant live that life without faith.So faith alone is not just knowledge of the truth
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Joshua I understand the argument. But I think it's a weak argument. And it's based on many human ideas that are not stated in the Bible. And when it gets to the people it is easily and naturally subject to "misinterpretation" such that people believe that the most important thing is what they believe, and how they live is relatively unimportant.
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden and this is why I was saying the other day that we must get our definitions straight. Because if you are defining it in some other way you are essentially trapping me to be arguing for something I do not even believe.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
Are doctrines just to please the theological minds of theologians and pastors? Aren't they to lead people to salvation? And if a doctrine commonly leads people to think that religion and salvation are mostly about what you believe, and not very much about how you live, that doctrine is a practical failure no matter how finely honed its theological ratiocination may be.
@Joshua The very idea that it is faith that works, and that good works come from faith, is never stated in the Bible. And it is faulty and wrong. Good works come, not from faith, but through faith from God. Faith is merely a conduit. It is wrong and false to say that good works come from faith.
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden this is why Paul's version of faith and works seems to differ from James and Johns. Paul wasn't evangelist but James and John were speaking pastorally.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
3:52 PM
@Joshua Further, Jesus Christ himself makes love primary, as does Paul when he gets around to talking about love. The idea that faith is primary is, once again, a false teaching that is contrary to the plain teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ himself. Faith is a gateway to salvation. It itself does not cause or confer salvation.
@Joshua Paul's version of faith and works isn't as different from James's and John's if people simply understand that by "works" in those contexts he meant "the works of the Law"--i.e. being an observant Jew. Paul also asserts that we must do good works in order to be saved. Read Romans 2.
It is certainly true that Paul emphasized faith. But the supposed conflict between Paul on the one side, and James and John on the other, over whether we must do good works in order to be saved is one that is largely manufactured by Protestants who don't understand what Paul was talking about.
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden I'm sorry but you may be able to claim no scripture for specific Trinity of persons. But when it comes to Faith and works there is a mountain of scripture that does agree with what I'm saying. Or rather what I'm saying is straight out of it
But unfortunately work calls, so I'll have to cite them later. Maybe that will be my next blog post :)
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Joshua "Faith alone" occurs once in the Bible, and in that one place it is specifically rejected as justifying a person:
> You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)
There are no other mentions of "faith alone" in the Bible. And "grace alone" never occurs in the Bible at all.
How can justification by faith alone be biblical when in the one and only place that faith alone is mentioned in the Bible, it is specifically rejected as justifying?
 
Joshua
Joshua
Except oh...Ephesians 2? Which specifically rejects that it is by works? Come now Lee, let's not be disengenuous. Till next time
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
And as far as good works being necessary for salvation, the Bible is crystal clear about it. The need to cease doing evil and to do good instead is taught throughout the Bible. And for specific New Testament passages that say that we must do good works in order to be saved, see Matthew 25:31-46 and Romans 2:5-16.
@Joshua Ephesians 2 does not say that we are saved by faith. It says that we are saved by grace, which is another word for God's love, through faith. And it says we're not saved by works done "for boasting," which, indeed, do not save us. It then goes on to say:
> For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life. (Ephesians 2:10, italics added)
And in the very next verse, it starts talking about circumcision vs. uncircumcision, which is a dead give-away that the "works for boasting" spoken of in verse 8 are referring to "the works of the Law," meaning the idea that scrupulously obeying the Jewish ritual and sacrificial law is necessary for Christian life and salvation--the very thing Paul was arguing against counter to the Jerusalem Christians who believed that Christians must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses.
The issue is laid out quite clearly in the so-called "Council of Jerusalem" in Acts 15:1-35.
And as for works of the Law done for boasting, Jesus provides a fine example in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector in Luke 18:9-14. That parable illustrates the sort of "works" (of the Law) done "for boasting" that do not save a person. And those are the "works" that Ephesians 8 is talking about.
And even if you prefer to ignore the historical context and doctrinal debates in which Romans and Ephesians were written, the simple fact of the matter is that Ephesians 2 does not say that we are justified, saved, or anything else by faith alone. It doesn't even say we're saved by faith. It says we're saved through faith, by grace.
And then it goes on to say that doing good works is an integral part of what we were created for. The idea that Ephesians supports faith alone simply cannot bear scrutiny.
 
Andrew
Andrew
4:40 PM
@Joshua Oh that's a great one. "The lady at the youth center cafe is refusing to take my starbucks giftcard even though they proudly brew starbucks coffee."
@Eagel Not in the least. I don't own a television, so I don't consume televised sports, and I have a distaste for sports fanaticism- just the salaries alone of the MLB, NBA, and NFL are sufficient to provide the entire world with clean drinking water. The NFL is a non-profit organization whose CEO earns $20 million per year.
 
Joshua
Joshua
@Andrew haha that's good. I had to read it twice to really get it. I say that in a good way
 
Andrew
Andrew
5:02 PM
@Joshua "The parking lot is going to be disorganized today- we were short on ushers so we had to pull a few of the young men from valet duty."
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
5:13 PM
@LeeWoofenden because if sanctification is 'just' a consequence of justification, it easily becomes optional.
@LeeWoofenden I don't disagree that 'salvation' v 'justification' is a theological distinction, but that's hardly the same as 'literal' v 'inerrant' — maybe normal people don't use those words but they understand the difference perfectly well, and the reason why they might not understand the difference between salvation and justification is probably not down to lack of intelligence either, the words just have a wide semantic range and even wider range in theological usage
The problem for me is that it is difficult to filter through what you are saying. You obviously make some good points, but your style is polemical and if you are going to get away with 'I'm right and those guys are wrong', you need to have a reputation for reliability — which I'm so far unconvinced of. Dismissing my gentle crit of your blog out of hand doesn't make you look wiser in my eyes, it just makes me all the more doubtful about the rest of what you say
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden The beginning of Eph 2 is certainly about salvation though (were dead in transgressions and sin) so v8 is the hinge-point between salvation and sanctification. That the rest of it continues into a discussion on works is simply a logical progression. It is not a strike against my statement (which, by the way, was simply that we are not saved by our works I did not insert the words faith alone into v8)
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
5:30 PM
@Joshua what do you take 'works' to mean in Eph 2:8? There are loads of interesting exegetical questions about that verse :)
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@JackDouglas Now who's being polemical? I understand that I have a very different view of Christianity than does traditional Christianity. And therefore much of what I say sounds "wrong" to traditional Christians. But I stick to critiquing doctrines, not people. And I do believe that traditional Christian doctrine is mistaken. If it offends people when I say that, there's really not much I can do about it.
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden Speaking of literal, you seem to often fall back on using a quoted, inflexibly worded, hyper concise definition of your own choosing to describe what the other person is supporting, and then you proceed to point out how those exact words are not in scripture. You've done it with "Trinity of persons" and just did it with " Faith alone" (when my quote was "by or through faith). Just pointing it out so you are aware. To my point about defining things in debate.
2
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Joshua Basic Christian doctrine should be drawn from the literal meaning of the Bible. That's not my idea. That's Swedenborg's doctrine on the subject.
@JackDouglas Luther and Calvin were highly polemical in their critiques of Catholic doctrine and practice. Does that make them suspect or wrong? Jesus himself went much further than I have gone, calling his theological opponents hypocrites, a brood of vipers, and so on. Does that make Jesus wrong?
 
Andrew
Andrew
@Joshua @LeeWoofenden You've done it with belief with me.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Andrew Done what with "belief"?
 
Joshua
Joshua
5:35 PM
@JackDouglas well we are saved by works, just not ours. So it makes sense that it then continues on to discuss our works. We are not saved by works that we prepare and then ask God to walk in, rather we are saved by the work of Christ prepared beforehand that we may now walk in, positionally and effectively (trusting and working).
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden "fall back on using a ... hyper concise definition of your own choosing to describe what the other person is supporting"
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Andrew "Hyper-concise" sounds like a buzz word to me. What are you actually talking about?
My definition of "faith" is actually quite expansive, and it has a solid basis in the biblical usage of the word, as you'll see in this article: Faith Alone Is Not Faith
@Joshua Protestants have criticized me for pointing out that the Bible does not say "Jesus paid the penalty for our sins" in those exact words. But so far no Protestant has been able to point to any place where the Bible uses wording that means the same thing, regardless of the specific words used. All the passages they point to talk about the sin itself, not about the penalty of sin.
I would be happy with any wording in the Bible that states in clear wording the principle of Jesus paying the penalty for our sins. But such passages simply don't exist.
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden oh I'm fine with literal. I'm not fine with purposely slippery or intractable. If you aren't going to respect my own definitions in a debate, but replace them with your own when it suits you then I find it difficult to continue our talks. Which I honestly do enjoy for what its worth. I just wanted to draw your attention to it. As I would expect you to for me if I was doing the same to you.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
Believe me, I've scoured the Bible for them just to make sure I'm not wrong about this.
And I've had dozens of Protestants quote hundreds of Bible passages at me, not a single one of which actually says that.
@Joshua You still haven't said anything specific. You're making a general accusation against me without pointing out to me when and what I actually said or did. You're using buzzwords like "hyper-concise" without providing any examples of how and when I was "hyper-concise."
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden I'm sure there are many things you believe for which there is no one verse that states it exactly. Rather it is synthesis of many passages. Why do you demand it of others?
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
5:42 PM
Beyond that, I don't think we can define words used in the Bible any which way we please. The Bible itself provides many clear pointers as to what it means by various words. And I think we need to pay attention to that, not just hatch theological definitions that support our particular doctrines.
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden Actually I cited two specific instances and Andrew added a third. I sorry but I'm good at noticing patterns
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Joshua On the basics of what I believe as critical to salvation, there's not just one verse, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of verses and whole chapters throughout the Bible that state these things clearly, plainly, in such a way that it really can't be missed by anyone who doesn't have a previously adopted theological ax to grind.
The need for repentance from sin and for living a good life as a condition for life (Old Testament) or eternal life (New Testament) is stated so extensively in the Bible that it simply can't be missed by anyone with basic reading comprehension.
Contrast that with Jesus paying the penalty for our sins, which isn't stated at all in the Bible, and I just don't think your criticism is based on the Biblical reality.
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden And you, with your 3 generations of Swedenborgianism have no previously adopted axe to grind? Come now Lee!
I'm only asking for the same standard you use for yourself.
Lunch is over. Till next time gentlemen.
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden I was quoting the other user. I mean that you choose your own definitions to support your counter-readings. Of course the Scriptures support your position on faith meaning works, if you define pistis to mean works. Of course the Scriptures support your doctrine that people need not intellectually assent to the testimony of Christ, if you remove intellectual assent from the definition of pistis.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Joshua Swedenborg looked to the Bible for his doctrine. He left behind his Lutheran, Protestant doctrine through a rather painful process that lasted several years. And his polemical works establishing his doctrines in some places are almost solid quotes from the Bible.
 
Andrew
Andrew
5:47 PM
@LeeWoofenden You've already stated to me that there are plenty of non-essential doctrines of Swedenborg that he did not obtain from the Bible.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Joshua I am happy to use a biblical standard for any of these key Christian doctrines. I've said numerous times to numerous Protestants that if they can show me any Bible passages that clearly teach justification by faith alone, penal substitution, the Trinity of Persons, Original sin/guilt, then I'll admit that I am mistaken. So far, it just hasn't happened. That's because such passages do not exist.
 
Eagel
Eagel
@Andrew could you do me a favour?
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Andrew And even if I may disagree with some non-essential doctrines stated by other Christian theologians, I'm not inclined to quibble about such doctrines. What we're discussing here are essential doctrines: ones that are necessary for salvation and eternal life. Those are the ones that must, in my view, and in Swedenborg's be stated plainly in the literal meaning of the Bible.
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden Your Biblical standard is not an improvement because your interpret the text much differently.
@Eagel Perhaps
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
And I can point you to many Bible passages that state plainly and unequivocally the essential Swedenborgian doctrines related to salvation.
 
Andrew
Andrew
5:50 PM
@LeeWoofenden Well, you said "Swedenborg looked to the Bible for his doctrine" not "Swedenborg looked to the Bible for his essential doctrine and adopted some extrabiblical non-essential doctrines"
 
Eagel
Eagel
@Andrew would you pray with me.For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them."matt 18:20 .. my brother met this "strange"woman" just want to pray that she wont bring any problems..
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Andrew I'm not even talking about interpretation. I'm talking about reading what the text of the Bible says. About its plain meaning. If Jesus says that the ones who helped others will go to eternal life, while the ones who didn't will go to eternal punishment, no interpretation is needed. He's provided examples that show exactly what he means. His meaning is crystal clear simply from reading what he said.
@Andrew Let's stop quibbling about non-essential doctrines. Everyone has 'em. Those aren't the issue here.
 
Andrew
Andrew
@Eagel Yeah, sure. What do you mean by strange?
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Andrew If Paul says:
> There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism. (Romans 2:9-11)
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden My intent for butting in was to lend support to Joshua's statement regarding your rhetorical tactics.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
5:53 PM
How much interpretation does that need? Paul is plainly saying that Jews and Gentiles who do evil will be condemned, while those who do good will be saved. He's not talking about in this life either, because he concludes the passage by saying:
 
Eagel
Eagel
@Andrew Well he met this woman ,she was"strange"ask to use his phone and stuff.Might be nothing,but she was very strange(hard to say)might be nothing,just want to pray to be sure.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
> This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. (Romans 2:16)
He's talking about how people will be judged on the day of judgment. The whole passage is very clear that those of all religions (that he was aware of) who do good will be saved, while those of all religions who do evil will be condemned.
It's not necessary to "interpret" his meaning. It's simply necessary to be able to read and understand the text.
@Andrew Fine. But you are quibbling about minor things. I've already clearly explained my meaning. And I haven't taken a hard line against non-essential Protestant doctrines. I've focused my critique on essential Protestant doctrines. So this whole "non-essential" thing is a red herring.
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden doing good includes intellectual assent. "without pistis it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."
@LeeWoofenden God will give to each man as he deserves, he judges rightly. Also, the wages of sin is death.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Andrew I understand that that's your opinion. But Matthew 25:31-46 does not include the word pistis. It doesn't talk about faith at all. If it were essential that "faith" must be a part of it, Jesus would have said so. But he didn't. He said that those who come to the aid of their neighbors in need will go to eternal life, and those who don't will go to eternal punishment.
Romans 2 also says nothing about faith. It says how Jews and Gentiles will be saved, according to their works and according to their conscience, when Jesus judges them on the day of judgment.
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden Matthew 25:31-46 teaches that faith without deeds is dead. I have agreed with you about this the whole time.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
6:00 PM
@Andrew No, Matthew 25:31-46 teaches that those who do good to God by doing good to their neighbor will be saved. Matthew 25:31-46 simply doesn't say anything about faith. James is the one who teaches that faith without deeds is dead.
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden They will be judged according to their works, yes. No one will be justified according to works. No one can stand in a judgement of works. There is no one righteous. Not even one.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
I'm not denying that some sort of faith is necessary for salvation. I'm saying that in many passages throughout the Bible, what we do, or fail to do, is presented as key to whether we are saved or damned.
@Andrew James disagrees with you:
> You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)
Are you saying that James is wrong?
 
Eagel
Eagel
To all Americans,i just heard that Trump is in the lead?better then Clinton!
 
Flimzy
Flimzy
@Eagel Better by what measure?
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden You have asked me this at least a half dozen times. Please also review James 2:22.
 
Eagel
Eagel
6:04 PM
@Flimzy Like some study says that,I dunno
 
Flimzy
Flimzy
@Eagel Studies don't usually say one person is better than another.
 
Eagel
Eagel
gonna get more votes
off course .. votes
 
Flimzy
Flimzy
If you mean he's ahead according to some poll, that might be true. I never heard a poll claim to measure who is "better", though. heh
 
Eagel
Eagel
yeye
cool down
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Andrew James 2:22 does not contradict James 2:24, which, once again says that a person is justified by works. You're claiming that a person is not justified by works. That's a direct contradiction of what James says.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
6:07 PM
@LeeWoofenden "Now who's being polemical?" I'm capable of it, but it's not my modus operandi. However I wasn't decrying polemics — just pointing out you aren't winning me over to your way of thinking.
 
Eagel
Eagel
Gonna be interesting if he wins.And I think Donald Trump will win
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@JackDouglas You're a pastor, right? Presumably you've come to your current beliefs and are fairly stable in them. I'd be rather surprised if I "won you over." Pleased, but surprised.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
@Joshua so you don't buy the idea that Paul just means 'works of the law' or some such distinction there?
 
Eagel
Eagel
@JackDouglas Pastor?
we have a pastor here!About time!
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
@LeeWoofenden I love to debate and think deeply about scripture and I try not to hold too fast to any of my beliefs when doing so — of course that is only possible to a degree.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
6:11 PM
@JackDouglas Further, what I seem to be gathering from the "Lordship salvation" belief, which you seem to be saying you espouse, is that in you mind works--or at least love--actually have a key role in salvation that is not simply a subset or result of faith, but are a force in salvation all their own. (Please correct me if I'm wrong)
If that's the case, then you're not as far away from my belief as most traditional Protestants are anyway.
@JackDouglas I have changed a number of my "non-essential" beliefs since the time of my youth, when I was far more conservative than I am today on many social issues. But as for the essentials, I was taught them straight out of the Bible, and I continue to hold fast to them today.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
@LeeWoofenden I already said that though not in so many words — but that saddens me because the wise things you are saying are hard to discern in amongst what appears (to me at least) to be a very low view of everyone else's comprehension skills.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
There is a more conservative Swedenborgian sect that broke off from ours over a century ago that teaches mostly from Swedenborg. That's not how I was raised. I was taught mostly from the Bible itself, informed by Swedenborg's teachings. So my basics of faith are inextricably connected to my reading of the Bible.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
it helps, I think, if we all recognize that everyone reads scripture through the lens of their own interpretative framework. that is not to say all frameworks are equal, but it moves disagreement away from the "you can't read what's in front of you" level.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@JackDouglas I believe that many centuries of Christian theologians inventing non-Biblical doctrine has made it very hard for people in traditional Christianity to read the Bible with any clarity. It's not really a matter of comprehension ability. It's a matter of having been inculcated with doctrines that are said to be from the Bible and based on the Bible, but actually aren't.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
it probably also helps to acknowledge that any communication at all between people with different interpretative frameworks is something of a miracle
@LeeWoofenden implicit in what you say is that you have not been 'inculcated with doctrines', right?
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
6:16 PM
@JackDouglas Unfortunately, based on my previous comment, I actually don't think many traditional Christians can read what's in front of them. They've been so inculcated with extra-Biblical doctrines that that's all they see when they read the Bible.
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden When I say "No one will be justified according to works" I mean that anyone who stands accused in judgement without an arbitrator, will be judged down, because their works, as a sum total, will deserve condemnation.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@JackDouglas Yes, I've been inculcated with doctrines. But those doctrines--the essentials at least--are stated plainly in the Bible. I really don't think that the Bible can mean anything we want it to mean. I think that the Bible has intrinsic meaning. And I think that a person whose mind has not been clouded by false doctrine can see it there clearly.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
@LeeWoofenden we all think that, therein lies the problem
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
I believe that people of all religions--even those with very false doctrines--can be saved. But I simply don't think that "all doctrines are created equal," and that all doctrines have an equal claim to being biblical.
To me, it's important that the Bible never says God is a trinity of persons. It's important that the Bible never says that we're justified by faith alone, but actually denies it. It's important that the Bible never actually says that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins.
I really don't think you can read the Bible any which way you want based on the doctrines of your founding theologians.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
@LeeWoofenden I believe you know what I think about the trinity, because you edited my answer here — do you think my answer evidences a failure to read what the Bible plainly says?
 
Eagel
Eagel
6:20 PM
@JackDouglas are you pentacostal?
if I may ask
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@JackDouglas Sorry, but which answer is that? I've edited many questions and answers here, including some that I voted to close immediately after editing them.
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden No I'm not. I have never endorsed sola fide. Keep your opponents straight. I have always said that faith and deeds working together justify. The deeds complete the faith. Nowhere does James say that anyone is justified by works alone. Your argument that justification is by works alone is just as misguided as an argument that justification is by faith alone. The Scriptures are clear from start to finish that faith and deeds, both coming from God, work together to justify.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Andrew I'm not arguing that we're justified by works alone. I'm saying that the Bible is far clearer that we're justified by works than it is that we're justified by faith. I actually do believe that faith and works must be together. But my understanding of the meaning of "faith" is far broader (and I think more biblically based) than the traditional Christian view of "faith."
@JackDouglas Thanks. My edit of that was a simple typo fix. Among the many other hats I wear, I'm also an editor. But I'll read through the answer again.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
@Eagel no, I'm not, are you yourself?
@LeeWoofenden which I should add, I was grateful for :)
 
Andrew
Andrew
6:23 PM
@LeeWoofenden No, your definition is narrower because it excludes intellectual assent. My definition includes both intellectual assent and effective faithfulness
 
Eagel
Eagel
@JackDouglas think so
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
@Eagel I think Pentecostalism can mean a lot of different things — some strains are very strong on Bible teaching, others not so much, is that right?
 
Eagel
Eagel
@JackDouglas I think that is everywhere,some know the bibel and others are not that strong.But if you are charismatic,the pentacostal church is a good option
I would say that authority,can be kinda more democratic maybe in some places and other have a strong leadership
Or maybe it looks democratic because the leader is not in the front all the time
Pentecostal church is alot of things
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
@Eagel I'd argue that any church that handles the word of God rightly is a good option :) of course handling the word rightly will be evident in the character of the church.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Andrew A primary function of faith in connection with works is that faith tells us that the works are not our own, but are God's in us, so that we can take no credit for them. Abstractly, "faith" means that we believe in something higher than ourselves from which our actions flow. Concretely, "people of faith"--i.e., religious people, believe that that higher thing is God/Christ, from whom we get the power to do good works.
 
Andrew
Andrew
6:31 PM
@LeeWoofenden "If you, LORD, kept a record of sins, Lord, who could stand?" No one will resist the judgement. But the ones who are in Messiah who have believed in him, will not even be accused- he is both judge and mediator. He will not accuse us. The law will not accuse us. The accuser cannot accuse us. We are justified through faith, demonstrated by our works. No one will be justified who does not acknowledge that Messiah is from God.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
If we believe that our works will save us as in "I've done many good works and that has earned me salvation," then we will be sorely disappointed, because nothing we do earns us salvation. But our faith tells us that our works are actually God's works in us. "I am the vine, you are the branches; without me you can do nothing." And then the works become saving because we attribute them to God and not to ourselves.
 
Eagel
Eagel
@JackDouglas agree But maybe if you live in a place where there is only one church and they have a strange doctrine ,could be smart to stay there and pray for them
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
So faith is an essential component of salvation, because without some type or level of faith, we will attribute everything to ourselves, and it will become "works done for boasting" or self-congratulatory and self-centered works, which do not save. In fact, such works are theft from God, who is actually doing the works through us.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
@Eagel could be, but it depends on (a) how 'strange', and (b) how strong are you and your family, doesn't it?
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@JackDouglas Do you think that the Bible doesn't have intrinsic meaning? That its only meaning is the meaning we interpret it to have?
 
Andrew
Andrew
6:34 PM
@LeeWoofenden We disagree on scope and definitions. When the Scriptures say "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son," I read whoever as whoever. If this verse applies to the church it would be meaningless, since everyone in the church is in the church because they believe. That is why the letters to the churches exort right action, they are written to those who believe.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Andrew No, my definition of faith does not exclude intellectual assent. It simply makes intellectual assent secondary to living by the principles, beliefs, commandments, and so on that one has faith in.
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden But the scriptures don't use the word abstractly every time, because it is clear that when they describe faith, they mean faith in Messiah, that is, trust in his testimony.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
If someone does not intellectually believe that Jesus is divine, but actually lives by what Jesus taught, than that person has "faith in Jesus" in a sense more real than one who intellectually believes that Jesus is divine, but doesn't live according to Jesus' teachings. I think you're probably aware of the Gospel passages that teach this principle.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
@LeeWoofenden no, not at all. "Let God be true though every one were a liar" — but when two people both think they are the one who has the meaning correct in their minds, it is better to dance carefully.
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden No, not secondary, otherwise those without intellectual assent really do have something to worry about.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
6:36 PM
@JackDouglas Perhaps. But when one of those two people can point to passages that clearly teach his essential doctrines, and the other cannot, don't you think there's a difference?
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
@LeeWoofenden everyone is quoting passages
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden But according to you, practitioners of false religions need not fear Yahweh's judgement if they try their best to live rightly according to their own religion.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
we all think they 'clearly teach' what we think they teach
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@JackDouglas I did re-read your answer on the biblical basis of the Trinity. And while it's more open-minded than some, the whole piece still seems to me to assume that God is a trinity of persons, and then analyze various Bible passages with that in mind. The word "personhood" is used throughout the answer, but no Bible passages actually speak of the "personhood" of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit.
 
Andrew
Andrew
@JackDouglas Well, we can all agree then that they clearly don't teach what he teaches.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
6:38 PM
@LeeWoofenden thanks for taking the time to read it
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden That does not render intellectual assent secondary, it renders it superfluous.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@JackDouglas Honestly, I doubt I could provide clear, convincing Bible passages that articulate Swedenborg's doctrine of the trinity either. And when Swedenborg himself is articulating his "essentials" for salvation, he actually uses traditional "Jesus is the Son of God" language rather than asserting his particular doctrine of the Trinity.
What disturbs me is that this doctrine of "personhood" severally of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is being set up as an essential belief of Christianity without ever actually being articulated in the Bible.
 
Eagel
Eagel
@JackDouglas Well if you see they need a change(and for some reason you understand that yourself is not that strange)i think you should stay and pray,you can get your preaching from somewhere/some other church and stay and help you local church.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
For a laugh, see definition 14 of 'person': dictionary.com/browse/person
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
The Athanasian Creed, after articulating the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons in excruciating detail, ends by saying, " This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved." In other words, this creed, which is accepted by much of Christendom, sets up the Trinity of Persons as a belief essential to salvation. That's where I get off the bus.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
6:42 PM
@Eagel I like the principle, but we have to have 2 Peter 2 in mind and draw a line somewhere
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
If people want to believe in a Trinity of Persons, they're certainly free to do so. But to assert that it is essential to Christianity, and that those who don't believe it are not Christians, and are not saved, is going way too far.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
@LeeWoofenden it should be read in its contra-Arianism historical context
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@JackDouglas Is "modes of being" what you're laughing about in that definition?
 
Eagel
Eagel
@JackDouglas snake church maybe,where they handel snakes,but I would pray for them
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
@LeeWoofenden that is funny, but what I find really funny is that God is 3 persons by definition of the word person!
which is kind of meta
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
6:44 PM
@JackDouglas Of course it should. And from a Swedenborgian perspective, Arianism and Trinitarianism were two battling heresies, one of which lost and became a curse-word in Christianity, and the other of which won and became official Christian doctrine.
@JackDouglas I think it's just trying to include one of the ways that the word "person" is used in the English language.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
@LeeWoofenden which is indeed the only way words have meaning
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@JackDouglas But the "modes" thing jumps out at me because I actually do think that the Trinity of Persons is essentially modalistic.
@JackDouglas Certainly. But that doesn't mean that the way a particular group of human beings uses a word, and the concepts behind it, correspond in any way to the words used in the Bible, and the concepts behind them. Just because a doctrine exists, that doesn't mean it accurately reflects what's in the Bible.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
And given that the Bible is the primary source of Christian doctrine, it's hard--in my mind, at least--to argue that something is essential Christian doctrine if it's not articulated in the Bible.
 
Flimzy
Flimzy
@JackDouglas Dictionary definitions reflect usage. That's one usage of the word. It doesn't make God "by definition" anything. It makes that word "by definition" used to describe God.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
6:47 PM
@JackDouglas No I don't what?
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
@LeeWoofenden "However, Swedenborg's theology rejects the defining characteristic of modalist doctrine"
perhaps I'm misreading?
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Flimzy Right. Whether or not that description of God is a true and accurate description of God's actual nature.
@JackDouglas Swedenborg's doctrine is not modalist. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
@LeeWoofenden Maybe I misunderstood "I actually do think that the Trinity of Persons is essentially modalistic."
I think I did
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@JackDouglas Swedenborg rejected the Trinity of Persons, as do I.
I'm saying that I believe the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons is essentially modalistic. It posits a common "essence" of God that exists in three "persons." That, to me, is really not very different from modalism, which says that there's one God who appears in three different ways.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
@Flimzy I don't think you are disagreeing with me
I just think it is a little ironic
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
6:53 PM
@JackDouglas Even the Latin word "persona" has the basic concrete meaning of "mask." So if you want to trace the Trinity of Persons back to root meanings, it's saying that there is one God who wears three different masks. That's modalism.
 
Joshua
Joshua
@JackDouglas The name of the heresy you may be looking for is Sabellianism?
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Joshua Sabellianism is modalism.
 
Joshua
Joshua
@LeeWoofenden it's a form of modalism
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
@LeeWoofenden By way of a caution about hurrying down that route, the section on Etymological fallacies in Dan's BH meta question is a helpful read.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Joshua The origin of modalism is usually traced to Sabellius. So Sabellianism became a synonym for modalism.
@JackDouglas I'm aware that words have varying meanings, and that they can and do depart from the meaning of their roots. But in this case I believe the root of the word persona does accurately describe what the doctrine is actually saying.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
6:57 PM
@LeeWoofenden For consistency and communications sake, I think you shouldn't insist on specific meaning for terms if you want to be free to redefine them yourself
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
Sabellianism
In Christianity, Sabellianism in the Eastern church or Patripassianism in the Western church (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian or anti-trinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son, and Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead—that there are no real or substantial differences among the three, such that there is no substantial identity for the Spirit or the Son. The term Sabellianism comes from Sabellius, who was...
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden Did you forget about my question? I was wondering how you can say both that intellectual assent is not excluded, but secondary to faithful action, and also that those in other religions can be justified without intellectual assent.
 
Flimzy
Flimzy
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
Yes, I'm having some trouble keeping up. It takes time to answer all these comments properly.
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden I understand.
@Flimzy What is PoB?
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
6:59 PM
@LeeWoofenden and if someone else wants do differentiate between slightly different kinds of modalism they are doing less violence to accepted definitions that you when you say "the Trinity of Persons is essentially modalistic"
 
Flimzy
Flimzy
@Andrew Primarily opinion based
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Andrew Those in other religions do have intellectual assent to what I (and Swedenborg) consider essential: the existence of a Creator God who gives us commandments that we must follow.
Further, from a Swedenborgian perspective, Jesus Christ is not some "second person" of God, but is God. Therefore we believe, practically speaking, that anyone who intellectually assents to the existence of God is, in fact, believing in the one God who is the Lord God Jesus Christ. IOW, it's impossible to believe in God without believing in Jesus Christ, even if you don't call God "Jesus Christ."
 
Flimzy
Flimzy
@LeeWoofenden What if you believe in Thor as god?
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Flimzy There are better and worse concepts of God, and they do affect how people live. The acid test is whether "Thor" requires believers to live according to some sort of moral code that prescribes right action toward fellow human beings.
If so, then Thor is a concept of God through which God works.
And by extension, believing in Thor would be believing in God.
My study of various religions suggests that there are very few concepts of God, whether monotheistic or polytheistic, that don't come equipped with a moral/ethical standard that is enjoined on believers.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
I wonder if sometimes we should ask more whether a person 'believes God' rather than 'believes in God'.
4
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
7:06 PM
And most of them are in general agreement on the basics of what constitutes right behavior, even if they may be off on some of the details.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
not least because ignoring Jesus evidences 'not believing God' as he is the clearest word God has spoken
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@JackDouglas That might get people's minds closer to what I think the Bible actually means by "belief" and "faith."
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
@LeeWoofenden "“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife…cursed is the ground because of you", ie you believed to her instead of me
 
Joshua
Joshua
@Flimzy That was before BHSE? Seems on topic for there. But as I understand it migration doesn't migrate answers? Is leave it, or ask it on BHSE maybe and link to it. Then it is at least useful.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
@Joshua it's too old to migrate, there is a time limit now
 
Flimzy
Flimzy
7:10 PM
@Joshua It probably was before BHSE. And yes, it would probably be on-topic there. But it's suddently attracting some highly opinion-based answers, which makes me wonder...
 
Joshua
Joshua
@JackDouglas as I've tried to tell my 3 year old boy many times. Listening means obeying :p He still hasn't gotten it
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Joshua But does he have intellectual assent to it? ;-)
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
@Joshua don't give up! :)
@Joshua Heard an interesting talk by Thomas Schreiner recently — he told the audience there was a bomb in the auditorium (after telling them that what he was about to say wasn't actually true).
his point was, if you believe me you will leave
there is no intellectual assent
it's believe and leave or don't believe
 
Flimzy
Flimzy
@JackDouglas Or believe, and stay despite your instincts. Is that an option? You're suicidal... you want to help rescue those who don't yet believe... you know you're wearing bomb-proof clothing? :)
(I know, I know... you can't take any analogy too far...)
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
@Flimzy ha, yes there are always edge cases
 
Flimzy
Flimzy
7:17 PM
It's bed time here... g'nite y'all.
 
Jack Douglas
Jack Douglas
@Flimzy this is incredibly hard to watch: youtube.com/watch?v=eAqgXhblr-w
@Flimzy and goodnight :)
 
Flimzy
Flimzy
@JackDouglas haha. I've seen a number of those prank videos before.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
7:30 PM
@JackDouglas Yes.
 
Andrew
Andrew
7:45 PM
@LeeWoofenden So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe that a path to justification is (belief in existence of a Commanding Creator ) => ( good deeds ) => ( judgement of works), but belief in the existence of a Creator can exclude the intellectual assent that Jesus is who he claimed to be, or even include the intellectual rejection that Jesus is who he claimed to be.
@LeeWoofenden And you believe this despite passages like "Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us."
@LeeWoofenden because you believe that (1) a person can believe in his name in the way intended by the author without intellectual assent, and (2) this passage is binding for Christians alone, as are all passages regarding believing in or on Messiah in word and deed.
@LeeWoofenden and so in effect a person who believes in the existence of a Creator God who gives us commandments that we must follow is excused from following the commandment to assent to the name of his son, which you include as a secondary part of the commandment to believe in that name?
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Andrew Yes. "Commanding Creator" is not technical language however.
@Andrew For Christians it is necessary to "believe in the name of his Son," i.e. Jesus Christ. Keep in mind that the Epistles were addressed to Christian believers. And if someone claims to be a Christian but rejects belief in Christ, then that person is rejecting God as Christianity teaches about God. You can't be a Christian and reject Christ.
@Andrew In its specific instructions it is binding on Christians alone, yes, because it is addressed to Christians. In its broader meaning it is binding on all, including non-Christians who don't intellectually assent to the idea that Jesus is the Messiah, divine, and so on.
@Andrew What do you think "name" means in the Bible? Does it mean J-E-S-U-S?
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden I know that you talk to a lot of people about these things, but I dislike repeating myself. I have already told you that I am aware that name means "that by which one is called" in addition to "one's character, renown, authority, or cause"
@LeeWoofenden I don't understand how it can be binding and not binding. Can you elucidate?
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Andrew Christians must believe in Christ and follow Christ's commandments in order to be saved. That is binding. People of other religions must believe in God as their religion teaches them to believe in God, and live according to God's commandments as they understand them--and the basics will be the same as Christ's teachings, even if the details may differ.
Atheists must believe in some higher principle of life that is a stand-in for God for them, and live according to that higher principle. For example, they may believe in justice for all human beings on earth. That is a true principle from God. And if they believe in that principle, even if they don't identify it with God, they are believing in a key quality and character of God. And if they live by that, then they are following a commandment from God even if they don't recognize it as such.
What they recognize is that there is a higher principle to life than their own pleasure, well-being, power, possessions, and so on.
That higher principle to life is what serves as God for them.
And God works through that stand-in for God in their minds to bring about their salvation.
Regardless, it is binding that one believe in something higher than oneself and one's own benefit. And it is binding that one live according to that belief.
 
Joshua
Joshua
8:03 PM
@LeeWoofenden he keeps telling me he does, but it's clearly not effectual yet.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Joshua Well, it will likely be something of a battle all the way through. After all, not only is he learning right from wrong, but he is also engaged in asserting his individuality and his ability to make his own moral decisions. Absolute, unthinking obedience is not really a good thing in the long run. So go a little easy on him. :-)
The goal is to raise him to be an adult who has his own moral compass--ideally based on a relationship with God.
 
Eagel
Eagel
@Andrew Are you going to vote?
 
Andrew
Andrew
@Eagel Yes. I'm not going to discuss politics here, however.
 
Eagel
Eagel
@Andrew fair enough
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden So "without faith it is possible to please God, because anyone who comes to him need not believe that he exists..."
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
8:21 PM
@Andrew Again, what do you mean by "faith"? Is faith primarily a matter of believing that God exists, and believing that Jesus is God? Is faith an intellectual thing?
Most atheists, I think, disbelieve in God because the concepts of God that they were raised with were false and not believable to a modern, rational, thinking, caring person. As one of my seminary professors used to like to say, "They don't believe in the same God we don't believe in."
Swedenborg predicted that the Protestant doctrine that he rejected, if not countered and rejected, would lead to atheism. In my experience, he was right. Many of the atheists I have debated and had conversations with over the years grew up fundamentalist Christian, or were heavily influenced by fundamentalist Christian beliefs, and it is that belief in God that they reject.
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden That was a negated bible verse, if you didn't recognize it. I was demonstrating that your teaching directly contradicts the Scriptures. The verse follows the Scriptural definition of faith (pistis), which is "ὑπόστασις (the confidence or being) of what is hoped for and elegchos (being persuaded of the veracity of) about what we do not see."
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
Almost all of the anti-God, anti-religion arguments of the big-name "New Atheists" are a rejection of fundamentalist-style beliefs and the usual concomitant literalistic Bible interpretations. And they're right. That stuff is wrong and not true.
I believe that atheism is itself a tool in the hand of God to help rid the world of much bad and wrong theology.
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden irrelevant
@LeeWoofenden also irrelevant
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Andrew How does my teaching directly contradict scriptures?
@Andrew Very relevant. False teaching leads to disbelief. I believe that the false doctrines of traditional Christianity are the direct cause of most of the Western world's atheism.
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
 
Eagel
Eagel
8:32 PM
@LeeWoofenden All anti religion arguments are easy to stop and laugh at them ,but,what about science and all the ,the earth is millions of years.All the great universitys say much of the same.HOW to answer that?
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Andrew You (apparently?) condemn atheists to hell because they don't have "faith" in God as you define it. This is relevant to the discussion because I believe they do have a low-level form of faith in God through believing in and living by true principles that ultimately come from God, even if atheists don't recognize those principles as coming from God. Therefore this is all very relevant to the discussion at hand.
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden Atheists, by definition, do not believe that God exists.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Andrew Please provide the reference.
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden If Jesus did not need to condemn them, then nether do I. "He is condemned by his words"
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
8:33 PM
@Andrew That's why I'm asking you what you mean by "faith." Does "faith," to you, mean an intellectual belief in the existence of God?
@Andrew Again, please provide the reference. Context is critical.
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden I thought you've been a minister and a biblical scholar for decades. You don't know what verse that is?
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Andrew I don't want to have to look up every chapter and verse you quote to me. My mind mostly doesn't work by numbers and references.
It takes long enough to respond to all these questions without having to do a verse search each time.
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden John 3:18
@LeeWoofenden Neither does mine, that's why I don't cite them. Hebrews 11:6
@LeeWoofenden By faith I mean "ὑπόστασις (the confidence or being) of what is hoped for and ἔλεγχος (being persuaded of the veracity of) about what we do not see," (Hebrews 11:1)
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Andrew Hebrews 11 is talking about people who believe in and approach God. So it's really a truism that for anyone to approach God s/he must believe in God.
@Andrew Do you think of "what we do not see" as referring to blind faith? The idea that we must believe something precisely because even though it makes no sense to us, but is asserted as true by the church?
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden Very true! Which is why it's impossible for someone to approach God or to please him, if they do not believe he exists.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
8:40 PM
@Andrew And about John 18, to understand it properly you must read it in context. It goes on to say:
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden No, I consider it in the sense of "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29)
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
> And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God. (John 3:19-21)
Jesus clearly does not mean good-hearted people who live a good life of love and concern for their neighbor but don't intellectually believe that Jesus is God. He is speaking of people who are evil and hate the light, and therefore flee from it.
The immediate referent is the religious authorities of the day, who rejected him because he threatened their wealth, power, position, and privilege. They rejected him and didn't believe in him precisely "because their deeds were evil."
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
@LeeWoofenden But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Andrew I agree with that. But I also goes a step farther. Those who are able to believe things unseen with the physical eyes (remember, this was said in the context of Thomas not believing until he physically saw Jesus, put his hand in his side, etc.)--i.e., those who are able to believe spiritual things, are blessed.
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden This verse demonstrates that those who do what is true come to the light, that is they come to Messiah. Those who do not do what is true do not come to Messiah.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
8:45 PM
@Andrew Unfortunately, much of the "light of God" that has been presented to the world by the institutional Christian Church has not been the light of truth, but the darkness of falsity. And those who truly seek the light will shun that darkness of falsity. And that, very unfortunately, means that they commonly reject a belief in God along with rejecting all of the Church's false teachings about God.
@Andrew And if the teachings of the Church about the Messiah were actually true, and represented the true light that was coming into the world, then the many good-hearted people who have become atheists out of aversion to harsh, false, irrational, and unloving teachings about God would be drawn to that light instead of being repelled by the darkness that has all but extinguished the light of Christ.
This is what Jesus meant when he said:
> But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in, you stop them. (Matthew 23:13)
I believe that the modern purveyors of false "Christian" doctrine are our present-day scribes and Pharisees, who lock people out of the kingdom of heaven, and when others are going in, stop them.
I believe that if Jesus were to come back physically today, he would have some exceedingly harsh words for the various religious institutions that claim to operate in his name.
 
Andrew
Andrew
@LeeWoofenden I understand that you feel strongly about these things, but all of this is irrelevant to our discussion concerning your teaching, which you are avoiding.
 
Lee Woofenden
Lee Woofenden
@Andrew I am answering as many of your questions as I reasonably can given limitations of space and time. I keep answering your questions about my teachings and beliefs, and you keep saying I'm "avoiding" your questions.
If there is some specific question I missed, please feel free to re-ask it.
 
00:00 - 15:0015:00 - 21:0021:00 - 00:00

« first day (1735 days earlier)      last day (2905 days later) »