The Upper Room - 2016-08-27

« first day (1830 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2796 days later) »

12:35 AM

@LeeWoofenden 1) It IS Justification by Faith. Faith alone was the Sola Fide slogan of the reformation. But you are taking it out of the context of the reformation and the rest of protestant reformation salvation theology. Justification is only part of salvation. It is the initial cause, but it is not the entirety.

"Works are necessary to salvation, but they do not cause salvation, because faith alone gives life. On account of the hypocrites we must say that good works are necessary to salvation. It is necessary to work."

"Nevertheless, it does not follow that works save on that account, unless we understand necessity very clearly as the necessity that there must be an inward and outward salvation or righteousness. Works save outwardly, that is, they show evidence that we are righteous and that there is faith in a man which saves inwardly" - Martin Luther, The Disputation Concerning Justification

12:55 AM

@Joshua Does this mean that you are ready to repudiate sola fide? And argue that Luther really didn't mean "justification by faith alone"?

1:07 AM

@LeeWoofenden No. He meant it. But we keep trying to tell you what that means is not what you continue to say it means. Your version of faith alone is exactly what James is speaking against. We agree that kind of faith (alone in the sense of an absence of works) does not save. But faith alone (not a faith that is alone) is the required ingredient. Without it all the works in the world will not save you.

The "Alone" part refers to the causation. It alone can bring life, but if it is a faith that does not have works of faith, then it is not a saving faith to begin with.

@LeeWoofenden Not that you haven't been quoted these before or they will meet your approval, but I said I would, so here are many of the verses that speak on justification by faith: Justification by Faith

1:25 AM

@Joshua This is really just a lot of gibberish to try to justify a doctrine that has no biblical justification. The Bible never says that we are saved or justified by faith alone. Luther made that up. And I don't really care how he words his justification of faith alone, it's wrong. It is not faith alone nor a faith that is alone nor "alone" as the causation nor anything alone--except God alone--that justifies or saves us.

@Joshua We're not talking about justification by faith. We're talking about justification by faith alone. I am asking for passages that say that faith alone justifies or saves.

Don't try to shift ground and say Luther merely says that we're justified by faith. Luther says that we're justified by faith alone. That is what he made up. That is what has no biblical foundation or justification.

@LeeWoofenden Oh geez well no one is saying it is the faith itself that is doing the saving. Come now. You know this. No one is saying we're saved by faith apart from God.

@Joshua But people are saying that we are saved or justified by faith alone, apart from works, etc. You're making it sound as if the "alone" part has no meaning whatsoever, and is just sort of tacked on there. But really, it is the core essence of Luther's teaching on the subject.

"Faith alone" means "faith apart from works", because there are only two things that could possibly be done by humans to be saved: do works, or have faith. This is the context of Luther's teaching. The RCC taught that it was faith PLUS works that humans had to do to be saved. Luther taught that it was faith WITHOUT works that we had to do, and even that faith was a gift of God. Because that's what the Bible teaches.

Catholics and Orthodox Christians would not deny that we're justified by faith. But they would deny that we are justified by faith alone. That is what distinguishes Luther's doctrine from Catholic (and Orthodox) doctrine.

Yup

1:30 AM

@LeeWoofenden Read the article I wrote that is full of passages, put in an order with a logical progression, that when read together show that faith, not works, save (and unless you have a 3rd option that makes it faith alone). But also addresses that this saving faith must work in order to be alive. Notice James says it is dead, not ineffectual for salvation if made alive and completed by proof of works of faith,.

@Birdie No. In the only passage where the Bible mentions faith alone, it specifically denies that it justifies:

Or don't. It's up to you, but you can no longer deny I have provided them (though they may be unsatisfactory to you)

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

The Bible simply does not teach justification by faith alone.

It specifically denies it.

@LeeWoofenden Stop it, read the whole passage.

You're cherry picking a verse without taking it in context

And then you criticize me when I do the same

1:32 AM

And don't start adding all sorts of words to what James said. He didn't say anything about "positional" justification, or any of the other stuff that Protestants say to try to explain away the one and only passage in the Bible that speaks of faith alone.

The whole context shows that James means exactly what he says: that we are not, not, not justified by faith alone, that faith alone is dead, that faith alone accomplishes nothing, that we are justified by works together with faith. That's what the whole context says, no matter how fancily Protestants try to explain it away.

No, you're wrong. The context is for those who claim to have faith, but do not back it up with works. " What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?" "SUCH FAITH"

Because there is not just one faith

And the fact is that Paul also never says that we are justified by faith alone. Not in one single passage.

There can be faith that the sun rises tomorrow

The Bible also never says that good works are the fruits of faith. That's another Protestant myth.

Both faith and good works are fruits of love.

@Birdie In other words, we are not justified or saved by faith alone: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

No, that's not what it says in the context

We are not saved by the kind of faith that results in no works

That's what the passage says! Such faith, that is, faith not followed by deeds, does not save.

1:36 AM

It is truly amazing to me that Protestants steadfastly reject the one and only passage in the entire Bible that makes a clear statement about justification by faith alone. Luther didn't need to chuck James out of the Bible. Protestants do it for him conceptually.

It is truly amazing to me that you continually ignore context.

@Birdie It doesn't say "faith followed by deeds." That, once again, is a Protestant myth.

> Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? (James 2:21)

> Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road? (James 2:25)

Because they were evidence of his faith!

He doesn't say, "justified by faith followed by works." He says, "justified by works."

Yes, and in Romans it says justified by faith WITHOUT WORKS

1:38 AM

@LeeWoofenden You realize this actually supports our position right? Unless we are going to say Paul and James are purposely contradiction each other. It shows that James is putting emphasis on the action that is driven by true faith.

> Can faith save you? (James 2:14)

The whole passage is a resounding "NO!"

Lee, it says in Romans that we are justified by faith WITHOUT WORKS.

Which informs how we should understand his other statements on works and faith, puts them in context.

Can works save you? NO. It can't be both. Should we believe one understanding of one verse that disagrees with a dozen others? Or should we see that your understanding of the one is wrong.

@Joshua No. That's not what James says. James says not once, but three times, that we are justified by works. He doesn't say works driven by faith. He says by works, and by works together with faith. There is nothing about works flowing from faith.

"You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;" says it right there

1:41 AM

@LeeWoofenden You skipped the logical part about the contradicting Paul in Romans. Either it is a purposeful contradiction OR there is an understanding that harmonizes them. We are providing that harmonizing interpretation. I'm sure you would like to change Roman's understanding to harmonize, feel free.

@Joshua You've picked the wrong set of passages as your baseline. It's not that James doesn't contradict Paul. It's that Paul doesn't contradict James. James has the clearest statement on the matter: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." That settles it. Now we have to understand how Paul doesn't contradict this clear, definitive statement on faith alone.

@Birdie Throughout James' he assumes the presence of faith first and then is examining that faith.

@Joshua The harmonizing principle is that Paul was talking about the works of the law, meaning the rules given to the Israelites by Moses regarding circumcision, sacrifice, ritual purification, and so on.

@LeeWoofenden Right like I said, go ahead and harmonize it with Romans 4

And James wasn't?

1:44 AM

Please, please read Acts 15. It is all explained there. Paul must be read in the context of the controversy about which a compromise was reached at the so-called First Council of Jerusalem. If you don't understand that piece of early Christian history, you simply can't understand Paul.

@LeeWoofenden The only problem with that is we have a dozen supporting Pauline statements about faith and works that would seem to point to James being the anomalous interpretation.

@LeeWoofenden Like Acts 15:8? "having cleansed their hearts by faith. "

@Birdie No. James was not talking about the works of the law. He was not saying that we must get circumcised, sacrifice cows, and ritually cleanse our house if mold shows up in it. He was saying that we must do good deeds, aka good works in order to be justified. That good works are essential to justification, not just a byproduct of it.

@Joshua We have not one single statement in Paul, or anywhere else in the Bible, saying that we are justified by faith alone. Not one.

@LeeWoofenden But we have several saying it is by faith, not works. You have a 3rd option?

That's your interpretation though, not what it actually says. It says in James 2:10 " For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it." The WHOLE law, not just some small amount of it.

Galatians 3:10-12 "10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”

1:47 AM

Joshua, his third option is that Paul is never referrring to anything except the ceremonial law.

@Joshua Not the works of the law. That's what Paul was talking about, even when he used shorthand and didn't spell out "the law." Even in Ephesians 2:8, the currently most popular passage Protestants quote at me, he immediately starts talking about "circumcision" just three verses later, making it clear from the context that he is still talking about "the works of the Law" even though he is using shorthand there.

Paul's basic argument is that Christians no longer need to be observant Jews. He also has a meta-argument that we are no longer under a covenant of external, behavioral obedience to law, but rather under an internal covenant of faith, which now prompts us to keep the commandments of God represented especially in the Ten Commandments. The ritual law is no longer necessary under this new, inner covenant.

The whole idea that Paul is talking about faith alone completely misses the point, and makes it impossible to see what he really is saying. It's utterly ahistorical, and it injects words and concepts into Paul's writing that he never had in mind.

That little word "alone" has so scrambled Protestants' minds that they simply can't read what Paul is actually saying.

@LeeWoofenden Oh great this again.

@Joshua It is a fact that Paul never says that we are justified by faith alone. It is a fact that James says we are justified by works, and not by faith alone. Protestants cannot see these facts because Luther's sola fide has been injected so deeply into their minds that they cannot even read what the Bible does and doesn't say.

It is also a fact that the Bible never says that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. But Protestants can't see that, either, because penal substitution has been so deeply injected into their minds that they see it everywhere in the Bible, despite the fact that the Bible never actually says it.

@LeeWoofenden Actually its just because I can read. And comprehend. I understood what James meant and how it was resolved with Paul and Romans 3 at the age of 16 just by reading my bible, before I had ever even heard the term "sola fide". It is NOT a fact that is what he MEANT. It is YOUR interpretation.

@Joshua No. These are simple facts. That's why you cannot show me any passage in the Bible that says we are justified by faith alone. And that is why you cannot show me any passage in the Bible that says that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins.

I can show you a passage that says we are not justified by faith alone. But you reject it and explain it away. And I can show you passages that reject the premise of penal substitution. But those, too, you reject and explain away.

What is truly amazing to me is how deeply these false teachings have been ingrained in the minds of people in the Protestant world, despite the fact that neither of these teachings is ever actually stated in the Bible, but are explicitly denied there.

1:59 AM

And when you next claim that "faith alone" was implanted in my mind at a younger age before I even read them, then I will respond that you also were. And what you were taught is preventing you from even seeing or comprehending what we are saying James means.

@Joshua I'm talking about what James says. You're trying to "explain" that he means something different than what he actually says. But the things you say he means are not actually stated in James. In fact, he states the opposite. Three times, once in general and twice via example, James says that we are justified by our works. That, too, you attempt to explain away.

James's meaning is crystal clear.

@LeeWoofenden Please stop that. I am asking in earnest. It is bordering on insulting. No one here is going off about your Swedenborgian indoctrination every 5 minutes.

@Joshua It is the only way I can understand how for twenty years now I have not found a single Protestant that will acknowledge the fact that the Bible does not say we are justified by faith alone, but specifically denies it, and that the Bible does not say that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins, but specifically denies the principle behind it.

@LeeWoofenden Probably because you are begging the question all the time. It is not fact. It is your interpretation no matter how many times you try to say it is clear. It is clear to me it is the opposite. At least I am capable of recognizing your interpretation. But you cannot even do us the courtesy of that.

Paul's meaning is blindingly obvious to anyone who knows and pays attention to the history and controversies of the early Christian church during his time period. It's all laid out there. The history is told. The controversy is known. And yet, Protestants continue to ignore and deny the plain, clear, obvious meaning of Paul's statements that we are justified by faith apart from the works of the Law.

@Joshua I'm not talking about interpretation. I'm talking about what the Bible says. I'm talking about the Bible's own plain words. We can interpret anything to mean anything. My wife commonly interprets my tone of voice to mean exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. But I actually do mean what I say. And the Bible means what it says, too.

You just can't get any clearer than: "You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone." There's no need to "interpret" it. It means what it says.

That's what "justification" really is: becoming righteous. And it happens by what we do, not just by what we believe. That is the plain message of the entire Bible, Paul included.

2:07 AM

@LeeWoofenden You've misunderstood my own simple words too many times for me to put any faith in that. That is simply not how language, understanding and comprehension work.

@Joshua I'm much more interested in the Bible's own plain words. And so far you have shown me no plain words whatsoever from the Bible saying that we are justified by faith alone.

Interpretations are a dime a dozen. Every Tom, Dick, and Jane Christian has interpretations of different passages in the Bible. But when it comes to the critical knowledge we need in order to be saved, the Bible is perfectly capable of telling us that in its own plain words, without the need for Luther, Calvin, Swedenborg, or anyone else to interpret it.

And the things you are telling me simply aren't said in the Bible.

So no, I really don't care about your interpretation. When it comes to our eternal salvation, I care about what the Bible says.

@LeeWoofenden Ok we are re-treading things here, though you speak as though we never did. That's not what interpretation means in my own context, and you are once again claiming that I need their interpretation to understand it for myself....

@Joshua If you would quote me one passage in which the Bible says we are justified by faith alone, or one passage that says that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins, then I might admit that it's a matter of interpretation. But you can't. So your interpretation on this matter is worthless.

Yes, I'm being very blunt. The Bible simply doesn't say what you say it says.

That's a fact.

Phil 3:9 "and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith"

And to take something that the Bible doesn't say, and make it into the cornerstone of the church's teaching about salvation, is, in my mind, a sacrilege.

@Joshua Does it say "faith alone"?

2:15 AM

@LeeWoofenden Do you intellectually understand how I can read that verse and see that it is implying faith alone? I'm not asking if you agree, but are you at least capable of seeing it?

@LeeWoofenden And actually I was quoting that verse in regards to your righteousness statements...

It clearly says it is NOT by what we do

@Joshua And once again the telltale sign, "circumcision" occurs in verses 3 and 5, putting the words in verse 9 in context.

@Joshua I don't care about "implying." People see all sorts of implications in all sorts of things. And those implications are commonly driven by the person's own expectations and preconceived notions. What I care about is something that says that we are justified by faith alone. That's what you cannot produce. Because the Bible does not say that we are justified by faith alone.

@LeeWoofenden What about v6?

@LeeWoofenden So...this is a no? You don't even understand my argument? See my perspective? Understand how I arrived at that understanding? You just...disagree? Without fully conceiving what you are disagreeing with? Or do you just refuse to try?

@Joshua Obviously in verse 6 Paul is saying that as a former Pharisee, he was a scrupulously observant Jew, meaning he adhered to the ritual law. That's the whole point! That's what Paul is talking about! He's contrasting his former life as an observant Jew with his life now as a Christian, who no longer must observe the ritual law that Jews must observe.

@Joshua I'm saying I really don't care what your argument or interpretation is. I just don't care. What I care is whether the Bible says it. And by that, I mean the Bible says it in its own plain words. Just as it says in its own plain words that we are not justified by faith alone, but by works.

@Joshua Why, really, should I care about your interpretation and your arguments? Are you God? Are your words the Word of God?

Why do you think I should pay attention to your thinking, your interpretation, your argument? Why, when you can't actually show me a passage in the Bible that says these things?

I make no apology for paying attention to the Bible, and not to you.

@LeeWoofenden I never asked you to care or to agree. I specifically said that. I asked a straightforward question. Yes or No, if you at least understood my argument.

@Joshua I think your argument is without merit. And it fails to do what I have asked you to do: Show me a passage in the Bible that says (not infers, implies, etc.) that we are justified by faith alone.

2:24 AM

@LeeWoofenden Because I have shown you passages and tried to explain how I see that they do clearly say these things. Because a basic tenet of honest discourse is being able to understand the other's position, regardless of your feelings on it, if for no other reason than to be able to pick it apart from inside.

@Joshua I don't want to have it explained to me how you see that they "clearly say these things." I want to see passages that do clearly say these things, without your having to "explain" to me how they say these things when in fact they do not say these things.

Do you really think that God is so bad at talking to us that it requires you to tell me what He means?

@Joshua Joshua, there are thousands of different Christian churches out there and millions of different Christian individuals out there, all with their own opinion of what the Bible means. Why should I pay any more attention to what you think it means than to what any of those other thousands or millions think it means?

Once again, I'm not interested in what you see in the Bible. I'm interested in what the Bible says.

@LeeWoofenden And lastly, because I have done you the courtesy of trying to understand your position this entire time, now only to find you have had no such decency. Your pride and complete inability to be self aware blind you.

@LeeWoofenden I think you are so bad at reading that I do...

@Joshua Quite frankly, Protestantism has so abysmally failed to provide any sound Biblical basis for its opinions whatsoever that I don't find it worth my time to spend the hundreds or thousands of hours that would be required to fully grasp its "mysteries of faith." They are false prima facie because their basic claims simply aren't stated in the Bible, and are even specifically denied in the Bible.

@Joshua You can call me names if you want. But it would be far more effective to quote me passages from the Bible that say the things you claim the Bible says.

I am finished discussing things with you. I had hoped I was speaking with an honest debater but it seems my earlier evaluation is confirmed. I am finished trying to talk to a brick wall.

2

I've quoted you numerous passages that say, plainly and clearly, what I say the Bible says. And you can find more here: Christian Beliefs that the Bible Does Teach.

@Joshua Fine. I'll take that as an admission that you simply can't quote me any Bible passages that actually say what you claim the Bible says.

That's all I'm asking for.

And you won't do it because you can't, because your doctrine is false and non-Biblical.

Any time you are ready to quote me a Bible passage in which the Bible says we are justified by faith alone, and says Jesus paid the penalty for our sins, I'm all ears.

Until then I would strongly urge you to consider whether you are really following the Bible, or whether you are actually following human beings such as Luther and Calvin.

10 hours later…

Elisha and his Brethren

12:09 PM

0

Q: Does Psalm 20:6 prove that Jesus is not the Messiah?

"Now I know that the LORD saves his anointed; he will answer him from his holy heaven with the saving might of his right hand." - Psalm 20:6 But Jesus was crucified...he wasn't saved. Is this one of the verses that Jews link to the Messiah?

messiah tehilim-psalms christianity

12:31 PM

-1

Q: What is the biblical basis for allowing atheists to speak openly and freely in society?

I will present the argument and evidence that a Christian should NOT support allowing atheists to self identify as atheists (or other obvious fooleries like fsm) without severe repercussion from government. To keep the answers objective and from being marked "opinion based", I am asking for any e...

christian-living civil-government philosophy atheism politics

What is this insanity??

1:00 PM

@LeeWoofenden Saw a quote from a friend on FB today: "meaning is a thing that is apart from us until we make it a part of our thoughts and beliefs via the process of understanding its meaning; a process commonly called interpretation."

The fruit, that's the result of a tree. The "Works".

"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." (Matthew 7:19 NASB)

If you haven't understood and interpreted a text then you can't say what it says.

"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”" (John 8:24 NASB)

Here we have two statements directly from Jesus showing us the contrast of Lee and Joshua's contemplation.

"Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”" (John 6:29 NASB)

Now what makes a person believe Einstein?

They hear what he said, see its application, then they use the function.

Those that see his function and make no use of it, do not benefit from its usage. (From one perspective).

Those that see his function and make no use of it, indeed do benefit from its usage. (From a different perspective).

However the "Glory of the benefit" goes to those that use it.

Why should I say, "I'm very smart" for using electricity, that comes from nuclear power?

Instead, I can say, "They are very smart" for designing the application that allows the nuclear power.

Therefore the glory goes to the ones that hear what Jesus says, and does it.

This is why we call him, the "Lord of Glory" =)

Now does glory go to the one that believes that Einstein existed?

Or that he did much math to come to the conclusion?

No, the glory only goes to those that use its principal.

Hoping I used the correct spelling there (one of my weaknesses).

Likewise, does forgiveness go to the one that believes Jesus existed?

Or that he died on a cross?

For his dying on a cross acts similarly to Einstien's use of math.

Again does glory go to the one that believed Einstein did the math?

Yet its when people realize how the parable of the sower explains the four types of mindsets, and when a person should talk to another, and also how they should remain, ready and watchful to hear what gets said. Then that person will receive benefit.

1:44 PM

Todays dinner is :Kartoffelpüree mit Bratwurst und Sauerkraut while Dortmund und Mainz is playing on tv. There must be some rest,can't study Torah,Bibel,New testament,church fathers everyday.

As you wish

2:10 PM

@curiousdannii Humm, so now FB is our source for how we should read the Bible. You're still simply obfuscating, and diverting attention from the fact that the Bible never says that we are justified by faith alone, while it does say that we are not justified by faith alone, and from the fact that the Bible never says that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins, but it does explicitly reject the premise on which penal substitution is based.

If I say, "Dick and Jane ran to the park," we really don't need to "interpret" its meaning. It is clear from the words themselves, and likely from the context as well, what the statement is saying. Two individuals named Dick and Jane propelled themselves rapidly on foot to the local outdoor recreation facility. All that's needed is to understand the meaning of the words.

Now, we could interpret it to mean that two elements of our psyche, the ego and the id, worked together to rapidly seek and attain a state of ecstasy for our psyche. And Jungians could write whole treatises about how that's what this sentence really means. That would be interpretation.

Protestants could say that what it really means is that Dick, representing faith, led the way, and Jane, representing works, followed, the faith leading to the works, and that this is how our soul quickly reaches the "park" of salvation. That would be interpretation.

But most ordinary people would simply read the sentence and picture in their mind two children, a boy and a girl, running to the park where they can play on the playground equipment or throw a ball around.

Although you certainly can interpret the text, you can also simply read the text, and understand what the original author was describing.

Protestantism must interpret the text because the original authors never actually said what Protestant doctrine teaches.

That's why, instead of quoting me passages that say that we are justified by faith alone, and that say Jesus paid the penalty for our sins, you are trying to pull us down various rabbit holes of "interpretation." You can't quote any passages that actually say what Protestantism teaches on these subjects, so you must fall back on convoluted arguments as to why that's what the Bible means even though it never actually comes out and says these things.

@curiousdannii If you want to base your beliefs on human interpretation rather than on what the Bible actually says, you are, of course, welcome to do so. As for me, when it comes to critical issues such as our eternal salvation, I'll stick with what the Bible actually says.

2:28 PM

Eben Alexander: A Neurosurgeon's Journey through the Afterlife youtube.com/watch?v=qbkgj5J91hE

Listening to this now,what is this?His brain gone crazey or Is it true?

@Lee and yet the Bible doesn't say exactly what those critical issues are. And some Christians are universalists, so perhaps not even salvation is critical. Maybe what's critical is obedience to god's law. If all we have is what it actually says then I guess we'll never know.

Would be great if we would talk more about the Afterlife here!

3:03 PM

@Eagle Why? Don't take a lack of talking about it to indicate a lack of interest or desire, there's just not much we can say about it when we aren't experiencers of it yet

3:58 PM

@curiousdannii Yes, there's room for paying more attention to some statements of the Bible and less attention to others. That's why it's important to read the whole Bible and notice the themes that are continued throughout the entire Bible rather than those that are made only in one or two places, or in one or two books. Presumably God would emphasize the most important messages by stating them repeatedly throughout the Bible.

@curiousdannii What doesn't work is to take things that the Bible never actually says, and use them as an interpretive framework through which to read everything that the Bible does say. And that is precisely what Protestantism has done.

@Eagle You might be interested in: "Near-Death Experiences and the Doctors‌."

4:57 PM

@curiousdannii It's still insanity, but see what you think of my edit. If OP doesn't object (which he probably will), I think it's worth reopening.

@LeeWoofenden Talmud says, for example, "you assume that the sages are in paradise but it is not so, in fact paradise is in the sages".The story goes that a rabbi was in heaven because he prayd for it and he saw that people was studying the torah and He saw its the same as on earth.Jesus also says The kingdom is within you.maybe we keep on doing the same without sin in another form.

IN heaven As on earth..

we pray

Maybe there is no big mystery

(I see you have Eben Alexander in your blog)

@curiousdannii "there's just not much we can say about it when we aren't experiencers of it yet" I think there is very much to say about it and in us to try to understand it.

I think we are in connection with the afterlife right now

5:38 PM

@Nathaniel The question is still questionable. Even with your edits it spends the bulk of its time speaking of historical groups of Christians who believed atheists should be executed, then asks, essentially, for the biblical basis against that stance. And it still doesn't identify any actual groups of Christians who take the affirmative stance whose biblical basis is being asked for.

5:48 PM

@LeeWoofenden We don't normally require identification of groups unless there's some question that they exist, and I don't think that's in question here. But the edit does include a group criticizing Bahnsen. If you think that's important it can be emphasized, but I don't see the point.

6:18 PM

I've lengthened the quote to include the following sentence, making it clear that (!) there is indeed a Christian denomination that opposes persecution of atheists.

7:17 PM

@Nathaniel Well, that's a toehold at least. This whole issue has been taken up in @Flimzy's meta post:

11

Q: What is the Biblical basis for Oompa Loompas?

Biblical basis questions are quite popular here, and many of them are good questions. But a large number of them are also really bad questions, because they are based on the false premise that there is a Biblical basis. A few recent examples: What is the biblical basis for the idea that belie...

discussion biblical-basis-questions on-topic

As I said in my answer there, I think that questioners should at least be able to identify, if asked, specific Christian groups or denominations that hold to a position whose biblical basis they are asking for. Otherwise people can just come here and ask for the biblical basis of any random thing that no self-identified Christian group actually believes.

@LeeWoofenden Is it that you doubted that a Christian group bothered to make a biblical basis argument for this issue?

More specifically, the question to ask about biblical basis questions is: "Does any recognizable Christian group or denomination hold to the belief, and think that it has a basis in the Bible?"

(From my answer to Flimzy's meta post)

@Nathaniel I'm not in favor of being super strict about it, but basically, yes. If no actual Christian group believes something and claims that it has a biblical basis, where's the beef? Nobody's actually saying Belief X has a biblical basis.

To me this whole thing is painfully obvious, because theonomy is a serious issue that serious theologians in my tradition regularly deal with.

C.SE is not about random ideas that might have a biblical basis. It's about the beliefs of actual Christian groups and denominations, and the biblical basis for those beliefs.

@Nathaniel If so, then it should be painfully easy to point to present-day denominations that hold to this position, and at least presumably think that it has a basis in the Bible.

That Free Church of Scotland article, quoted in the question, does exactly that, immediately after the part I quoted.

7:23 PM

I also just don't like the whole form of the question: Here's a controversial idea. Prove that it's wrong from the Bible.

@Nathaniel Yes. As I said, at least it's a toehold.

@LeeWoofenden Sure, but theonomy is just another minority view that the vast majority of Christendom finds distasteful.

never heard Oompa loompas before.. funny

I mean, we wouldn't object to a question asking "what is the biblical basis for the idea that Jesus was God" just because 95% of Christians think it's obvious.

@Eagle Not a Roald Dahl fan? Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was quite popular in my family and neighborhood growing up.

@LeeWoofenden I could specifically call out the fact that the Free Church makes biblical arguments for their view of tolerance, but that seems to defeat the purpose of the question. Perhaps, "I know the Free Church makes a few biblical arguments against theonomy and for tolerance of atheists, but I'd like to know, more generally, what the biblical basis is for this position."

7:28 PM

@Nathaniel But even such a question would not take the form, "Historically, most human beings on earth have not believed that Jesus is God. Group X didn't believe it, group Y didn't believe it, and group Z didn't believe it. So what's the biblical basis for believing it?"

Rather, it would take the form, "The vast bulk of Christian denominations believe that Jesus is God. What is the biblical basis for this belief?"

I don't think anyone would quibble about that even if it didn't name a specific denomination.

I suspect what the OP was really "asking" was, "Look how all you Christians used to persecute atheists! How do you get away with this flip-flop of now saying we should tolerate atheists?!?" It's not a real question.

@LeeWoofenden Hmm, okay. I guess I see the questions as equally on-topic, with one being poorly executed and the other being better executed. I'd expect votes to deal with the quality of execution, but not close votes.

At least, not a question that's on-topic here.

@LeeWoofenden Huh; I didn't get that impression, but let me read it again. Numerically speaking, you're much more likely to find an atheist than a theonomist, so I may have misread it.

I think we should encourage theonomists to use this site and ask challenging questions, but perhaps we don't even have a poorly executed example of that in this case.

No, I'm pretty sure this guy is a theonomist.

@LeeWoofenden Do you think the edited version still borders on (or is) a "not-real" question?

@Nathaniel Okay, there's some of what I just said, but there's more of what I said earlier: float a controversial position, and challenge people to prove it wrong from the Bible. That's really not what this site is for.

@Nathaniel I'm not sure the OP's original question can be turned into an on-topic question here without making it something completely different than it was. I think you're struggling valiantly to make it into something on-topic, but to the extent that you're still using what was in the original question, it's not on-topic, and the part that is on-topic is added, yet still not featured.

The format should be, "Here's a position held by X group(s) of Christians. What is the biblical basis for this belief?"

But that question's format is, "Here's a position held by X Christians/historical figures. What's the biblical basis for their being wrong?"

@LeeWoofenden Hmm, I think I get it. But surely in this case some historical context is needed? "Everyone" these days believes in tolerance for atheists, so why is it even a question? Because people X, Y, and Z believe(d) it.

7:44 PM

@Nathaniel What was missing was the "everyone these days," and some support for that claim by naming at least one denomination that does support this position in their official documents. Then if you want to provide some historical context from times when "everyone" didn't believe it in order to show the cogency of the question, that's fine.

Beyond that, the question was just too darn long.

Okay. I'll make some more tweaks, even though I should be working on my next Q&A on the Eastern fathers, or, even more accurately, cleaning the bathroom...

@Nathaniel And I'm determined to get a new article written for my blog today . . .

8:02 PM

@LeeWoofenden It's even shorter now. OP will be along shortly to revert, I'm sure.

@LeeWoofenden Never read Roal Dahl,his fam. was norwegian,the name is super norwegian,not english at all

8:41 PM

I've voted to reopen based on revision 8. The original post was certainly not in keeping with this site's guidelines. Most of it would fit well as an answer to the opposite of this question, however. — fredsbend 17 mins ago

1 hour later…

9:51 PM

Ken Graham is never in here,but he comments everyting,he should be in here

10:38 PM

Anyone know what a biblical day was/is..24 hours or just sunrise to sunset?Or whatever?

Im writing this all wrong

But how did they see the days.WHat is a biblical day?

11:39 PM

@LeeWoofenden The more you say "what the Bible says" the less likely anyone is to ever engage in you again. It is extremely hypocritical to engage in massive interpretation yourself but refuse to allow anyone else to do so. But actually, I don't know what you're referring to. What is the thing which the Bible never actually says which Protestants use as their interpretive framework?

@Nathaniel Your latest revision is good. But it would've been better to ask it yourself - you deserve the rep!

« first day (1830 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2796 days later) »

Transcript for

Aug '1627

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