The Upper Room

fredsbend

12:21 AM

@LeeWoofenden and I get shot down to keep them open.

Aigle

12:40 AM

@LeeWoofenden Once again?Have I said you take it literally?Well thank you for your answer anyway

curiousdannii

@fredsbend The question really needs to be explicit about whether it wants pre-mill answers etc.

Lee Woofenden

1:38 AM

@fredsbend Whole lotta shooting going on.

@Aigle I thought you were the same one who asked a similar question previously. If not, my apologies.

fredsbend

2:37 AM

@curiousdannii I disagree.

It's effectively asking for the order of events as they are written in the book. There's really no interpretation going on. The book says "I saw event X happen. And then I saw event Y happen." And so on.

curiousdannii

2:53 AM

@fredsbend But Revelation doesn't use the word "rapture" to describe any of those events.

@fredsbend I just noticed you removed the premillinealism tag! That really should have been kept in it!

fredsbend

3:26 AM

@curiousdannii most Christians when they say "rapture" actually mean Second Coming. The question was about the millennial reign, relative to the rapture (aka Second Coming). That's the only reason I quoted Thessalonians. Because indeed Revelation doesn't mention the rapture. I suppose I could know this in my answer but that would be a critique on my answer. So if you'd like to critique my answer does that mean you now agree with me and the question is on topic?

@curiousdannii I don't think that matters in this case. Premillennialism and rapture are probably about the only terms the asker knows. He's not asking for a dogmatic answer. You'll notice he gave me the selection, so I'd say I read it right.

anonymouswho

7:36 AM

@Caleb I went ahead and deleted the question. I was nervous about putting it on there with the warning, and when you removed it I decided it was best not to carry on any further. I never thought I'd say this, but I guess some questions really are too dangerous to ask. Since you believe in something else, would you agree that this is a dangerous doctrine?

Decrypted

7:51 AM

hi

Lee Woofenden

8:12 AM

@anonymouswho You said:

> I'm sorry, after I read the CARM article, I had to lay down for a bit. If I'm not mistaken, this can be summarized as: "They committed no sin. God shows his wrath towards cute little babies because Adam sinned by eating fruit. Since Levi paid tithes to Melchizadek through Abraham, there is a doctrine called Federal Headship which puts all babies in hell to have their flesh burned in agonizing pain forever and ever.

It is a horrible, blasphemous doctrine.

And of course, it is utterly false.

It is explicitly denied in Ezekiel 18, and in many other passages in the Bible. Yes, sin entered into the world through Adam. But no one but Adam is guilty of the sin of Adam. Only the person who sins will die. That is the plain teaching of the Bible. We are guilty, not because Adam sinned, but "because all sinned" (Romans 5:12).

Adam set the pattern for the rest of us, and we followed in that pattern by sinning ourselves--not as fetuses or infants, but as self-responsible adults. Not a single one of us can claim to be sinless. And that--not the sin of Adam--is what causes us to be guilty: our own sin, committed by ourselves according to the pattern Adam set.

I view Reformed theology as the absolute bottom of the barrel of corruption of Christian doctrine. Luther brought Christian doctrine close to utter destruction with his doctrine of justification by faith alone, which is contrary to the explicit teaching of the Bible on the subject of faith alone. Calvin completed the job with predestination, utter depravity, and other horrendous, blasphemous doctrines.

Under Calvinist theology, God is the worst kind of bloodthirsty tyrant. I find the whole thing utterly sickening.

Oh, and CARM, also, is full of horrible, blasphemous, anti-biblical doctrines. I avoid that site as much as possible. I go there only to confirm that traditional Christian theology has indeed become completely falsified and corrupted, and that the Bible, too, has been completely falsified and misrepresented by those who hold to these horrible, blasphemous doctrines.

With these sorts of awful and utterly false doctrines being proclaimed by so-called "Christians," as "Christian" doctrine, it's no wonder that so many thinking people have rejected Christianity, and religion in general, and have become atheists.

No fetus, infant, or child who dies goes to hell. Only self-responsible adults who have chosen evil over good go to hell. No person who has not been given the opportunity to make that choice as a morally self-responsible adult will go to hell. That is a basic principle of divine mercy. To claim anything else is to blaspheme the love and justice of God.

People who teach these horrible doctrines will have much to answer for in the afterlife.

anonymouswho

9:15 AM

@LeeWoofenden I agree with basically everything you said here. Except when I asked Caleb if he believed "this is a dangerous doctrine" I meant the doctrine of Age of Accountability. I find that the logical conclusion we must draw from this doctrine is equally as evil as that of Calvanism.

If children are excluded from having their flesh burned forever in agonizing pain, then it reasonably follows that to kill them would be far more merciful than to allow them to take their very small chance of becoming a Christian (especially for those that believe Catholics and other Christian "heretics" are going to hell).

Merge this with the doctrine of eternal security, and then it gets even worst. But even if we don't believe in eternal security, who would say "I'd rather take the very large chance my child will have their flesh burned forever in agonizing pain than to kill them and risk losing my ticket to heaven"?

curiousdannii

11:17 AM

@anonymouswho Don't be ridiculous, no doctrine is too dangerous to ask about

@anonymouswho No, that's not a reasonable conclusion. I'm not sure if that question has been asked on the main site, but if not then it should be.

And what is the better alternative? That without an age of non-accountability the aborted child is condemned to hell?

@LeeWoofenden I know that some Calvinists think we inherit Adam's guilt (I doubt it's a majority), but I don't think that is correct at all. We inherit a sinful nature but are guilty for no one's sins but our own.

@LeeWoofenden Whatever else you may think, you cannot claim that Calvinists think God is blood thirsty. It pains God deeply that anyone will face judgement without his pardon.

@LeeWoofenden That is the doctrine of an age of accountability, which many, maybe most, Calvinists would believe

curiousdannii

12:06 PM

Calvinists may say that condemnation is necessary, they may say that good can come from it (glory to God, justice to those of us who have been wronged), but they do not say that God loves to judge, condemn, and destroy.

anonymouswho

@curiousdannii I assure you I'm not being ridiculous at all. Was you able to read my question before I deleted it?

Nathaniel

@curiousdannii Do you happen to have any names of Calvinists handy who don't believe we share Adam's guilt? If not no problem; I can probably dig some up.

anonymouswho

12:36 PM

@Decrypted Hi =)

curiousdannii

@Nathaniel Me? :P My doctrine lecturer too. He explained that some did, and it may have been the historical position for some.

@anonymouswho Yes, but I didn't see what if any reaction it got

@Nathaniel though 'share Adam's guilt' could be different from 'inherit Adam's guilt'... we share it in that we commit it ourselves...

I may be wrong about what the dominant position in Reformed theology is. I still think inherited guilt is not a good explanation of original sin

Horton though would say we are guilty for Adam's sin. "every human being was present representatively, federally, and covenantally in Adam. Our own personal acts of sin flow from this corrupt nature and add to our original guilt."

Nathaniel

12:54 PM

@curiousdannii True. I'll see what my history-focused systematic theologies have to say.

curiousdannii

I personally would want to keep this federal headship while saying that we are guilty only for our own sin. I don't know if I could satisfactorily explain it though ;)

anonymouswho

@curiousdannii Okay I'll try to explain. According to Matthew 7:13 and the ratio between professed Christians to the rest of the world, there is a very small chance that your children will become Christian. It's getting worst everyday.

The more children you have, the less your odds that all of them will be saved. If you allow them to continue living, they may live past the age of accountability, forfeiting their get out of hell free card and there's a major chance this will endanger them to have their flesh burned in agony forever and ever.

If they die before they can be held accountable, there is a 100% chance they will spend eternal bliss in heaven. Although their temporary lives may have been cut a few years shorter, this surely does not compare to billions and trillions and ect. years of having their flesh burned. I cannot think of a more reasonable or merciful explaination.

Joshua

1:24 PM

@fredsbend What question are you referring to? I think confusion happens when we turn "rapture" from a simple verb to a proper noun. There is indeed a capturing of the saints in Revelation. How else are all the saints, resurrected or alive, around the world getting to Jerusalem and the throne?

curiousdannii

@Nathaniel The more I look into it the more confused I'm getting ;) I think there are some different senses of 'guilt' as well. Maybe I shouldn't have waded into this discussion

Joshua

@curiousdannii guilt simply in a judicial sense will fail you here. I describe it as both imputed judicial guilt, and inherited effectual corruption/sin/separation etc.

curiousdannii

@Joshua I think I'd be okay with representative collective guilt, but not imputed personal guilt. Both can be judicial.

Joshua

1:44 PM

@curiousdannii if we're not ok with imputed personal guilt we can't be ok with imputed personal righteousness.

curiousdannii

@Joshua Hmm, fair point. Maybe I should've said that I don't like inherited personal guilt. Our guilt may be imputed to Christ on the cross, but I don't think original sin involves imputed guilt.

Please do continue to find the flaws in my thinking, this is all very interesting and thought provoking

Joshua

2:31 PM

@curiousdannii I think all these terms are involved under federal headship. Trying to parse it is ok but not if we start making a part the whole. Much like atonement. Penal substitution is part of it I believe but many focus on it so much they forget everything else.

Decrypted

@anonymouswho The concept of Hell actually is a mixture of three separate concepts all turned into a single label. Let us do something similar with more positive words.

Lets take the concept of a picnic, fishing, and kite flying and add them all together under the word Mazijosh.

Therefore now lets define Mazijosh: A place to eat sandwiches, fish, and fly kites.

Now lets confuse it: A kite store where they eat fish fly sandwiches.

And this is what has happened with the concept of Hell.

But for simplification, the best translation for the word Hell tis Crematory.

Do aborted babies find their way to the Crematory?

And what does this say about the age of accountability?

Lee Woofenden

5:50 PM

@anonymouswho Several things. First, I don't believe that everyone outside of a particular church or religion will go to hell. See: If there’s One God, Why All the Different Religions? and: Is Jesus Christ the Only Way to Heaven?

@anonymouswho Second, I don't see hell as a place of literal fire and burning flesh. "Hellfire" is a figurative expression for the burning hatred that the evil spirits in hell feel for each other. They live what for them is a fairly ordinary life very similar to people on earth who live lives of crime, and reap the consequences of that life.

@anonymouswho For more on my views of hell, please see: Is There Really a Hell? What is it Like?

So for those who go to hell, the consequences are not being forever roasted over a spit, but rather living in such a way that their evil actions inevitably lead to retribution, punishment, and pain for themselves.

@anonymouswho About killing our children so that they don't have to go to hell, I don't think that's a good idea. Yes, there are risks involved in letting our children grow up. They might go bad. Many parents have experienced the heartbreak of having their beloved child become a criminal. But we can't just kill 'em all to make sure that doesn't happen. There are risks, but there are also rewards.

Yes, all children who die will go to heaven. But they will never reach their full potential as human beings, since they were not able to complete their full development to mature adulthood here on earth. This means that though they will have a very happy life in heaven, they will not be able to achieve what they could have if they'd lived out their full lifetime on earth and chosen to have a relationship with God, and to love their neighbor as themselves.

I say a little more about this in a comment on my blog here.

@curiousdannii According to Calvinist doctrine, some people are predestined to hell. If even a single person is created whose inevitable fate is hell, then God is an unjust, bloodthirsty tyrant.

bruised reed

6:08 PM

@LeeWoofenden Do you believe in some form of limitation to God's omniscience eg Open Theism or something like that?

If you don't, and God knows who will be going to hell yet decides to create them anyway - what is the substantive moral difference between the Calvinist position and yours?

In my opinion, this is a difficult problem which I haven't resolved to my own satisfaction. It seems simplistic to cast such aspersions at the doctrines of others which at the very least have some intellectual rigor.

Lee Woofenden

@bruisedreed No. I believe that God knows all things, past, present and future. Time and space are properties of the material universe. God is not a material being, but exists outside of the material universe, and thus outside of time and space. For God, all things that to us are temporal and spatial are seen in a single eternal view.

@bruisedreed Technically, God doesn't "know they will go to hell and create them anyway." Rather, God creates countless human beings from outside of time, and sees their entire existence in a single view. The fallacy is in thinking that God causes them to go to hell. He doesn't. Just because God knows someone will (from our time-bound perspective) go to hell, that doesn't mean God causes that person to go to hell. It is still a freely made choice on the part of the person.

@bruisedreed What God does is create human beings and give them the choice of what sort of eternal life they want. To refuse to create anyone who makes a choice different than what God wants us to make is to deny us freedom, rationality, and humanity, and make us into deterministic beings who are no better than robots, and have no capability of being in a real, chosen relationship with God.

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden But you would have to admit that he does cause them to come in to existemce in full knowledge that by their choices they will end up in hell - that doesn't seem to me to be substantively different - you are merely arguing over terminology

Lee Woofenden

@bruisedreed The Calvinist position is that God creates some people for hell. I utterly reject that notion. God creates people. The people themselves decide whether they wish to spend eternity in heaven or hell.

@bruisedreed No. God creates human beings with spiritual freedom. You can't have it both ways. You can't create people free, but not allow anyone to make a choice you don't want them to make. Nobody is required to choose eternal hell.

If we do choose eternal hell, it is 100% our own choice.

The problem comes with thinking of hell as being primarily about punishment. It's not. Though there are punishments in hell, hell is primarily about letting people live the way they want to live, as much as that is possible. And it's about protecting the innocent from the evil.

As it turns out, this just happens to be the subject of my most recent blog post: Pain, Punishment, Prison, and Hell.

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden If all Calvinists were strict determinists, I think you'd have a point. But they're not, so you don't.

Lee Woofenden

@bruisedreed Apparently, not all Calvinists actually believe what Calvin taught about predestination. That's fine with me. It's a horrible, horrible doctrine.

Calvin took Luther's corruption of the Bible's teachings and made it even worse. He is the bottom of the barrel doctrinally.

bruised reed

6:27 PM

@LeeWoofenden Bottom of the barrel would be giving people false hope of salvation when the doctrine contributes substantively to them going to hell. I'm sorry to say this, but I honestly think your theology fits that bill way more than Calvinism.

Lee Woofenden

@bruisedreed My doctrine says that all children who die go to heaven, and that all adults have a choice as to whether or not they go to heaven. That is the doctrine of the Bible.

To teach anything else is to teach falsehoods.

bruised reed

No that is not "the doctrine of the Bible". It is at best woefully incomplete and at worst downright misleading.

Lee Woofenden

@bruisedreed Yes. The Bible sets before us life and death, blessings and curses, and urges us to choose life. And it says that it is not the Father's will that the least of these children should perish, and that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of God.

bruised reed

You quote from the Old Covenant, but aren't engaging with the need for a New Covenant. From everything I've seen you write, you don't even understand why a New Covenant was required.

Lee Woofenden

@bruisedreed Jesus and Paul teach the same thing in numerous places. I've quoted and referred to passages from the NT extensively in these discussions. This is the teaching of the entire Bible.

You seem to think that the new covenant completely invalidates the old, and makes everything that the OT says to be false. But Jesus didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill the Law and the Prophets.

Your doctrine is based on a misunderstanding of a few books of the NT, written by Paul. My doctrine is based on the entire Bible.

bruised reed

6:36 PM

@LeeWoofenden You may think you have, but you haven't actually engaged with what I've just said.

Lee Woofenden

@bruisedreed Read Romans 2. Paul says the same thing as Deuteronomy and Ezekiel. Read Matthew 25:31-46. I follow Jesus' own teaching about who is saved and who is not. The new covenant does not invalidate the old. It fulfills it spiritually. And the same principles of salvation that God enunciates in the OT continue to be in force in the NT.

You have made the new covenant into something that is taught nowhere in the Bible. And you have made the NT contradict, not fulfill, the OT.

bruised reed

I've read Romans 2 many times. And I always do so in the context of the whole epistle. It really helps to see where it fits in the overall picture. From what I've seen, you just don't do that.

Lee Woofenden

@bruisedreed You read everything in the context of your mistaken, ahistorical understanding of Romans 3 and Ephesians 2. Romans 2 provides the context for the rest of the letter. In Romans 2, Paul says how non-Christians are saved. Then in the rest of the letter he tells how Christians are saved.

If you ignore that sequence going from the broader picture to the more specific picture, you misunderstand everything Paul says in the entire letter, and in the rest of his letters, too.

anonymouswho

@Decrypted I'm not sure I get what you're saying. What are those three concepts that are labeled "hell"? I believe a proper translation for Gehannah is Gehannah. And I think a proper translation of aionios is age-enduring or pertaining-to-the-age (as in the age of a man). I view aionios as a potential infinite.

So to say "I will live forever" is meaningless, because nobody will live "until forever". I might live for trillions of years; perhaps I'll be resurrected and live for 1000 more years; or maybe I'll live for 40 more years. I honestly don't care because when I'm dead, I won't have the ability to care. But to follow God's word and keep His commandments...to believe in the only true God YHVH and his apostle Yeshua...that is aionios life.

Lee Woofenden

Plus you're paying no attention to the fact that Paul's meaning in Romans 3 is put into its historical context in Acts 15. Without understanding the controversy dealt with in Acts 15, you simply can't understand Paul's statements about justification by faith apart from the works of the Law.

Your whole doctrine is built on a complete, ahistorical misunderstanding of Paul's letters.

Fortunately, the New Perspective on Paul is starting to restore Paul to his original meaning. Protestant doctrine is just flat out wrong about Paul.

bruised reed

6:42 PM

@LeeWoofenden Your accusations are false. You have straw man conceptions of my beliefs in your mind. Rather than engaging with what you imagine I believe, try engaging with what I actually say.

Lee Woofenden

@bruisedreed What you've mostly said is that I'm wrong. But I believe you do believe in justification by faith alone, penal substitution, and the rest of the general Protestant doctrine of salvation. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden I don't believe in your conception of those doctrines.

Lee Woofenden

@bruisedreed If you believe in any conception of those doctrines, you are wrong, because your doctrine is contrary to the plain teachings of the Bible.

Of course, if you are content to define "red" as "blue," and say that that barn is blue, then there's not much point in even having a conversation.

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden hah! That's a debate-stopper if ever I've heard one.

"it doesn't matter what you believe - you're wrong!"

Lee Woofenden

All of what I've heard from you and the other Protestants here is mere wordplay to try to deny the plain teachings of the Bible on the subject of justification by faith alone and Jesus paying the penalty for our sins. Those two doctrines are explicitly rejected in the Bible. You claim they are true.

@bruisedreed No. If you believe in justification by faith alone and penal substitution in any form, you are wrong, because those doctrines are false and are explicitly rejected in the plainest of terms in the Bible.

You can't just outline any old doctrine and call it "justification by faith alone" or "penal substitution." Those doctrines have specific content and meaning. And that meaning is diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Bible.

You can't say, "Well, red is actually blue, so that barn really is blue."

bruised reed

6:49 PM

It's so much easier to speak if you don't actually need to think isn't it?

Lee Woofenden

@bruisedreed So much easier to just claim that a doctrine is true regardless of the fact that the Bible never states it, and explicitly rejects it. Hail Luther and Calvin! Down with Jesus, James, and Paul!

bruised reed

just sort everybody you encounter into your little boxes and spout the same old scripts over and over

Lee Woofenden

@bruisedreed And you just keep ignoring the Bible's plain teachings over and over. Not much I can do about that.

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden by all means provide a quote from me where that is evident and I will happily recant it

Lee Woofenden

Luther knew that James contradicted his doctrine. That's why he tried to get James, and a few other books, removed from the Bible.

@bruisedreed How many times do I have to quote it?

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

It just doesn't get any clearer than that. Yet instead of accepting it, you explain it away.

And I've already quoted half a dozen passages in which the Bible plainly states that it is contrary to God's justice to acquit the innocent and condemn the guilty, which is the basic principle of penal substitution.

I can quote them again for you if you like.

bruised reed

6:53 PM

you made an accusation against me. but where, in what I've said have I demonstrated that I'm ignoring James 2:24?

Lee Woofenden

Or you can refer to them in this article: The Faulty Foundations of Faith Alone – Part 5: Jesus Paid the Penalty For Our Sins?

@bruisedreed If you believe in justification by faith alone, then you are ignoring James 2:24. It's as simple as that.

James 2:24 says in the clearest possible terms that we are justified by works and not by faith alone.

There is no corresponding verse in the Bible that says that we are justified by faith alone. Not a single one. Anywhere in the Bible.

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden refer to my previous statement: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/32247370#32247370

Lee Woofenden

You are ignoring the Bible's one and only, plain and clear statement on justification by faith alone in favor of a doctrine invented and promulgated by a human being 1,500 years after the Bible was written.

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden No, I'm not. And you would know that if you had actually listened to me.

Lee Woofenden

@bruisedreed It's not "my conception." It's what the Bible says. The Bible says we are not justified by faith alone. You say that we are.

@bruisedreed I've listened to your attempt to redefine "faith alone" as something that isn't really faith alone. But since the Bible plainly says that we are not justified by faith alone, why should I even bother listening to your hair-splitting arguments?

The fact is, Luther made a monumental mistake. He ignored the plain teachings of the Bible, and invented and promulgated a doctrine that is explicitly rejected by the Bible. And Protestants have been apologizing (in the doctrinal sense) for it ever since.

bruised reed

6:58 PM

@LeeWoofenden When it comes to explaining my beliefs your critique is completely invalid.

Lee Woofenden

I've read dozens of Protestant attempts to explain away James 2:24. And it's all just a lot of verbiage to try to avoid the fact that Luther made a mistake, and they can't admit it.

Simple, Biblical fact: "A person is justified by works and not by faith alone." And if you understood Paul, you would understand that Paul agrees with James.

And that both of them agree with Jesus, who stated plainly in Matthew 25:31-46 who from all the nations is saved and who is not.

Paul says the same thing in Romans 2:1-16.

Your doctrine makes James contradict Paul, and Paul contradict Jesus. My doctrine makes them all agree with each other, even if James puts the emphasis on works and Paul puts the emphasis on faith.

Your doctrine is based on things that are stated nowhere in the Bible. Mine is based on the Bible's own plain words.

The Bible never says that we are justified by faith alone, nor that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. Yet you insist that these two doctrines are central to our salvation.

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden Your conduct is childish and tedious - it is unworthy of a man of your years. You have demonstrated no understanding of my doctrine, so your insistence on such mischaracterizations is quite churlish.

Lee Woofenden

@bruisedreed And now comes the name-calling. Because you can't actually contradict anything I've said.

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden Describing your behaviour does not amount to name calling.

2

If you refuse to respond to what I do say, the only recourse is to call you out on it.

Lee Woofenden

7:15 PM

Sooner or later, it always gets to the name-calling.

Aigle

@LeeWoofenden Did E.Sweedenborg study kabbalah?

Lee Woofenden

@bruisedreed I am aware that you hold your beliefs quite sincerely. Unfortunately, Luther's doctrines have been so ingrained on your mind that you cannot read the Bible without seeing what Luther says it says. You can't read the plain words of the Bible in their own light.

@Aigle There was a Kabbalist at Upsala University when Swedenborg attended it as a teenager and young adult. So it's likely that he was at least somewhat familiar with the Kabbala. Some scholars believe he was influenced by it. And perhaps he was. But his system is rather different than the system of the Kabbala.

However, as far as the general idea that the Scriptures have a threefold deeper meaning, Swedenborg does fit in with that long history in Jewish and Christian thought.

I'm currently reading a doctoral thesis by a Swedenborgian scholar who draws the parallels.

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden A reciprocal critique regarding yourself - with Swedenborg in place of Luther - carries far more validity as Luther's influence on my own Theology is way more limited that you think it is.

Lee Woofenden

@bruisedreed I'm just quoting what the Bible says.

In fact, Swedenborg hardly even quotes James 2:24, and I'm not aware that he quotes the list of passages in the above-linked article showing that penal substitution is contrary to the plain teachings of the Bible.

Most of what I'm saying here has developed over time based on over two decades of debates with Protestants.

I used to think that the Epistles taught faith alone and penal substitution. Then I started reading and studying them, and realized that they simply don't teach those things, any more than the rest of the Bible does.

And I've gradually become more aware of Christian history, in which it's really indisputable that these doctrines came into being with the Protestant reformation. It's not credible to me that if the Bible actually said these things, 1,500 years worth of Christians would have completely missed it.

And yet, Christians have been believing and teaching the basics of what I'm saying here for the entire 2,000 year history of Christianity. Clearly what I believe is plain to see in the Bible. Whereas it took 1,500 years for anyone to see in the Bible what you believe.

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden Is that what you call this? It doesn't actually qualify as "debate" in my opinion.

Lee Woofenden

7:28 PM

@bruisedreed Unfortunately, the people on the other side of the debate don't play by your playbook. They actually disagree with your beliefs. No matter how you explain them. The bulk of Christianity disagrees with your beliefs. So it's not as if I'm an outlier.

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden No, we can happily recite the Nicene creed together and then have a reasonable discussion about what it all means. That is not possible with you.

Lee Woofenden

@bruisedreed Because I'm not about to accept as "valid interpretations" dogmas that are explicitly contradicted in the plain words of Scripture. Not on the all-important issue of our eternal salvation.

I do not agree with your doctrine, and I never will, no matter how you try to explain it. If it contains "justification by faith alone," then it is wrong. If it contains "Jesus paid the penalty for our sins," then it is wrong.

And no Protestant I've talked to so far has been willing to ditch that non-biblical "alone."

They'll argue that it doesn't mean what I think it means. But they'll cling doggedly to it, even though the Bible never says it.

Ditto for Jesus paying the penalty for our sins.

The fact that these things are never stated in the Bible seems to make no difference whatsoever.

Why do verbal formulations of Luther trump the Bible's own statements?

Why is it critical to add "alone" to "faith" when the Bible never does, except to reject it?

That is a question that no Protestant I've ever debated has been able to satisfactorily answer.

And the reason is that the doctrine is non-biblical and false.

You really should re-evaluate your beliefs based on what the Bible does and doesn't say. I don't believe you'll go to hell for believing the wrong thing. But it does do considerable damage if you actually take it to heart. And meanwhile you are misleading many people by teaching doctrines that the Bible never states, and flatly rejects.

bruised reed

This is too tedious to continue I'm sorry. I started with a respectful comment and raised something for you to consider with what you were saying about predestination. It was entirely your choice to bring things back down this worn and dusty goat's trail again. I would consider discussing these particular issues with you further when you do show some capacity to listen and engage appropriately, until then further discussion is useless.

I know you don't mind repeating yourself over and over, but personally I loathe it.

Lee Woofenden

@bruisedreed I agree that discussion is useless, because you refuse to pay attention to what the Bible actually says and doesn't say. When I quote the Bible's own plain words, you brush it aside, and then later ask where the Bible says this or that. Then I quote it again. And you brush it aside again. If you won't listen to the Bible's own words, why would you listen to me?

Lutheran doctrine itself makes a mockery of his own principle of Sola Scriptura.

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden once again, I refer you to: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/32247568#32247568

Lee Woofenden

7:42 PM

@bruisedreed I have provided many quotes, both from the Old Testament and from the New Testament. These quotes are not my words. They are the Bible's words. And their meaning is clear to anyone who is capable of reading. Yet you have rejected them all.

Aigle

@LeeWoofenden Well Im trying to understand kabbalah,what it really is.

Lee Woofenden

@Aigle I am no expert on the Kabbalah. I've read a bit of it here and there, mostly in articles comparing Swedenborg to the Kabbalah. But I wouldn't presume to explain to anyone what the Kabbalah is all about.

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden You aren't even parsing what I say correctly. You made an accusation against me without substantiation. Show me where I have said what you claim I say.

Aigle

0

Q: Is the Kabbalah as the Rabbis have it today the same Kabbalah as Moshe had?

According to Aruch Hashulchan seen here siff 8 , it was given at Sinai to Moshe. But is Kabbalah today the same as back then? (I hope this question is not unclear) Is the Kabbalah as the Rabbis have it today the same Kabbalah as Moshe had? Or is this another type of Kabbalah? (if any of this ...

Lee Woofenden

It is a form of Jewish mysticism, and rather fascinating on that account. I just haven't spent enough time to it to really get a handle on it.

Aigle

7:46 PM

@LeeWoofenden Well I know what it is I just don't know what it is

Lee Woofenden

> by all means provide a quote from me where that is evident and I will happily recant it

That's what you said in the linked statement. And I've shown you many quotes where these things are evident. Over and over again. And you've ignored them all, or brushed them all aside in favor of verbal formulations that occur nowhere in the Bible--nor do the concepts behind those verbal formulations appear in the Bible, except to be rejected there.

The Bible simply never says that we are justified by faith alone. But it does say that we are not justified by faith alone. You ignore that, and assert that we are justified by faith alone anyway.

The Bible simply never says that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. And it completely rejects the whole concept in very plain language. You ignore that.

The Bible says explicitly, both in the OT and in the NT, that God sets before us a choice between life and death, and urges us to choose life. You ignore that, also.

I can quote passages until I'm blue in the face that make these things very evident to anyone with basic reading comprehension. And then you ask me to quote you passages that make these things evident. What more can I do? You simply reject everything the Bible says on these subjects, and cling to things that the Bible doesn't say.

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden what is so hard to understand about from me?!

Lee Woofenden

@bruisedreed Okay, then I'll simply ask you: Do you believe that a person is justified by faith alone? Do you believe that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins? Do you believe that some people are predestined to hell?

I'm attempting to talk about substance here.

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden I answered that question for you before. What about my previous answer don't you understand?

Lee Woofenden

@bruisedreed Which question? Do you believe these things? It really shouldn't be that hard to say "yes" or "no."

@Aigle I'm sure there is plenty of good material out there explaining the Kabbalah. It's just a matter of putting in the time to study and understand it.

@bruisedreed I did misunderstand what you wrote in that quote. But unless you're denying that you believe any of these things, I still think the subsequent discussion is valid.

bruised reed

7:59 PM

@LeeWoofenden I answered the first two points here: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/32247370#32247370 and the third at the beginning of this conversation. Despite the fact that you so rudely expect me to keep repeating myself, I'll be more explicit: a) certainly not in the way you believe it b) yes, although that is an incomplete description of what Jesus has accomplished through the cross & c) I don't think so, but I'm less sure about this one

Lee Woofenden

@bruisedreed Well, I'm glad you're not so sure about predestination. And I'm not asking you whether you believe what I think those other two mean, but whether you believe them in any form.

Because I simply don't find them stated in the Bible.

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden You have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the first - it is impossible to talk to you constructively about it until you are willing to educate yourself further about it.

Lee Woofenden

I don't, for example, find the Bible saying that good works are the fruits of faith. I asked a question about that, and the answers so far have not come up with any clear smoking gun on that common Protestant belief that is concomitant to justification by faith alone.

2

Q: What is the biblical basis for the belief that good works are the fruits of faith?

It is common for Protestant doctrinal statements to say that good works are the fruits of faith. For example: We confess that good works are necessary fruits of faith in the life of a Christian and that they proceed from a renewed heart that is thankful to God for His mercy and love. Although...

protestantism faith works

@bruisedreed I think I understand it well enough. But I still disagree with it. And I don't think your average Protestant understands it the way you do. "Faith alone" carries its own meaning.

If I recall correctly, you've explained carefully that we are justified by faith alone, but other things happen by other means. But the Bible simply doesn't say that we are justified by faith alone. Once again, it explicitly rejects that statement.

So any doctrine that includes the idea that we are justified by faith alone is simply false, based on the Bible's own plain statement, no matter what other things are said all around it.

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden I think you're confusing me with curiousdanii there

Lee Woofenden

@bruisedreed Possibly. So do you not believe that we are justified by faith alone?

Aigle

8:09 PM

@LeeWoofenden As the story goes Moses was told about Kabbalah Or I think it means to receive,He did receive an spiritual understanding of the universe and torah,how everything works.So how has kabbalah changed over the years.That Moses knew stuff We don't That Im sure of.

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden We are justified by God's grace received through faith. God's grace teaches us to say no to ungodliness - if we don't repent and live lives of good works, we have not received God's grace. I am certain this is what the reformers meant as well.

Lee Woofenden

So you're willing to ditch the "alone"?

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden "The faith that justifies is never alone"

Lee Woofenden

@bruisedreed So are you willing to ditch the "alone," and go with what the Bible actually says?

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden what is so hard to understand about what I've said? If you'd like me to explain what the reformers meant by using "alone" the way they did, I'd be happy to try that once again, but you didn't listen to me when I tried that way back in our earliest discussions on this issue and it doesn't look like you'll be listening to me about it now.

Briefly, they were reacting to this:

Sacerdotalism

Sacerdotalism is the belief that propitiatory sacrifices for sin require the intervention of a priest. That is, it is the belief that a special, segregated order of men, called the priesthood, are the only ones who can commune directly with God or the gods. This system of priesthood is exemplified by the priests in the Old Testament. The term sacerdotalism comes from the Latin sacerdos, priest, literally one who presents sacred offerings (from sacer, 'the sacred', and dare, 'to give'). The related Latin term sacerdotium refers to the earthly hierarchy (of priests, bishops, etc.) whose primary goal...

Viewed in those terms, "alone" is a clarifying term. Without that background knowledge, it is mystifying.

Lee Woofenden

8:22 PM

@bruisedreed Why add "alone" when the Bible doesn't? It doesn't clarify. It confuses.

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden It only confuses those who refuse to understand it.

Lee Woofenden

@bruisedreed The Bible doesn't say "For by grace alone you have been saved through faith alone." It says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith" (Ephesians 2:8).

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden The bible doesn't say that the Pope is the vicar of Christ on earth either. Neither does it spell out explicitly how to argue that "Christian" sacerdotalism is wrong and how we should explain that.

Lee Woofenden

Why add words to the Bible's statement? If the Bible meant "alone," don't you think it could have said that? Why add confusion to the simple statement of the Bible. Why, oh why, must the word "alone" always be added? And why do Protestants so steadfastly and stubbornly refuse to let go of that extra, added word that appears nowhere in the Bible in connection with faith except to reject it?

If you could simply admit that adding "alone" to the Bible's words was a mistake, we'd have a whole new conversation. But so far, like other Protestants, you cling tenaciously to that word, regardless of the fact that the Bible rejects it.

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden Keep riding your hobby horse then, if you don't want to understand - that's your prerogative, but my interest in engaging you further on this issue has well and truly gone.

Lee Woofenden

8:27 PM

@bruisedreed Cling to your hobby-horse--or should I say Luther's--of adding "alone" to the Bible's words. It is wrong to do so. Especially when the Bible explicitly rejects it. Luther said and did many good things. Adding "alone" to "faith," however, was his most stupendous mistake. And it's been confusing Protestants ever since.

@bruisedreed I agree that Luther was reacting to false Catholic doctrine and practice. The idea that human priests are required to mediate between humans and God under the New Covenant is false. It needed to be overturned. Doing so was one of the good things that Luther did.

Unfortunately, in doing so he made a major doctrinal mistake in his doctrine of justification by faith alone. He saw the error of Catholicism, rejected it, and then the pendulum of his mind swung in the opposite direction, where he made his own error.

In fact, much of what Paul was saying was about the same thing: there is no further need for the Jewish priesthood, temple, sacrifices, and so on because now Jesus is God's own priest and mediator. Though it's largely in the letter to the Hebrews, whose authorship is uncertain, that this point is made most fully and clearly.

This is the real force of Paul's various statements that we are justified by faith apart from the works of the Law. If Protestants fully understood the point Paul was making, they would ditch their "faith alone" fantasies very quickly.

Under the New Covenant, the old law of circumcision and sacrifice was no longer necessary. That's what Paul was saying. And that's what he meant by "works" and "the works of the Law" that do not save and justify us. He did not mean good works, as he himself made clear in Romans 2.

Not understanding this makes gibberish of everything Paul wrote.

bruised reed

@LeeWoofenden Everything has a context. A habit of continually stripping context and picking faults with what is left is not only not constructive, it's literally a dumbing-down process: actually hindering clear thinking through the practice of idiocy.

Lee Woofenden

The Bible says that we are saved by grace, through faith, without the requirement of "circumcision," or abiding by the works of the Jewish ritual law, which required priests as mediators between humans and God. But we are created for good works, and we are justified, or made righteous, by our good works, and not by faith alone. This is the plain teaching of the Bible.

The faith that justifies us is faithfulness, which includes good works, and is together with good works. Neither of them alone justifies us. They must be together, or neither has any salvific effect. Jesus, Paul, and James all taught this.

Unfortunately, Christianity quickly reinstated its own version of the ancient Jewish priesthood, and re-established the idea that salvation comes only through the church and its priesthood and rituals administered by the priesthood. That is just one of the reasons that Swedenborg said that since the time of the council of Nicaea at least, the Christian church has been "Christian in name only, and not in reality and essence."

It quickly rejected Christ's own position as mediator, and reverted to the Old Covenant, complete with its mediating priesthood and ritual practices required for salvation.

Luther rightly rejected that. Unfortunately, he did not make his way all the way back to true Christianity as taught in the Bible.

He got stuck on that pesky "alone," and it led him, and all of Protestantism, astray.

And it's still leading you astray, because you still cannot jettison the "alone" that Luther added to the Bible's words and teachingts.

Time to walk the dog.

bruised reed

8:45 PM

@LeeWoofenden I saw you were called out by curiousdanii on this (again - I had done it previously), but your exegesis of Ephesians 2:8-10 is execrable. Saying that the works referred to in v9 are "works of the jewish ritual law" and in v10 the works referred to are something completely different is just not credible.

@LeeWoofenden Your understanding of this is quite faulty. Paul explains this very well in Romans 4.

Jesus' "have faith in God" can not be parsed as "have faithfulness towards God"

It's true that there have been some rare antinomians that have interpreted the way Paul and Luther shared the gospel as a license to sin. But both Paul and Luther explicitly rejected antinomianism.

@LeeWoofenden Adios, I need to get off as well

Lee Woofenden

9:50 PM

@bruisedreed You seem to think that Paul is a simplistic writer who uses terms as if he were writing a technical textbook. Paul is, in fact, a rather complex writer, who enjoys playing with words, and who is quite capable of wielding the pen (through an amanuensis) in creative ways in which he uses the same word with different meanings in the very same sentence for effect.

Understanding what he's talking about requires taking it in both literary and historical context--something that Protestant doctrine signally fails to do.

@bruisedreed Yes, in fact, using the example of Abraham makes it very clear that Paul is drawing on OT concepts of "faith," where it almost always means faithfulness. I explain all of this in the article, "Faith Alone Is Not Faith."

You can't read Paul is if he's writing in pure Greek. Like the other NT writers, he writes in a Greek style and vocabulary that is heavily influenced by the OT via the Septuagint. Without understanding that, you simply can't understand Paul, or the rest of the New Testament.

@bruisedreed I'm not even talking about antinomianism. Antinomianism is simply the inevitable effect of declaring that we are justified and saved by faith alone. No matter how much you deny it, that's what people are going to hear. Antinomianism has dogged Protestantism from the very beginning precisely because you can't say a person is justified by faith alone without people hearing that as meaning that works don't matter at all.

@bruisedreed Beyond that, I specifically reject the precise notion that we are justified by faith alone. Faith alone, without good works, does not justify us, as Jesus, Paul, James, and nearly every other Bible writer says either explicitly or implicitly.

Lee Woofenden

10:14 PM

@bruisedreed Back to Romans 4, I presume you're aware that James also used the very same example of Abraham to demonstrate that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. In fact, that is the immediate lead-in to that statement in James 2:24.

Now, either James and Paul are contradicting one another, or Paul meant the same thing by "faith" that James did, which is a faith that is accompanied by good works. That is the OT concept of "faith," which is faithfulness, meaning a willingness and dedication to believing and acting upon what God says.

If you read Paul as saying that Abraham was justified by faith alone, you are causing Paul not only to flatly contradict James's words on the very same passage, but also to completely distort the entire OT concept of faith, or faithfulness, under which Abraham acted, and was saved by that faithfulness in action.

So in fact, Romans 4, in conjunction with James 2 and Genesis 15 and 22, demonstrate conclusively that Paul could not possibly have been talking about faith alone.

Paul's point in Romans 4, as it is in the other places where he talks about faith without the works of the Law, is that Abraham was made righteous before the law of Moses existed. Abraham was before Egypt. Moses was after Egypt. Otherwise, Romans 4:9-12 is meaningless.

> Is this blessedness, then, pronounced only on the circumcised, or also on the uncircumcised? We say, “Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness.” How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.

> He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the ancestor of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, and likewise the ancestor of the circumcised who are not only circumcised but who also follow the example of the faith that our ancestor Abraham had before he was circumcised.

This is all part of Paul's over-arching argument that it is no longer necessary for Christians to observe the ritual and sacrificial law of Moses.

Once again, without understanding Paul in his historical understanding, his letters become mere gibberish.

Make that, "in his historical context"

And, I would add, without an understanding of his heavy reliance on the Septuagint.

Paul writes in a Greek that is heavily influenced by Hebrew word meanings, idiom, and syntax, via the Septuagint.

Joshua

11:10 PM

One could say legalism has dogged religion from the beginning because you can't say you are saved by anything besides faith without hearing that as meaning that faith doesn't matter at all. Of course...one has to actually understand the definition of legalism first to understand that.

Transcript for