It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Faith or Works or Both?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 

Faith without works is dead, means that if you have no good works, then how can other people see your faith?
That is a rhetorical device by the writer of James, and not the point of the chapter.
He says, "show me your faith without works . . ." but it isn't saying that the point of works is to show other people that you have faith.
The rhetoric is demonstrating to the reader what real faith is, not in convincing people to present demonstrations of their faith as an evangelistic tool, to show how holy Christians are.




posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest
 

Salvation is by faith alone in Jesus' death as payment for our sins.
Why would salvation be dependent on subscribing to a man-made theory?
I have pointed out to you previously that the Bible does not teach that Jesus paid for sins.
Now, of course he was punished as if he was a sinner by the authorities, that is how he ended up dying on the cross.
But that is not the same as if he had your particular sins placed on him, and then he suffered punishment for them so that you do no not have to.
Such a concept is not in the Bible but is the invention of theologians in the Dark Ages who thought of God as being like the Roman imperial government in its worse stages.
The biblically taught forgiveness of sins is simply by God forgetting them, at least according to the New Testament, where in the old, there really wasn't any forgiveness for deliberate sins, only for inadvertent sins that happened by some sort of unknowing oversight.

A nonbelieve who produces good work in the energy of the flesh is a white washed tomb filled with dead man's bones.
This was something that Jesus in the gospels was saying about the Pharisees, who thought they were holy because they did these works that put on a big show of piety, while they never experienced real inward repentance and change of heart that is expected in order to have the type of holiness that Jesus taught.
edit on 30-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 04:01 AM
link   
@ graphuto.... Like someone said earlier, faith leads to work. I can't imagine a faith alone-er being sure of his salvation while refusing to ''work''...do good deeds and help his fellow man. As for works, Jesus taught that they have to be done in the faith. Example, the rich who give charity only to be seen and praised by onlookers.



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Alot of the time, I understand what you are saying.

Here, I don't.

What exactly are you saying is necessary for one to get to heaven?



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by graphuto
 

What exactly are you saying is necessary for one to get to heaven?
Someone needs to be changed from within, but starting from something that comes from outside of themselves, namely, God, spiritually, which is possible through Jesus, by what he has done, and what he does now, as the minister of the covenant.
It just happens that one part of that has nothing to do with an imagined transaction of blood for sin guilt, as a vicarious payment.
What I was trying to point out in that post is that if you believe that it does, then it isn't thanks to what the Bible says, and if not, then in my opinion, it has to be a sort of counterproductive influence, especially if you go to the extent of putting it foremost in importance in your mind.
It can become a sticking point between believing and doing, a sort of pause to look within yourself to wonder about a supposed guilt, when if you just went forward onto doing what needs to be done, then they would all just be forgotten.


edit on 30-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


The Bible does not teach that Jesus paid for our sins? Um, that's actually the most important point of the entire New Testament. Claiming otherwise shows that you have probably never even opened a Bible.

John 1:29 - The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"

1 Peter 2:24 - He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.”

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Ephesians 1:7 - In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace.

Colossians 1:13 - For He rescued us from the power of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

John 11:25 - Jesus told her, "I am the resurrection and the life. The person who believes in me, even though he dies, will live."

John 14:6 - Jesus answered, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

John 8:12 - Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, "I am the Light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life."

I could cite hundreds, maybe thousands more. Jesus was considered the sacrifice for our sins, the savior of the world, the Messiah, etc. by the earliest Church fathers including the apostles. This is a thoroughly documented fact of history and was not an "invention by theologians in the dark ages."
edit on 30-3-2014 by ghostfacekilah00 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by graphuto
 


i believe the bible is comprised of several wise faithful authors opinions and views of how god inspired their life, and in some cases directly spoke through them

much like asian religions just worded different, and practiced different, especially with the new testament and Christ being born

there are too many factors in a religion to just follow one definition of religion. it takes study and understanding to fulfill the kind of salvation the bible speaks of and promises.

one must actually attempt to follow the path of the bible to understand its meaning. much like you must follow the path of Hinduism or Buddhism to understand the spirituality it promises.

which goes back to a personal theory of mine that many religions speak of the same god , in a different culture/background, for the most part



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ghostfacekilah00
 

Jesus was considered the sacrifice for our sins, the savior of the world, the Messiah, etc. by the earliest Church fathers including the apostles. This is a thoroughly documented fact of history and was not an "invention by theologians in the dark ages."
I don't know what being the Messiah has to do with whether Jesus paid for our sins or not.
Jesus did sacrifice himself, and being the son of God, it was also a sacrifice on God's part to give him over to the forces of evil.
Jesus is "the savior of the world", but that still has nothing to do with the question of paying for sins.

Ephesians 1:7 - In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace.
You can look up the Greek word that is here translated "redemption" in Thayer's Lexicon

2. everywhere in the N. T. metaphorically, viz. deliverance effected through the death of Christ from the retributive wrath of a holy God and the merited penalty of sin: Romans 3:24; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14
biblehub.com...
so it is not literally talking about a payment being made, but probably has a figurative meaning, like that we are not left to the impending wrath of God towards all sin and sinners.
Through what Jesus did, including the basic thing of being a human in a world where all humans die, and what the significance of specific parts of all that is, such as is pointed out in Hebrews that his blood puts into effect the new covenant, and that it is through that same blood that he enters the Holy of Holies of the celestial temple of God, there to seek intervention on our behalf with God, we now have, through this metaphorical new covenant, and his person being symbolically the Mercy Seat, this direct connection to the spirit of God to be better people and to live righteously, and thus we are then forgiven of our past sins.


edit on 30-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ghostfacekilah00
 

. . . the wages of sin is death . . .
"Wages" is the opposite of debt, so it does not support your theory.
No verse in the Bible supports your theory.


edit on 30-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I just wanted to point out that I dont' believe that "wages" is the opposite of "debt"
Maybe that's what a thesaurus says, but common sense tells me otherwise.

"Abundance", or "prosperity", would be closer to the word that is the opposite of "debt"

"Wages" are what someone gets for doing something.

There isn't really an opposite to that, maybe slavery or you have to pay for the honour of working?
That doesn't make any sense.

A person can earn wages every 2 weeks at their job, yet still be in debt...


Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


In this case, ones payment, or wages, for their sins against God that one commits, is death!
edit on 31-3-2014 by graphuto because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by graphuto
 


Perhaps the opposite of wages in your definition, would be "what someone might get for Not doing something?




posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Perhaps indeed, that almost makes sense to me.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by Maigret
 

I must've expressed myself badly... I didn't mean as in treating people differently.
I was trying to figure out what a "sin against God" might be, since you haven't specified what such a thing might be.
I realize that there is in the Old Testament sin against God in not giving offerings to the Jerusalem temple, but rather using a local altar and priests not ordained by the king who sits on the throne in Jerusalem, but I see those as more like sins against the human religion and power monopoly of the state.
There are what I would consider to be real sins pointed out in the OT Prophets, which are actually lodged against the government, for not maintaining justice because of the corruption of the officials charged with acting as judges, and this gets repeated by Jesus in the Gospel of John.


edit on 30-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Maybe this will help?

The Deadly Sins

At en.wikipedia.org... on the Internet, the following are listed as the seven deadly sins. In other words, it is believed that these are the sins that will keep you from heaven.


1. Lust, fornication, perversion
2. Gluttony, waste, over-indulgence
3. Greed, avarice, treachery, covetousness
4. Sloth, laziness, apathy, sadness
5. Wrath, anger, hatred, prejudice, discrimination
6. Envy, jealousy, malice
7. Pride, hubris, vanity, narcissism.

Six things in Proverbs 6:16-19 that the LORD hates and the seventh is an abomination to Him:

1. A proud look
2. A lying tongue
3. Hands that shed innocent blood
4. A heart that devises wicked plans
5. Feet that are swift to run to evil
6. A false witness who speaks lies
7. And one who sows discord amongst the Brethren.

Even Deadlier Sins
However, there are sins more deadly than these and they are: -

1. The Cardinal sin of blasphemy
2. Worshipping other/ false gods
3. Making images of God
4. Ignoring or refusing to accept the Son/Lamb of God
5. Disobedience to God
6. Ignoring God’s Sabbaths
7. Believing / worshipping Satan

(From my article at Helium)



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by graphuto
 

"Wages" are what someone gets for doing something.
It's rhetoric, and you might know that if you ever read a Bible commentary (or maybe just from reading a Greek lexicon).
Here's an example of one of the types that Paul likes to use, with military analogies.
1 Corinthians 9:7
Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? . . .
(2011 NIV)
The idea is that if you are a soldier, first you would sign up with the Army, and from that point, they take the responsibility to provide that person with his necessities just to end up at the battle in condition to fight.

In your verse from Romans, Paul is going into that same sort of use of the military to make a point.
Even the word itself was commonly understood in a military context, which was used to describe the daily rations that a soldier received to live on.
So if you were a member of this army, you would be guaranteed, if nothing else, you would get this.
Then he turns the analogy to the natural world system, that once you are in it, you are guaranteed to at some point, die.
Then he compares it with the metaphorical army of God, which has something else, and better, to offer, once it is successful, and you have soldiered in the campaign with honor.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Maigret
 

Maybe this will help?
The thing that I was objecting to is your creating this great theological system of sins against God without ever stipulating what one of those might be, or how they are so important to God in the first place.

God is good by definition, and all holiness is derived directly from God, again by definition, so of course God would be opposed to evil.
So if one was dedicated to evil, he would be the enemy of God, but it is more about a general principle than some sort of specific personal offence that God takes issue with.
Of course, as I pointed out in my earlier post, people like to use God to reflect their own feelings, and if someone questions their authority, then they claim that it is an offence against God.
You see this sort of thing with the religious leaders of Judea in the gospels, against Jesus.
Jesus recognizes what they are doing and criticizes it rather than endorsing it, or using the tactic himself.
All the stuff you listed is from the Old Testament, with the exception of not accepting Jesus as the son of God, which is of course because they don't know God, other than a fake God that they made up to take offense at anyone who questions their own made-up religion.
The New Testament teaches a different law which is to love one another, as God loves us, and that means everyone because God loves everyone.
I would hope that you would find it in your heart to embrace Christianity and to forsake the religion of the Pharisees.
edit on 31-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   

jmdewey60
reply to post by ghostfacekilah00
 

. . . the wages of sin is death . . .
"Wages" is the opposite of debt, so it does not support your theory.
No verse in the Bible supports your theory.


edit on 30-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Wow you're stubborn. Do you really not understand the verse? We earn death by sinning, but Jesus has taken away thee punishment owed to us through his sacrifice. Ok, maybe he doesn't technically take away our debt, he takes away our punishment. Does that distinction somehow make a difference to you or do you just want to be right on a technicality?



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ghostfacekilah00
 

Wow you're stubborn.
I have spent a lot of years studying reformation theology, so have a good understanding of the errors involved and the holes in their logic, and this sort of knowledge is not easily dismissed with something like a list of mostly unrelated verses with no actual argument to go with them.

Do you really not understand the verse?
I seriously do understand the verse.
This is something that I have discussed over and over on this forum without anything even close to a refutation from any member here.

We earn death by sinning, but Jesus has taken away thee punishment owed to us through his sacrifice.
I realize that this is an argument that people make, but it isn't one taught by the Bible, and that includes the verse in Romans, which is comparing two different kingdoms, and is not a lecture on the process of earning sin guilt or paying for such.

Ok, maybe he doesn't technically take away our debt, he takes away our punishment.
Sins are forgiven simply be God forgetting them, which is basically the definition of forgiveness. "Taking away sins", did you ever consider it a way to describe the general outcome of being a Christian?
Jesus "saving the world" isn't one person at a time being taken out of the world to go to heaven or somewhere, it is people taking a spirituality through Jesus to live to holiness and godliness to transact relationships in righteousness to make the world a good place to live in and somewhere that God can be happy about, instead of hating and wanting to end, like in the flood story, out of wrath.

Does that distinction somehow make a difference to you or do you just want to be right on a technicality?
Vicarious punishment comes from Roman culture and not the Bible.
Someone of course can be punished for something that someone else did, it happens all the time, but it is something altogether different to say that the guilty party is then somehow made innocent because someone has been punished already for that crime.
So, yes, there is a huge distinction, and I would hope that someday it will dawn on you this knowledge.
edit on 31-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


O sorry, I thought we were talking about Christianity and the Bible, not some made up personal belief system of yours.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ghostfacekilah00
 

. . . I thought we were talking about Christianity and the Bible . . .
Have you ever read a lexicon of New Testament Greek or a commentary on Romans?
How would you know if I was making anything up?
There are a lot of supposedly Christian theologies, do you think that they are all correct because they slap a label on it?
That seems like what you are asking me to accept, that because someone at your church taught you this philosophy, that I should accept it and with no other authority cited.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join