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.

 

Saved by grace thru faith alone: What is a work?

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Well, the verse we are talking about doesn't "explicitly" limit it to Paul, he says "anyone". So he himself didn't limit it to himself.
"Anyone", singular, meaning "any person", so it does not mean anything like "everyone".


Correct, obviously Paul want talking about unbelievers. Just anyone who would attempt to build upon the foundation which is Christ.


edit on 19-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon




I suppose faith is an action as well then? And Trust... another action?



Believe, faith, trust are the same thing in scripture. The implication that saving faith isn't just believing Jesus existed, but trusting Him as one's Savior and Lord.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Would you not agree that all of these words require something as evidence of them?

Without said evidence they do not actually exist?




posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Correct, obviously Paul want talking about unbelievers. Just anyone who would attempt to build upon the foundation which is Christ.
It still does not support your proposed scenario of an awards ceremony by Jesus giving us "rewards" for being a good person or whatever.
And it does not support the idea that anyone would be in heaven in the first place if they were not a good person to start with.
What you are doing is making a pretense that bad people will go to heaven, but just not get any special prizes when they get there.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60

I've said no such thing that bad people will be in heaven, that's a straw man. But now that you yourself brought up the notion or idea, I would say we are all bad people, we are all sinners. The only people in heaven will be those who repented and trusted Christ as Savior and Lord. People who are born again.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Would you not agree that all of these words require something as evidence of them?

Without said evidence they do not actually exist?



I think the evidence underscores what James was saying. That true faith subsequently leads to good works. But good works do not establish faith, they are the natural consequence of that faith being present.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

I've said no such thing that bad people will be in heaven, that's a straw man.
That has been your past position and I do not think repentance is in you, where you will ever give up the idea that you can be a sinner and still go to heaven.

But now that you yourself brought up the notion or idea, I would say we are all bad people, we are all sinners. The only people in heaven will be those who repented and trusted Christ as Savior and Lord. People who are born again.
Repentance would include not being a sinner, since that is what it means, despite your continual claim that it just means feeling sorry.
Sinners do not go to heaven, no matter how you try to decorate it with your worldly philosophy of demons.
The very word, sin, means to not make it. What do you think it means, just this thing that we always have and need to just learn to be OK with?



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60




Repentance would include not being a sinner, since that is what it means, despite your continual claim that it just means feeling sorry.


I've never said that. What I have said, which is off topic here and I won't get into again for the 100th time, is that "repentance" means "to change one's mind/opinion", and that a change in behavior is the natural consequence of that. That's basic human rehabilitation. That first a person must change their thinking because our actions are determined by our thinking.

A practical example would be two alcoholics, one changed his mind, accepts he has a disease, and the natural consequence is him seeking help to free himself from the bondage to alcohol, the second alcoholic never changes his mind, never accepts he has a disease, and doesn't see a problem with their addiction... they will continue to drink, or be sober for a season and go right back to the bottle.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

. . . "repentance" means "to change one's mind/opinion", . . .
No, for the 100th time, it does not.
What you are talking about is a theoretical original literal meaning of the Greek word as it was first coined in ancient antiquity.

. . . a change in behavior . . .
That is repentance itself, according to the normal modern sens of the word.
What you are doing is creating your own little specialized definition of the word and ignoring common English, and just not telling anyone that is what you are doing.


edit on 19-12-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60




What you are talking about is a theoretical original literal meaning of the Greek word as it was first coined in ancient antiquity.


It isn't theory, it is the literal meaning. Secondly, I'm not referring to ancient Greek, but the Koine Greek of the NT. We change the definitions of words over time, that's why lexicons and concordances are used. If you reject the literal meaning then you reject sound Biblical hermeneutics. People and theologians over time have confused the secondary consequence with the first cause, but that's their error, not the error of the original author.

Human behavior hasn't changed since Adam, our actions are determined by our thinking. And repentance that doesn't change the actions of a person isn't true repentance.




What you are doing is creating your own little specialized definition of the word and ignoring common English, and just not telling anyone that is what you are doing.


The authors of scripture didn't write in common English, they wrote the NT in Greek. We don't change doctrine because definitions change over time. The reason Noah Webster wrote his first dictionary was because of this very reason, that words change their meaning over time and he wanted a record of what those words meant when the Bible was first translated into English.



edit on 19-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

It isn't theory, it is the literal meaning.
It is a theory because none of us were there when the Greek word was first used.
What these speculations are based on is the fact that it appears as if the word was created by combining two words into one, then going by what each of those two words mean by themselves.

I'm not referring to ancient Greek, but the Koine Greek of the NT.
Which is what is referred to as "antiquity" where this was in common usage, while the word existed before that.
Thayer's Greek Lexicon cites its usage by Thucydides, someone who wrote in the Fifth Century BC.

If you reject the literal meaning then you reject sound Biblical hermeneutics.
What "sound Biblical hermeneutics" are you talking about, one that says to pick an choose what to take "literally" or not according to what is convenient for your own personal theological viewpoint?
The literal meaning of repentance is exactly what the word is in today's English. Hardly any words in the New Testament Greek is used to be understood in a very strictly literal sense, so I think that you are just making up your own rules of hermeneutics.

We change the definitions of words over time, that's why lexicons and concordances are used.
The meaning of repentance in the English language has not changed since the translation of the King James version of the Bible.

People and theologians over time have confused the secondary consequence with the first cause, but that's their error, not the error of the original author.
Are you "confused" as to what this means?
2 Corinthians 7:10
Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.
(2011 NIV)
There are three things mentioned in the verse, sorrow, repentance, and regret. They are not the same thing. Sorrow is the change of mind, where you see that what you had done is wrong, where when you did those things, it seemed OK to you.
Repentance is acting on that new outlook on life.

Human behavior hasn't changed since Adam, our actions are determined by our thinking. And repentance that doesn't change the actions of a person isn't true repentance.
Now you are just trying to shore up you false premise based on a wrong definition of the word, repentance, by trying to use your definition in a way that makes it seem logically correct.
People sin because it is natural for them to do so, and requires no thinking in order to justify their sinful behavior, before they do it..
edit on 19-12-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

The authors of scripture didn't write in common English, they wrote the NT in Greek. We don't change doctrine because definitions change over time.
Which was at the time the common language so was not like how people use Latin today, to make very concrete literal definitions of things.
The language of the New Testament was very figurative and was never used where the words were meant to be understood in a particular literal way.
I think that you have very little understanding of Greek and are just making up fake rules to cling to your adopted theology from the Tough Guy Sinner Cult that you picked up from Mark Driscoll from the Mars Hill Church.
(it seems that you dropped the link that you had in your signature to his video on "How I Hate Religion")
edit on 19-12-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60

Metanoia



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60




What "sound Biblical hermeneutics" are you talking about, one that says to pick an choose what to take "literally" or not according to what is convenient for your own personal theological viewpoint?


It's pretty simple, there are 8 laws of Biblical hermeneutics. Finding out the exact, literal meaning of the word used is the very first law:


"1) The rule of DEFINITION: What does the word mean? Any study of Scripture must begin with a study of words. Define your terms and then keep to the terms defined. The interpreter should conscientiously abide by the plain meaning of the words. We must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent. Consider the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12 who were called "noble" because they searched the Scriptures daily to determine if what Paul taught them was true. This quite often may require using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure that the sense of the English translation is understood. A couple of good examples of this are the Greek words "allos" and "heteros". Both are usually translated as "another" in English - yet "allos" literally means "another of the same type" and "heteros" means "another of a different type." One can also look at the "archaic" definitions in one’s dictionary to get the KJV Bible meaning of words."

Hermeneutics



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60




(it seems that you dropped the link that you had in your signature to his video on "How I Hate Religion")


I didn't "drop" anything, I've been gone for two years and with this new format it appears only the first line of my old links appear. I dunno, still trying to figure out this new layout. That's not my fault, I wasn't even here when the format changed.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Would you not agree that all of these words require something as evidence of them?

Without said evidence they do not actually exist?



Without evidence (works), faith cannot be proven, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist within an individual's soul; but all things start off small...even as small as a mustard seed.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: jmdewey60


No one is teaching me anything, and these are things that I learned from reading the Bible with an open mind and not prejudiced with man made doctrines. I suspect that you were taught things and never questioned their validity against actual biblical teachings.


Its one thing to keep an open mind to alternative interpretations, but its another thing to blatantly twist words to fit your "non-prejudice" opinion. Honestly Im astounded at your lack of basic reading comprehension when it comes to the bible. Clearly you can communicate via diction, so why neglect to use these skills when it comes to the bible?

God also appointed Pastors and Teachers to deliver His message, so if you are studying the bible entirely on your own, you are rejecting the authority that God appointed. I do solo bible study as well, but I always have a frame of reference from my pastor-teacher. We must all be taugh at some point.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Its one thing to keep an open mind to alternative interpretations, but its another thing to blatantly twist words to fit your "non-prejudice" opinion. Honestly Im astounded at your lack of basic reading comprehension when it comes to the bible.
Actually I have very good reading comprehension and test out as being at the very highest level in that skill.
I don't need a pastor to tell me what to think, since the New Testament writers themselves serve that function.
The people who were leaders described in the NT are for administering things that happen involving groups of people.

There are doctors in biblical studies who are highly credentialed who write books on the subject, which I read.
I have no reason to "twist" words, since my goal is to understand them as they were meant to be understood when they were written.
edit on 19-12-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Would you not agree that all of these words require something as evidence of them?

Without said evidence they do not actually exist?



Without evidence (works), faith cannot be proven, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist within an individual's soul; but all things start off small...even as small as a mustard seed.



Very true...

but IF one does not have this evidence they do not know HIM, and the words he spoke...

There is nothing in any of the books that says we should sit idly by with our "Faith" and keep it to ourselves...

This is the idea behind being "the light of the world"... IF we believe in him, we show that faith...

We can not hide it... Or be ashamed of it...

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.


THAT is why it is said.... Faith without works is dead


edit on 20-12-2014 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon




THAT is why it is said.... Faith without works is dead


And that's literally what James was trying to convey. That he can prove his faith by his works. That genuine faith produces works. That someone who doesn't have them has no evidence of faith. God is the only one that can examine that person's heart, but there isn't any fruit on that person's tree.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join