Support NeoGAF

[JGS]

Now don't make me regret this Let some gays get married and keep an open mind about science.

Most religious people I know, including myself, have a very open mind about science. We just don't believe that science in and of itself, started life without a creator's help.

Politics and religion is a big sticking point with me too. I do not condone gay marriage in the Christian congregation. However, I don't think that should tranlsate to the nation as a whole which is on a different playing field in our society...unless you think the US is backed by God. I do not.

 

[devenger]

Most religious people I know, including myself, have a very open mind about science. We just don't believe that science in and of itself, started life without a creator's help.

Politics and religion is a big sticking point with me too. I do not condone gay marriage in the Christian congregation. However, I don't think that should tranlsate to the nation as a whole which is on a different playing field in our society...unless you think the US is backed by God. I do not.

No, I was just speaking in broad generalities, no offense meant. The Christians I come in contact with see science as a replacement for faith and try their hardest to debunk it at every turn. I see no problem with supporting science and believing that's how God made it.

While I cheerfully support personal growth from any inspiration, those two issues are my only caveats before I yell "Yay Christians!".

I wish everyone could concentrate on changing themselves for the better like Fernando, instead of changing laws and textbooks to fit their beliefs.

 

[JGS]

No, I was just speaking in broad generalities, no offense meant. The Christians I come in contact with see science as a replacement for faith and try their hardest to debunk it at every turn. I see no problem with supporting science and believing that's how God made it.

While I cheerfully support personal growth from any inspiration, those two issues are my only caveats before I yell "Yay Christians!".

I wish everyone could concentrate on changing themselves for the better like Fernando, instead of changing laws and textbooks to fit their beliefs.

I wasn't meaning to argue. I've learned to be blunt in religions threads as well as the movie ones.

I agree that a lot of Christians think of science as the bad guy- particularly creationists. I also think that's because the science community has refused to compromise in the idea of a creator. I personally force the compromise.

This isn't to say science should have an acceptance of it but they should show a little respect for the majority of mankind that believes something had a hand in life's creation. It's such a minor aspect of scientific thought but it alienates a huge group away from it outside of the surface stuff.

 

[Dude Abides]

I wasn't meaning to argue. I've learned to be blunt in religions threads as well as the movie ones.

I agree that a lot of Christians think of science as the bad guy- particularly creationists. I also think that's because the science community has refused to compromise in the idea of a creator. I personally force the compromise.

This isn't to say science should have an acceptance of it but they should show a little respect for the majority of mankind that believes something had a hand in life's creation. It's such a minor aspect of scientific thought but it alienates a huge group away from it outside of the surface stuff.

Science is about what's true, not what's popular.

 

[JGS]

Science is about what's true, not what's popular.

What on Earth does hat have to do with what I said?

 

[devenger]

I wasn't meaning to argue. I've learned to be blunt in religions threads as well as the movie ones.

Ha, I'm learning (from yesterday) to say my piece and get out.

That's certainly where we disagree, and where the Dude can't abide. Science means never having to say a wizard did it. Unfortunately, that's what creationism asks.

edit: I think the Dude is wondering in what form the respect you suggest should be expressed. The majority of what mankind believes should never, ever affect science. Ask Galileo.

 

[Slo]

I also think that's because the science community has refused to compromise in the idea of a creator. I personally force the compromise.

Well, the scientific method is about testability. Any theory that is not testable is not scientific.

 

[JGS]

Ha, I'm learning (from yesterday) to say my piece and get out.

That's certainly where we disagree, and where the Dude can't abide. Science means never having to say a wizard did it. Unfortunately, that's what creationism asks.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

Believe me there will never be an expectation of me to accept the whacky premis of abiogenesis so I don't expect an atheist scientist to do the same with my beliefs.

However, you don't win people to a love of science by saying what they believe is not only incorrect but also made fun of when it has nothing to do with scientific advancement.

As you said, the religious should have love of it and they do, but it would be stupid of them to embrace something that allows it's representatives to beat them like a red headed stepchild over.

The religious I know are perfectly content with learning about science without being insulted. Not a museum or zoo in the world would survive without the support of the religious so they clearly have a love of those things.

Science just has to acknowledge that. If they don't they will remain wrong about us.

 

[devenger]

The religious I know are perfectly content with learning about science without being insulted. Not a museum or zoo in the world would survive without the support of the religious so they clearly have a love of those things.

Of course I'm not talking about all religious people. But I'm still not sure what you expect from the scientific community. They can't say "Ok, we'll give you a maybe on creationism."

I think it's safe to say that science isn't concerned with winning anyone over.

I wasn't suggesting anything about your personal views on creationism, but I know that some people want it considered as a legit theory, without material evidence. Now this is where lots of people will start to poke holes in scientific theories that supposedly lack material evidence, but none of that will make creationism any more provable. It's just a matter of faith.

 

[JGS]

Well, the scientific method is about testability. Any theory that is not testable is not scientific.

Creation isn't theoretical. It's an explanation of what happened - scientific or not.

Things happen all the time before a theory was invented to explain it. It can't be dismissed just because it's not testable even if science must not consider it. In fact, that's the point. Scientist have no business sticking their nose in something that doesn't concern them.

After all their belief In how life started is not a concern to religious folk until it's forced to be.

 

[phisheep]

Now don't make me regret this Let some gays get married and keep an open mind about science.

These two points threaten to derail the thread, which would be a shame, but I can't let them pass.

On gay marriage, As JGS sort of pointed out above, there's a big gap between what Christians see as Christian marriage - which is largely between man, wife and God - and what states see as marriage - which is bound up with laws, tax breaks, registration requirements, quickie divorces and so on. The two have drifted apart in very many countries so they aren't the same thing any more. I really don't care either way whether a state permits or doesn't permit gay marriage - it isn't an issue that touches me. I do care that religions/religious communities should be capable of following their own tenets in such matters. It is perfectly feasible for a state to recognise a Christian marriage and also to permit gay marriage, and I don't see why either should seek to force the other to their way of thinking. It's the old 'render unto Caesar' thing all over again.

On science, I'm not a creationist - relatively few people my side of the Atlantic are, it seems to be predominantly an American phenomenon. But that aside, what I find annoying is the presumptive rudeness of some scientists about religious beliefs. It isn't, after all, as if scientists are a specific group each endowed with all knowledge, and nor should they pretend to be. A metallurgist, a physicist or a zoologist have no special expertise outside their own fields and no particular business larding their otherwise admirable books with potshots at religion. It is just plain impolite. Of course, there are exceptions, particularly where this is done in response to religious people similarly dipping their toes into science that they don't understand. I don't mind the debate at all. It's the rudeness that I can't stand - there's no call for it. And I do appreciate that it happens on both sides and each side feels aggrieved.

And sure, anything that is not testable isn't scientific and the existence of God isn't scientifically testable at least not in this life. But it is bad logic to claim that means it is not true. There are loads of things that are true but untestable. To take a stupid example, it is true either that Julius Caesar ate breakfast on the morning of the Ides of March or that he didn't. Neither proposition is testable, neither is scientific but one of them must be true.

 

[Raist]

I also think that's because the science community has refused to compromise in the idea of a creator. I personally force the compromise.

Why would scientists go for a compromise on the subject when the question of whether or not there is a creator cannot, by definition, be answered by science?

 

[Slo]

Creation isn't theoretical. It's an explanation of what happened - scientific or not.

Yes, it's a theoretical explanation.

I understand that as a Christian, you consider it a fundamental truth and not up for debate. Similarly to a scientist, truth is what can be demonstrated. So asking a scientist to consider a theory that is untestable is the equivalent to asking a Christian to consider that God doesn't exist.

 

[devenger]

I really don't care either way whether a state permits or doesn't permit gay marriage - it isn't an issue that touches me.

This is a great answer, IMO.

But that aside, what I find annoying is the presumptive rudeness of some scientists about religious beliefs.

This I can't wrap my head around. I don't think rude scientists are much of a problem. Like I asked JGS, what could you possibly want scientists to say about creationism? they only comment on it when someone demands it be treated as science.

And sure, anything that is not testable isn't scientific and the existence of God isn't scientifically testable at least not in this life.

I think if you could prove God existed, through scientific means, it would make faith pointless. If there was a rock in Egypt that had God's signature on it, there wouldn't be any choice. "Of course God exists, its a fact."

 

[TaeOH]

All I am saying is it is wrong to say the Apostles never said you could reject salvation once you are saved.

I actually do not disagree, I think we will always have free will. I was trying differenciate this from just being in sin and losing that salvation. This is were I disagree with Catholicism where it relates to justification and sanctification. Unfortunately sanctification is a word that Paul uses very differently depending on his context, which seems to be what makes all of this difficult.

 

[Dude Abides]

It is perfectly feasible for a state to recognise a Christian marriage and also to permit gay marriage, and I don't see why either should seek to force the other to their way of thinking. It's the old 'render unto Caesar' thing all over again.

It would be nice if Christian political advocates in the states shared this view, but the ones with influence largely do not.

A metallurgist, a physicist or a zoologist have no special expertise outside their own fields and no particular business larding their otherwise admirable books with potshots at religion. It is just plain impolite.

Who is doing this?

 

[Slo]

A metallurgist, a physicist or a zoologist have no special expertise outside their own fields and no particular business larding their otherwise admirable books with potshots at religion.

I see your point. What would you say about a politician, judge, public school teacher, or anyone else other than a minister spreading the word of God? Isn't that the same thing?

 

[jmdajr]

I was reading Stephen Hawkins book a brief history of time. Didn't see any religion bashing. I think most scientist just want to understand how the universe works...not why.

 

[BurritoBushido]

I'm kind of sad that I came in here looking for affirmation, and all I see is more debating.

 

[jmdajr]

I'm kind of sad that I came in here looking for affirmation, and all I see is more debating.

It's GAF man, pretty much EVERYTHING is debatable

 

[DeathIsTheEnd]

This is a great answer, IMO.

Assuming your white, if that sentence said instead:

"I really don't care either way whether a state permits or doesn't permit black marriage - it isn't an issue that touches me."

Would you change your mind?

 

[TaeOH]

This is true but it's not really linked to salvation. God loves everyone and the sacrifice allows salvation for everyone- even the worst of us. It does not guarentee salvation for everyone. In fact, most aren't.

As an example, it was prophesied by Jesus that the love of the greater number would cool off- discussing an apostasy with in the church. This apostasy was so great that the true worshippers would be in the minority.

Now if it was once saved always saved, then it wouldn't even matter if an apostasy would occur. These were people who gave their lives to God, dedicated themselves, got baptized, preached, & then stopped and started teaching things contrary to Doctrine. Why would these ones be saved when they may be responsible for thousands, millions, maybe billions of people being led away from salvation?

This does not include the much smaller number of atheist out there who became so after rejecting God or the ones who reject him after church abuse or who were forced to accept a particular religion.

I'm not meaning to argue this too much, but it just seems there's little support to suggest that ones can be saved regardless of sin. It makes meaningless ll thescriptures revolving around repentance, repercusssion, expuslision for the church, apostasy, true knowledge, etc...

This is true. Men cannot judge who gains salvations. However, there's two sideds to every coin. Man cannot determine who is doomed and they can't determine who is saved. Only the judge of those things can do so and the judgements are decided by Jesus &/or God.

By holding a once saved always saved view, we may make the decision for God on who will be saved and I can only think that will lead to disappointment as some that may have been saved at one point has no business gaining the reward of salvation now.

As an aside, I do believe that the congregation has the right to judge those within the congregation assuming the teachings aren't followed. However, what happens in relation to salvation remains between that individual and God.

There is alot to respond to here, maybe later when I have more time. But I think the core of the differences in interpretation revolve around how you define the words translated to grace, salvation, justification and sanctification.

But this statement is the core of the problem I have with your interpretation.

I can only think that will lead to disappointment as some that may have been saved at one point has no business gaining the reward of salvation now.

We never deserved the reward to be begin with, Grace is defined as an unwarranted free gift. So logically it has never made sense to me that on one hand some would teach repent and be saved for no one can gain salvation by works of the law, but then teach oh by the way you now need to follow this new covenant law to keep that salvation. Makes no sense logically.

 

[JGS]

Yes, it's a theoretical explanation.

I understand that as a Christian, you consider it a fundamental truth and not up for debate. Similarly to a scientist, truth is what can be demonstrated. So asking a scientist to consider a theory that is untestable is the equivalent to asking a Christian to consider that God doesn't exist.

Don't put words in my mouth. The has nothing to do with fundamental truths. I'm not involving myself in a scientific debate at all. This has to do with courtesies - the whole point at which I started.

This involves the disdain that many have in the science community toward the religious who will never in a million years come over to the dark side of life got here without a creator which is FAR less testable.

A belief in creation Is not solely the domain of Christians. It is the norm and impossible to disprove.

I say chuck it up and accept that the majority of people don't accept the unproven premise a scientist might and accept the fact that the majority of religious people already accept the rest- including evolution.

If they choose to define every field as requiring non-belief in a creator then there will always be a scientist started rift between them and us.

I can live with that. It's not like a scientist can prove i dont like science lol.

 

[Slo]

Don't put words in my mouth. The has nothing to do with fundamental truths. I'm not involving myself in a scientific debate at all. This has to do with courtesies - the whole point at which I started.

I would totally agree with you if Christianity did not have a fundamental emphasis on aggressive expansion. Live and let live is a great philosophy, but seeking people out and telling them that they were born flawed and must seek salvation doesn't seem to fit that philosophy. It seems only fair to me to ask for proof. This resistance seems to offend many Christians.

A belief in creation Is not solely the domain of Christians. It is the norm and impossible to disprove.

You know that's a poor stance to take. I won't beat you over the head with it.

If they choose to define every field as requiring non-belief in a creator then there will always be a scientist started rift between them and us.

I can live with that. It's not like a scientist can prove i dont like science lol.

You're right.

 

[phisheep]

I'm kind of sad that I came in here looking for affirmation, and all I see is more debating.

Yeah, it is rather a pity.

Once I have polished off the washing up and children stuff I'll try to shift these debating points across to the Official Religion thread - anyone wants to pick up those points with me I should be over there in about three hours or so.

I'll respond there to the couple of posts responding to mine.

Sorry for (contributing to) cluttering up your thread with this stuff Fernando. Good thread.

JGS, Slo, DeathistheEnd, fludevil - you wanna follow me over there? It's only fair.

 

[Slo]

Yeah, I didn't mean to mess up this thread if that's what I've done. I came in and saw a debate and joined in. Sorry. Punching out.

 

[devenger]

Assuming your white, if that sentence said instead:

"I really don't care either way whether a state permits or doesn't permit black marriage - it isn't an issue that touches me."

Would you change your mind?

Good catch. I just assumed if everyone minded their own business, gay people could be married. But yeah, I should have amended my agreement to sheep's comment.

edit: yep, I said earlier I didn't want to derail, just wanted to commend Fernando on his attitude. Movin out.

 

[JGS]

I would totally agree with you if Christianity did not have a fundamental emphasis on aggressive expansion. Live and let live is a great philosophy, but seeking people out and telling them that they were born flawed and must seek salvation doesn't seem to fit that philosophy. It seems only fair to me to ask for proof. This resistance seems to offend many Christians.



You know that's a poor stance to take. I won't beat you over the head with it.



You're right.

Not true. All public education is based on the absence of God in regards to science. I'm on my phone and am only responding to the first point.

It's a trumped up accusation to keep the debate going.

In any event, I'm not debating how life got here. I was explaining to fludevil why there is an issue regarding science despite a lot of Christians enjoying science. The religion thread is chock full of debating points about proof/non-proof of creation.

It should be assumed that a Christianity thread involves belief in creation so there would be no reason to debate that point here.

I'm in my phone

 

[TaeOH]

Here is a list of free daily online devotionals:

Daily Devotional with Pastor Jon
Daily Devotions with Greg Laurie
Daily Devotional with Bob Coy
Today's Devotion from Mike MacIntosh
Daily Devotional with Raul Ries
Daily Devotional with Alistair Begg

Thanks. Those type of one liner inspirations never have appealed to me. But I appreciate the effort of you putting the list together.

D.A. Carson's book is a plan to take you through the entire Bible in one or two years (depends on the path), you read some from old testament and some from the new. Carson then accompanies each daily reading with commentary much like what you posted, but more focused on what you read, since you just read at least 3 chapters of the bible.

 

[Fernando Rocker]

Well... after seeing some of the links posted... should I read the Bible with a program instead?

I just started last Sunday and I'm in the middle of the Genesis... but I'm not following any plan in particular.

 

[Chaplain]

Thanks. Those type of one liner inspirations never have appealed to me. But I appreciate the effort of you putting the list together.

D.A. Carson's book is a plan to take you through the entire Bible in one or two years (depends on the path), you read some from old testament and some from the new. Carson then accompanies each daily reading with commentary much like what you posted, but more focused on what you read, since you just read at least 3 chapters of the bible.

Both of these devotionals have read the Bible in a year plans:

Today's Devotion from Mike MacIntosh
Daily Devotional with Alistair Begg

But they are not like the Carson one. Where his commentary is based off of the verses a person read that day.

 

[Chaplain]

Well... after seeing some of the links posted... should I read the Bible with a program instead?

I just started last Sunday and I'm in the middle of the Genesis... but I'm not following any plan in particular.

It is always good to read a commentary after you have read through the verses you have gone through. But do not substitute your reading time by only reading those commentaries. You want to read and let God speak to you through His Word.

Here is a great site for Bible commentaries that are free to read online:

Bible Commentaries

I have personally noticed that those who truly are Shepard's will have their commentaries and studies for free online. They will might charge for it but they will still offer it for free online so that people can grow and understand God's Word.

 

[Chaplain]

For those who want to read the Bible in a year. Below is a list of 1-year plans (including a 2-year plan) but each with different focus:

Canonical
1-Year Plan
Download PDF
This plan goes straight through the Bible—from Genesis to Revelation. You will be supplied with reading for each day of the week as a steady guide toward finishing the entire Bible in one calendar year.

Chronological
1-Year Plan
Download PDF
This plan does not read straight through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. Rather, these readings are compiled according to recent historical research, taking into account the order in which the recorded events actually occurred. This is a fantastic plan to follow if you wish to add historical context to your reading of the Bible. If the schedule provided is followed, the entire Bible will be read in one calendar year.

Historical
1-Year Plan
Download PDF
Have you ever wondered what it would have been like to read the Old Testament in ancient Israel? Or, the New Testament as the books were written? In this plan, the order of the Old Testament readings is very similar to Israel's Hebrew Bible, progressing from Law to Prophets to Writings. The New Testament ordering is based upon research regarding the order in which the books were authored. Although this research is not conclusive, it may offer helpful insights to your Bible reading.

Old Testament and New Testament Together
1-Year Plan
Download PDF
It is important to understand the fullness of God's message to the churches, and a great way of doing this is reading the Old and New Testaments simultaneously. This plan, which can be completed in one calendar year, does just that. Readings from both Testaments are included from the beginning and although each reading does not contain both Testaments, the two are read effectively.

Blended
1-Year Plan
Download PDF
This plan is designed to add variety to your reading of the Bible. The Blended Plan divides the Bible so that the reader will read books in a non-traditional sequence. For example, while one is reading the book of Isaiah, he is also reading the book of Mark.

Two-Year Plans
Old Testament and New Testament Together
2-Year Plan
Download PDF
It is important to understand the fullness of God's message to the churches, and a great way of doing this is reading the Old and New Testaments simultaneously. This plan, which can be completed in two calendar years, does just that. At a slower pace than the one-year version of this plan, readings from both Testaments color one's journey through the Bible.

 

[Herpes Reasons]

There is alot to respond to here, maybe later when I have more time. But I think the core of the differences in interpretation revolve around how you define the words translated to grace, salvation, justification and sanctification.

But this statement is the core of the problem I have with your interpretation.

I can only think that will lead to disappointment as some that may have been saved at one point has no business gaining the reward of salvation now.

We never deserved the reward to be begin with, Grace is defined as an unwarranted free gift. So logically it has never made sense to me that on one hand some would teach repent and be saved for no one can gain salvation by works of the law, but then teach oh by the way you now need to follow this new covenant law to keep that salvation. Makes no sense logically.

It makes perfect sense.
Ill use an extreme example.
A pedophile who accepts christ as his savior but does not repent ( or have a change of heart) about pedophelia), do you really think he is redeemed and justified?

And sanctification is a process. God never expected us to go sinning no more.

 

[JGS]

iPhones stink for lengthy discussion so I'll return in a few.

Sorry if I caused a slight derailment. It wasn't my intention.

 

[Chaplain]

Below is a list of Bible Study Tools:

Charts and Outlines

Books of the Bible
Executable Outlines
A Summary of the Contents of Each Bible Book
Words of Scripture Requiring Explanation
Symbolic Language Used in the Old and New Testaments
Parallel Passages in New Testament quoted from the OT
Quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament
Analytical Table and Harmony of the Mosaic Law
Miracles Recorded in the Old Testament
Prophecies In the Pentateuch and Historical Books
Parables Recorded in the Old Testament
Probable Occasion when Each Psalm was Composed
The Names of God
Names, Titles and Characters of Jesus Christ
Key Thoughts of the New Testament Books
Harmony of the Gospels
Our Lord's Miracles
Our Lord's Parables
Our Lord's Discourses and Conversations
Prophetic Warnings and Promises of Our Lord
The Discourses in the Acts of the Apostles
The Miracles Recorded in the Acts of the Apostles
Remarkable Mountains and Hills
Physical Features of Palestine
Charts and Maps by Clarence Larkin
Special Prayers

Encyclopedias and Dictionaries

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (ISBE)
Condensed Biblical Cyclopedia (CBC)
Dictionary of the King James Version
Hitchcock's Topical Analysis
Dictionary Word Search (of over 53,000 entries)

Introductions to the Books of the Bible

ESV Introductions to the Books of the Bible
The Gospel of Matthew
The Gospel of Mark
The Gospel of Luke
The Gospel of John
The Book of Acts
The Epistle to the Romans
The Epistles to the Corinthians

Timelines

A Chronological Map
Timeline of Paul the Apostle
Chronology of Acts and the Epistles

Miscellaneous

Christmas: Celebrating the First Advent of Christ
Passover and Resurrection Celebration
Thayer's Lexicon Abbreviations Etc.
Scripture Difficulties
Portraits of the Apostles
The Names of God
Names, Titles and Characters of Jesus Christ
The Riches of Grace in Christ Jesus—Lewis Sperry Chafer
Jewish Observances
Bible Aids for Social and Private Prayer
Biographical Sketches of the Translators and Reformers
Cities and Towns Named in the New Testament
Our God Is • We Are
Put Off • Put On
Beloved Chapters
Thompson's Chain Reference: Special Bible Readings
Dispensational Truth by Clarence Larkin

I hope these tools help everyone in their walk with Christ.

 

[phisheep]

I've posted summaries of the gay marriage and rude scientist debates into the Official Religion thread starting at post 3062 in case anyone wants to carry on the discussion there.

 

[TaeOH]

It makes perfect sense.
Ill use an extreme example.
A pedophile who accepts christ as his savior but does not repent ( or have a change of heart) about pedophelia), do you really think he is redeemed and justified?

And sanctification is a process. God never expected us to go sinning no more.

I think you are using a poor example to make a claim as I would be suspicious of the faith of a pedophile who goes on sinning.

Here...this is a good paper on the subject...

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource...garlington-on-the-imputation-of-righteousness

I don't read much Piper, but I plan to read more. I have been keeping mostly to Dr. Craig and Dr. Carson and a local church who has the most gifted teacher I have been around.

 

[Herpes Reasons]

I think you are using a poor example to make a claim as I would be suspicious of the faith of a pedophile who goes on sinning. Typically those type of people seem to found in works based religions where they think they can work their sins away. At least if we are to believe the news.

uh, that's my point. one has to question someone's sanctification if they keep on living the life of a pedophile. how is it a bad example if you keep repeating the same sins over and over again. there's no repentance.
a true christian is one that has faith but has a repentant heart for a life of sanctification.
that period of sanctification in one's life is irregardless for salvation.

 

[TaeOH]

It is always good to read a commentary after you have read through the verses you have gone through. But do not substitute your reading time by only reading those commentaries. You want to read and let God speak to you through His Word.

Here is a great site for Bible commentaries that are free to read online:

Bible Commentaries

I have personally noticed that those who truly are Shepard's will have their commentaries and studies for free online. They will might charge for it but they will still offer it for free online so that people can grow and understand God's Word.

Have you read a commentary on John that stood out to you? I was thinking about picking one up the bookstore since my bible study group is going through John.

 

[TaeOH]

uh, that's my point. one has to question someone's sanctification if they keep on living the life of a pedophile. how is it a bad example if you keep repeating the same sins over and over again. there's no repentance.
a true christian is one that has faith but has a repentant heart for a life of sanctification.
that period of sanctification in one's life is irregardless for salvation.

The article I edited in explains the doctrine I believe to be true on justification.

I believe sanctification is a separate process in the life of a believer. It involves works, but works that have nothing to do with salvation.

 

[JGS]

The article I edited in explains the doctrine I believe to be true on justification.

I believe sanctification is a separate process in the life of a believer. It involves works, but works that have nothing to do with salvation.

The article focuses a lot on Genesis 15 for it's example. However, that would ignore all that Abraham did to prove his faith in previous chapters including but not limited to leaving his home and pitching tents as an old guy.

He also give an example of his son cleaning the room. The problem with the example is it still required an apology. So I'm not quite sure how once saved always saved applies except when repentance is involved.

 

[TaeOH]

The article focuses a lot on Genesis 15 for it's example. However, that would ignore all that Abraham did to prove his faith in previous chapters including but not limited to leaving his home and pitching tents as an old guy.

He also give an example of his son cleaning the room. The problem with the example is it still required an apology. So I'm not quite sure how once saved always saved applies except when repentance is involved.

With that point of view, why did Christ die on the Cross? I mean if we could work our way to heaven, which is absolutely what you are talking about, why was the Cross even necessary?

Here is another of Piper's articles, this not just focusing on one argument, but laying out the doctrine plainly.

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource...t-we-believe-about-the-justifying-work-of-god

 

[JGS]

With that point of view, why did Christ die on the Cross? I mean if we could work our way to heaven, which is absolutely what you are talking about, why was the Cross even necessary?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that faith should be indistinguishable from works. It's not either...or. It's if...then.

Every example I can think of in scripture verifies this. Abraham is an excellent one because of his age and the energy he spent displaying his faith even though he had no law whatsoever to follow. One of my favorite scriptures is Genesis 18 becaise it shows how important showing hospitality to God's servants was to him.

I'm not really concerned with which hold more weight because that changes with circumstances and it balances out.

I'm not really trying to convince you so sorry if it seems that way. I'm just trying to get across the idea that action displaying faith is the way to go. Even if once save always saved is true, it clearly doesn't hurt to show how much you appreciate that aspect the ransom sacrifice.

 

[JGS]

Well... after seeing some of the links posted... should I read the Bible with a program instead?

I just started last Sunday and I'm in the middle of the Genesis... but I'm not following any plan in particular.

I kept meaning to get back to this.

The first time i read, I went to the books that interested me - Genesis, The Gospels, Proverbs, Exodus...

I pushed the least interesting (Sorry) ones on the backburner.

I always had the intention of reading things in sequential order and that's the way i do it now.

Next goal is to read in chronological order, but I haven't tackled it yet.

 

[TaeOH]

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that faith should be indistinguishable from works. It's not either...or. It's if...then.

Every example I can think of in scripture verifies this. Abraham is an excellent one because of his age and the energy he spent displaying his faith even though he had no law whatsoever to follow. One of my favorite scriptures is Genesis 18 becaise it shows how important showing hospitality to God's servants was to him.

I'm not really concerned with which hold more weight because that changes with circumstances and it balances out.

I'm not really trying to convince you so sorry if it seems that way. I'm just trying to get across the idea that action displaying faith is the way to go. Even if once save always saved is true, it clearly doesn't hurt to show how much you appreciate that aspect the ransom sacrifice.

I think I said as much earlier about works flowing from our faith. But it seems to me that you are saying works are required. I know it is a fine line, but it is an important one to me.

I just call it legalism and reject it out of hand, but it does not mean that I could not fulfill such passages the way you are interpreting them by the way I live my life today. I just struggled mightily with a legalistic approach in H.S., all my faith meant to me then was guilt. I ended up kicking the lord out of my life just after my father died because as I said to the Lord at the time, I did not want to be lukewarm but I did not know how to be hot so I need to be cold. I was a very unhappy christian and had had enough. The Lord granted that request and I really did not think about God much for a while. But at age 19, after a year of doing it my way, I got into a little trouble and betrayed my mother. When I realized what I had done I asked God for help, but only if he could show me how to be a Christian. The morning after I prayed that, I went to my mother to ask her forgiveness and she suggested I talk to my brother as he was becoming a pastor or something like it, she was not sure. My brother lived in another state, but belonged to a church that taught grace. And then they taught more Grace. And then we all went out for beer. That saved my life. I dropped out of college and moved away from home with the help of my brother. I joined his fellowship and learned how to be flawed and still be a christian.

So I hope you will forgive me if I get defensive about once saved always saved and opposition to what I see as a legalistic approach. But I think it is especially important for young people to know that being a Christian is not about doing good works. It is about humbling yourself before the Lord, so that he can exalt you at the proper time.

All things are lawful for me to do, not all things are profitable, all things are lawful, I will be mastered by nothing. We have freedom in Christ.

 

[phisheep]

JGS, TaeOH,

I think this is one of those disputes where you are both right, but coming at it from different angles. If I read you correctly, then:

JGS is saying, as a matter of biblical evidence and raw practicality, good works always follow faith.

TaeOH is saying, as a matter of biblical evidence, that only faith is necessary for salvation.

I think you would both agree that good works without faith do not suffice for salvation. That seems right.

So what we have is that as a matter of doctrine only faith is necessary for salvation (TaeOH), but also that good works are necessary evidence/concomitant of good faith (JGS).

These positions do not seem to me to be in conflict, they both seem biblically correct too. It just depends which way round you take the 'necessarily':
- faith is necessary for salvation
- salvation necessarily leads to good works

Of course, I may have mucked this up terribly ...

 

[JGS]

I think I said as much earlier about works flowing from our faith. But it seems to me that you are saying works are required. I know it is a fine line, but it is an important one to me.

I just call it legalism and reject it out of hand, but it does not mean that I could not fulfill such passages the way you are interpreting them by the way I live my life today. I just struggled mightily with a legalistic approach in H.S., all my faith meant to me then was guilt. I ended up kicking the lord out of my life just after my father died because as I said to the Lord at the time, I did not want to be lukewarm but I did not know how to be hot so I need to be cold. I was a very unhappy christian and had had enough. The Lord granted that request and I really did not think about God much for a while. But at age 19, after a year of doing it my way, I got into a little trouble and betrayed my mother. When I realized what I had done I asked God for help, but only if he could show me how to be a Christian. The morning after I prayed that, I went to my mother to ask her forgiveness and she suggested I talk to my brother as he was becoming a pastor or something like it, she was not sure. My brother lived in another state, but belonged to a church that taught grace. And then they taught more Grace. And then we all went out for beer. That saved my life. I dropped out of college and moved away from home with the help of my brother. I joined his fellowship and learned how to be flawed and still be a christian.

So I hope you will forgive me if I get defensive about once saved always saved and opposition to what I see as a legalistic approach. But I think it is especially important for young people to know that being a Christian is not about doing good works. It is about humbling yourself before the Lord, so that he can exalt you at the proper time.

All things are lawful for me to do, not all things are profitable, all things are lawful, I will be mastered by nothing. We have freedom in Christ.

I think you are perfectly in the right to get defensive. I'm trying to avoid be offensive.

The context Paul is discussing in these supporting verses is very important. He is talking to a bunch of people who knew nothing else but traditiona and ritual passed on from generation to generation. To them it was odd that you didn't have to watch all that stuff especially since the laws actually got stricter in their time than when the Law was first written. he is saying rather than focus on those physical requirement and legalities, focus on the type of faith that Abraham displayed which was free of the burden of the Law.

To stay with Paul's writings, He later hebrews 4 that the Law hindered Christian faith so had to be done away with. However, he also states that this is needed because getting rid of the law was the only way to render sacred service- work basically. In 1 Timothy 4 (EDIT:Oops, it's actually 1 Tomothy 6, but the end of 4 is pretty good too) he speaks of the need to resist sin and put up a fight for the faith since it's not permanent and can wither and the danger of falling into sin as well as the resulting recommendations such as doing good works.

James says faith without works is dead. I look at it as faith being our body and works being our heart - it's what moves us to show our faith. Scripturally, the heart is said to be the seat of our desires or motivation. So we can have a faith in God and his promises of salvation, but if we desire Satanic things, then we remain in danger.

If you take out the heart, the body dies. Of course if your head (The seat of knowledge) gets cut off, the body dies too so both are mandatory for salvation.

I think works are focused on so much because it appears to be the most recognizeable and people can take advantage of it. So I would say that you are in just as much danger if that's the only thing focused on.

 

[Chaplain]

I thought I would share one of Mike MacIntosh's daily devotionals. I think he explained the verses from Mark really well:

"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched--where "Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched."

And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched--where "Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched."

And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire--where "Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched." - Mark 9:43-48

Getting sin out of your life is a serious thing. The metaphors used in these verses are astounding and speak loudly at the sinful condition of man. Jesus isn't telling anyone to cut off their limbs. In fact, the metaphor is even worse than that; we all must cease and desist from our sinful ways. Think about it: if we could actually get rid of our sin by cutting off our arm, I think many of us would do it. As difficult as that would be, the benefits of having no more sin would be pretty amazing. But Jesus doesn't say that. Letting go of sin must be a daily activity; it's difficult and trying. To live by faith and to walk in the Spirit is a daily lifestyle of the believer. It's simple and focused, but nobody said it would be easy.

Jesus uses three metaphors to illustrate. First, He said to watch what you do with your hands. What sinful things do you gravitate toward and pick up? Magazines? The remote? Inappropriate touching? Jesus is saying, "Enough!" Stop touching those things that are causing you to sin. Use your hands for God's work and for worshipping Him. Take David's advice: "I will bless You while I live; I will lift up my hands in Your name."

Second, Jesus said to watch out where you walk because your feet will lead you to trouble. Now we all know that it isn't the feet that are the problem. It's our heart and our mind. When we have thoughts toward evil, we must walk away! Focus your thoughts on Him and His desires for your life. Romans 10:15 says, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace." You see, God wants us to have beautiful feet. When you start to feel a tug towards the wrong, sinful direction, start talking about Jesus. He is the only One who can help. And get your feet to church on Sundays and midweek. Be filled with the knowledge of His will for your life.

And lastly, Jesus said to be careful what we look at. The people-watching, the ads, and the little looks here and there are all indicative of your heart's desires. Be in a place where your eyes aren't looking at things they weren't created for. Psalm 19:8 says that, "The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes." Keep your eyes focused on Him. Keep your eyes in the Word of God. There you will find joy, satisfaction, and peace.

It's never easy to cut sin out of our lives. (It's probably why we all hang on to it so long.) Be decisive and take action. Jesus has so much more for you. Allow the Holy Spirit to help you overcome those areas in your life that need to be removed. And be assured, when you ask, things will change!

 

[Uchip]

End of Days is May 21st
U guys ready for this???