Orthodox Church Reliance on Church Fathers

Apologists and polemicists for the Orthodox Churches invariably invoke the writings of pastors from the first few centuries to promote their beliefs.

The implied premise of the question is that the standard for judging doctrine is the beliefs of second, third, and subsequent early generations of Christians. It must assume that those who had closest access to the apostles were more spiritual or had more thorough teaching. Nevertheless, that premise is illogical and leads into heresy.

The church was not born with as complete an understanding of doctrine as we can know it today.

Just as the prophets searched and studied diligently — and mostly, futilely — to understand their own prophecies (1 Peter 1:10–12), the apostles had to study and debate to apply what they had learned. 

When Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, the Jews needed a major improvement to their worldview. God destroyed their nation because their theology remained frozen and they refused to repent. Freezing doctrine at the point defined by the primitive church commits the same sin. 

Study and debate have always focused on the issue of the day. At Pentecost, the prime issue was the Jews’ rejection of their Messiah. As Acts records, the next major issue was acceptance of gentiles into the church (Acts 11) and freedom from the Mosaic Law (Acts 21, Galatians 2). 

Doctrines form an ontology, and the fleshing out of that ontology took centuries. The assignment of superior authority to writings of the primitive church comprises a rejection both of known authority, the scriptures, and of what was discerned, debated, rejected, and built upon by equally holy men in later generations. Forming a standard out of what was written at the beginning of the learning curve can only lead to error. The standard cannot be the changing interpretations of men whose writings we do not trust to be inspired and who had yet to wrestle with many great questions. 

Disagreements abounded among the church fathers. 

Heresies abounded even among the apostles’ contemporaries. Even among the most orthodox of the church fathers, there were major disagreement about vital issues, and where disagreement exists, error exists. 

How do we judge those disagreements without turning to the scriptures? If the scriptures are sufficient for teaching doctrine, how can they fail to be sufficient for determining doctrine? The proper use of early church writings, then, is as commentary, and dated commentary at that.

The inspired writings of the New Testament warn us not to embrace teachings that run contrary to Scripture. Of which church father did the Spirit say, his writings are given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works”? None. 

The standard cannot be the changing interpretations of men whose writings we do not trust to be inspired and who had yet to wrestle with many great questions. This is not to say that we cannot consider earlier or later writings, but merely to correctly identify our Standard and warn against overemphasis on other sources.

Third, the reliance on the “church fathers” implies that we should bypass Scripture and instead resort to the early Christians’ writings.

This implies that Scripture is insufficient. It argues from borrowed authority and replaces the Spirit’s illumination with men’s opinions. It also implies an injection of a priesthood between God and believer, a continuation of the Jewish religious hierarchy in Christianized form. That low view of Scripture is heretical because it opens the door to other heresies and inserts a barrier between God and His people. 

The psalmist did not say, How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to the writings of priests who interpret your Word for me. At the cross, God destroyed the veil of partition between the area accessible only to the priest and the court of the ordinary believer. He made of all believers a royal priesthood who all have access to God and His gifts (1 Peter 2:9). Though the heresy may be unintentional, it is what it is. When you devalue the Word, you disrespect the Author of the Word.

Metaphorically, if you want adult-level knowledge, would you read a book written by people who have studied the subject for generations, or by children who have not even finished first grade? The scriptures form the Christian’s objective standard of doctrinal truth, not cherry-picked quotations from members of the primitive church.  

Copyright 2019, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for personal and non-profit use, but please give credit where credit is due.

Another Illustration of the Trinity

Tri-une God, a Scientific Possibility

According to physicists and cosmologist, when the Universe was created, not only were mass and energy created, but so were time and space.  In other words, God has creative power over time. To Him, our past, present, and future are all one.  If He wishes to enter into time and space from three different "directions" and experience our "reality" as three Persons, He can do so; and yet, in that place outside of time, He remains a united God of one Mind and united substance.

The new illustration

Remember, no illustration using the physical can adequately represent the spiritual.  Even I see gaps in this illustration; but perfection is not my aim.

Imagine a Carpenter building a dollhouse with three openings. Then he creates puppets to inhabit the dollhouse. This Carpenter inserts his head through the front opening, his right hand through a side opening, and his left hand through the other side opening. 

 

Moreover, on his right hand, he dons a puppet costume so that his hand looks just like the occupants. His right hand has not changed its form; rather, it has taken on additional form.

Inside the dollhouse, the Walter puppet says there are three Carpenters. He counts, "One, two, three Carpenters." No connection between them can be seen; the Right Hand has a visibly different nature than the other two; and they have a clear hierarchy.

 

The Achmed puppet says, "The Head is God, the left hand is his angel, and Right Hand is his prophet. Headahu Akbar! Alalalalalalalalalalalal!"

The Lamb Chop puppet says. "All three are the same Carpenter: Carpenter the Head, Carpenter the Right (who has taken on puppet form), and Carpenter the Left. The three act independently, yet in perfect coordination, all of the same mind."

Obviously, the Carpenter represents God; the dollhouse represents His creation of time, space, mass, and energy; and the puppets represent His human creations. The face, left hand, and right hand represent how we perceive God's entry into and interaction with his creation, and the right hand's donning of the hand puppet represents Christ's incarnation. 

Naturalism makes the mistake of saying that we are only flesh. Some forms of Eastern religions make the mistake of saying that we are only spirit, and flesh is an illusion.  One variation that combines those those says that Jesus changed forms. Jehovah's Witlesses say He was angel, then man, then a god. Mormons say He was spirit child, then a man, and then a god (or will become a god, and so will all the rest of the "good" Mormons). 

The Trinitarian view holds that Christ was God from the beginning, and that never changed. At the incarnation, He added human form, although he refrained from exercising His divine abilities, most of the time. Within the dimension of time, He ever has been God and ever shall remain both God and human; and outside time, he is eternally One with the Father and the Spirit.

(One fine point that I have not seen addressed is whether Jesus consists only of divine spirit and human flesh, or additionally consists of human spirit. TMI?)

My purpose is not to "prove."  Many minds greater than mine have already gone over the evidence in greater depth than I can comprehend.  "Proof" is another subject entirely, but the mind cannot accept the proof of something that seems impossible.  My purpose is merely to stretch the mind, open the minds of non-tri-unitarians, and make them more comfortable with what has been revealed.

 

Copyright  2015, Richard Wheeler -- Permission granted for personal use; Please give attribution in group settings.

Hyper Grace, Hyper Repentance, and the Middle Ground

Response to

Rooting Out Fuzzy Theology Behind the Hyper-Grace Message

DAVID & NANCY RAVENHILL
Charisma Magazine online 9:21AM EDT 4/2/2013
http://www.charismamag.com/blogs/prophetic-insight/17255-rooting-out-fuzzy-theology-behind-the-hyper-grace-message

Two Types of Repentance

Most Charismatics Christians (they mistakenly call themselves Pentecostals) fail to distinguish between two types of repentance. Peter explicitly names the first type, and only regarding changing minds FROM rejection of Messiah TO receiving Him. The New Testament only describes the second type without naming it "repentance." We label the second type "repentance," but the label is not Biblical, although it works as long as one does not confuse the two.

Unfortunately, many people DO confuse the two.

The first repentance exchanges a broken-down death trap of a clunker for a brand new car. The dealer has stamped "IT IS FINISHED" on the papers, sent the clunker to the recyclers, and placed the new owner's name in the Lamb's Book of Car Registrations. That new car irrevocably belongs to the new owner.

The second repentance leads to cleaning up the car, driving on better roads in accordance with the Car Ownership Bible, repairing any damage and wear, and learning to use it for profitable purposes. The owner may dent the car, soil it, and fail to maintain it until it's no earthly good. A judge may tell the owner to take it off the road. But the car will always belong to the owner.

Confusing Grace and Repentance

Many people confuse the two. When the car gets dirty, they foolishly keep returning to the dealership to ask for the car again. As the author implies, however, they would be wise to return to the Dealer as many times as needed to maintain and learn more about their car.

Just as one extreme insults the blood of Christ by excusing sin that has been washed away, the other insults the blood by ignoring its sufficiency and attempting to re-apply it, even though "there remains no more offering for sin."

Contrasting the Dangers of the Two Hypers

If we wish to compare the dangers of the two, hyper repentance poses the greater danger. Lost people who have learned hyper repentance add self-reliance on repentance to reliance on Christ. Paul explicitly explains that grace and works mutually exclude each other. The Giver does not give gifts to those who ask for wages.

Therefore, both hypers present practical dangers to the saved, but hyper repentance adds an everlasting danger to the lost.

The irony lies not in the Ravenhill's attempt to correct hyper grace (for which I am grateful), but in that he does so from within the territory of hyper repentance.

Does the Good That Catholicism Does Outweigh the Bad?

This post replies to an article (included, below) sent to me by a sweet Roman Catholic lady. The article, written by a Jewish author, excuses the Roman Catholic Church from the actions of a few bad apples. The author advises Catholics to ignore the attacks from leftist media and hold their heads high over the good things their church does.

My Reply:

Dear H_____:

I've come to the conclusion that every good organization does no better than the sort of members it it has.  If it has human members, it has weaknesses that will eventually corrupt its practices, its message, and its reputation.

Human history, as recorded in the Bible and as interpreted through biblical principles, reveals a pattern of waves of God mercifully setting up ways for us to govern ourselves. Humans subsequently overwhelm each system with a tsunami of failure, demonstrating again how man's fallen nature permeates and overwhelms everything he touches.

Judaism, in particular, demonstrated the failure of a representative form of salvation. Priests mediated between sinners and God and enforced a code of righteousness. God gave that code not to justify man, but for the dual purposes of guiding man to the knowledge of his utter inability to achieve righteousness and of symbolizing the ultimate source of righteousness. "Universal guide to human behavior" was only secondary. The Jews, however, failed to recognized the Source, when He came, because they set about to achieve righteousness on their own. They focused on the code instead of on the Giver of the code.

Some such Jews became the church's "Judaizers"  that Apostle Paul opposed, from the provinces to the council of the apostles.  They wanted to continue the failed systems of human-earned righteousness that had failed in Judaism.  For example, they interpreted circumcision as a gateway to God's grace, just as many feel that baptism or other human actions convey God's grace today.  They failed to grasp that God bestows His grace Himself, not through the hands of the recipient or any other human intermediary.  Paul had to correct even Peter for such errors.

I could argue against the Roman Catholic institution on the basis of its history. The gospel of liberty as taught by the apostles survived centuries of oppression by the institution set up by a Roman emperor who straddled the factions of Christianity, preferring not one most likely to serve God's Kingdom, but one most likely to further Rome's empire. Despite political, unjust civil, and military actions against biblical believers, the spiritual church survived countless reinventions of its human facade.

Even from a post-Protestant perspective, one can see a history of institutions wandering from the truths that originally set them apart, making necessary the departure of believers, faithful men who believed the Word of God rather than the words of men, to set up new institutions.

Having to allow for the corruption that comes with every human presence, I must instead judge the works-based gospel that catholicisms spread.  (Not to get off topic, but, yes, the plural is intentional.)

I have seen enough human failure everywhere I've gone, including in my own footsteps, that I will take pride not in myself, nor in my efforts, nor in any human organization, but in the God who freely bestows His grace and who graciously sets up His works among men.

I send this to my non-Catholic friends just to set the record straight.  Thanks for understanding. Love, H_____
---------------------
THE CATHOLIC   CHURCH

Excerpts of an article written by non-Catholic Sam Miller - a prominent    Cleveland Jewish businessman:
"Why would newspapers carry on a vendetta on one of the most important institutions that we have today in the United States, namely the Catholic Church?

Do you know - the Catholic Church educates 2.6 million students everyday at the cost to that Church of 10 billion dollars, and a savings on the other hand to the American taxpayer of 18 billion dollars.   The graduates go on to graduate studies at the rate of 92%.

The Church has 230 colleges and universities in the U.S. with an enrollment of 700,000  students.

The Catholic Church has a non-profit hospital system of 637 hospitals, which account for hospital treatment of 1 out of every 5 people - not just Catholics - in the United States today.

But the press is vindictive and trying to totally denigrate in every way the Catholic Church in this country.   They have blamed the disease of pedophilia on the Catholic Church, which is as irresponsible as blaming adultery on the institution of marriage.

Let me give you some figures that Catholics should know and remember.  For   example, 12% of the 300 Protestant clergy surveyed admitted to sexual intercourse with a parishioner; 38% acknowledged other inappropriate sexual contact in a study by the United Methodist Church, 41.8% of clergy women reported unwanted sexual behavior; 17% of laywomen have been sexually harassed.
Meanwhile, 1.7% of the Catholic clergy has been found guilty of pedophilia.  10% of the Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia.  This is not a Catholic problem.

A study of American priests  showed that most are happy in the priesthood and find it  even better than they had expected, and that most, if  given the choice, would choose to be priests again in face of all this obnoxious PR the church has been receiving.

The Catholic Church is bleeding from self-inflicted wounds.  The agony that Catholics have felt and suffered is not necessarily the fault of the Church.  You have been hurt by a small number of wayward priests that have probably been totally weeded out by now and a number of bishops who failed to act.

Walk with your shoulders high and your head higher.  Be a proud member of the most important non-governmental agency in the United States.

Then remember what Jeremiah said:  'Stand by the roads, and look and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is and walk in it, and find rest for your souls'.   Be proud to speak up for your faith with pride and reverence and learn what your Church does for all other religions.

Be proud that you're a Catholic."

I Hit a Deer

I hit a deer. I slowed to miss a fine, 3-prong buck. As he stopped on my right and turned to look back at me, I started out again. Suddenly, from my left, a doe trotted onto the road, only a few feet in front of my car, following the buck. I braked, but we collided. She tumbled into the dirt, but scrambled to her feet and ran away.

I saw no scrapes on the doe and my car shows no damage. But I learned that, where there's one deer, instead of focusing on it, I should look around for others.

And in life, when you avoid one danger, you should look around for other dangers.

Nothing New about Blind Politicians

Reference: I Kings 20. For context, see

• II Samuel 7
• I Kings 11-12
• start at I Kings 16:23 when you read chapter 20

God is pro-death penalty. In fact, God once pronounced the death penalty upon a politician when he made a treaty instead of executing a captured invader.

You can find more than one situation like this in the Bible, but today I focus on Ahab from my daily reading in I Kings 20. Ahab descended from a split and broken line of heretical politicians that started with Solomon.

All this rebellion, destruction, and death started with an interfaith marriage. King David had unified Israel and passed it along to his son Solomon in 1015 BC. We think the "fundamentalist" Mormon cults in the Rocky Mountain states are bad, but Solomon left them in the dust with his 700 wives and 300 concubines. God never explicitly judged anybody for having multiple wives -- perhaps He sees the resulting family conflicts as judgment enough. Polygamy -- more specifically, interfaith political marriages -- led to something far worse: apostacy, breaking up with God.

Solomon's wives, many being from other nations (one nation being Sidon) and other religions, convinced him to worship the gods of their homelands. I suppose a thousand of the most beautiful women in the known world could do that to the average guy. Way to man-up, Sol.

God responded to this spiritual adultery by filing for divorce. God could not remove Solomon from office because He had given His word to David that his son would sit on the throne after him. So the divorce came posthumously in -975 AD. Like a judge who gives the girls to the wife and the boys to the husband, God divided Israel.

Solomon's son Rehoboam got to keep the south while a rebel, Jeroboam, got to take the north. The area of one tribe, Judah, made up the south, while the areas of ten tribes made up the north. (The twelfth and priestly tribe of Levi dispersed among the other eleven tribes.) Naturally, Judah became known as... Judah; and the ten tribes got to keep the family name of Israel. In the successions of rulers, north and south, few learned their lessons.

Ahab had no excuse for not believing God. Ahab ("father's brother") grew up in the home of his idolatrous home of his father, but he also knew of the Torah and had exposure to the prophets of God. As we approach I Kings 20, we find three events that should have convinced anybody:

1. He had lived through a drought that the prophet Elijah had declared (I Kings 17:1).
2. In a competition between 850 prophets of idols and one prophet of God, he had seen Elijah pray down fire from God to devour water-drenched sacrifices (18:17-39).
3. He saw the drought end per Elijah's declaration (18:41-45).

But Ahab perfectly illustrated Jesus' saying, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Luke 16:31)

When Ahab married Jezebel, he followed Solomon's error by marrying into the family of the King of Sidon, the capitol of Phoenicia. Ahab had grown up in a house that worshipped foreign gods with fornication and sodomy among their sacraments. Mr. and Mrs. Ahab and Jezebel, however, topped this. They added Baal-worship with its sacrament of infant sacrifice to Israel's sins.

According to I Kings 19:1, after the second and third events listed above, Ahab went home and told Jezebel about the signs God had shown. Jezebel responded by putting out a hit on Elijah. Considering that Ahab had converted once for love's sake, what might have happened if Jezebel had said, "Surely, the Lord is God!" like all the witnesses to the fire did?

Wives, don't underestimate your influence over your husbands. Behind every succussful man is.... Well, if you can make 'em, you can break 'em, too. He may one day give account for his leadership, but you will one day account for how you used your influence.

Meanwhile, back in today's reading (chapter 20), King Ahab finds himself quivering in his fortress as King Ben-Hadad ("son of Hadad," the Syrian sun-god) musters the army of Syria outside.

First Ben-Hadad orders Ahab to surrender all his silver, gold, wives, and children. Ahab agrees to comply.

Don't pretend shock. You already know that he practices infant sacrifice. In accordance with custom, Ben-Hadad would probably take the wives for his own and send the children to the best Syrian academies to eventually represent him in the conquered territory of Israel. With wives like Jezebel, Ahab probably thought he got the better end of that bargain. And winding up in the house of a mighty king like Ben-Hadad, Jezebel probably thought she was getting the better deal, too. It was a win-win-win.

However, Ben-Hadad changes the deal. He orders Ahab to let his soldiers pillage the city. Now, surrendering his money and his family is OK with Ahab, but surrendering his favorite stuff went just too dern far! Ahab ends the parleigh saying, "Let not one who puts on [as in donning armor for battle] boast like the one who takes [as in removing armor after successful battle]." In other words, don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

The king had put his foot in it. As shown in verse 14, he had no idea how he would defend against Ben-Hadad. God sends a prophet to Ahab to tell him that God will deliver the enemy into his hand, that Ahab may know that God is God.

At the prophet's direction, Ahab musters his little army of 7,000 men and marches out of the city to face Ben-Hadad's army of over 127,000. (How do I get that number? Ben-Hadad returned the following year with an equal number (vs. 24-25). More on that, later.)

In this battle, every Israelite "killed his man," so that's at least 7,000 Syrian foot soldiers. Then Ahab led an attack against Ben-Hadad's chariots, "and killed the Syrians with a great slaughter." Ben-Hadad and his army flee.

Things start to look up for Ahab. God fights on his side. Maybe he will start turning to God.

After the first battle, the prophet warns Ahab, get ready because they'll be back! Sure enough, spring comes and the prophecy holds true. Ben-Hadad returns, but with a new strategy.

The Syrian tacticians decide that the loss happened because God is a hillbilly. That's what you get when your tacticians worship heathen gods. Actually, chariots don't work well in hills country like that around Ahab's capital, and Israel's capitol gives them the high ground, so moving the battle to a plain makes a lot of sense. Once again, Ben-Hadad has vastly overwhelming numerical superiority. Enjoy the word picture:

Now the children of Israel encamped before them like two little flocks of goats, while the Syrians filled the counrtyside.

Military (or religious) tactics and numerical superiority do not stop God, however. A prophet tells Ahab,

Thus says the LORD: Because the Syrians have said, "The LORD is God of the hills, but He is not God of the valleys," therefore I will deliver all this great multitude into your hand, and you shall know that I am the LORD.

The battle begins. The little army of Israel kills 100,000 foot soldiers (vs. 29), the rest flee, and God kills another 27,000 in an "accident" (vs. 30). That's where I got the 127,000 for the first battle.

Ahab has seen miracle after miracle. Do you think maybe this trip from doom to miraculous victory would crack open Ahab's heart? Not a chance. When Israel captures Ben-Hadad, he and Uncle Ahab call each other "brother" and make a treaty. 127,000 men dead and they just walk away.

God hates false religions and false gods to which people give honor that belongs to Him alone. False gods keep people condemned and separated from God. God delivers into Ahab's hands the ruler of a region that God had once given to Israel, a man that oppresses Israel, a man with the conceit to call himself the son of a god, a man who insults God... and Ahab lets him go.

A prophet calls him on it, saying,

Thus says the LORD: Because you have let slip out of your hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore your life shall go for his life, and your people for his people.

God signed Ben-Hadad's death warrant and Ahab failed to execute the sentence. Doing so, Ahab signed his own death warrant.

Of all the lessons in I Kings 20, this one stands out to me tonight: One day, our judges, the politicians who appointed them -- and the people who elected the politicians -- will answer to God for the murderers, rapists, and traitors they allowed to live and even released to repeat their crimes. The jurisdiction to exact justice lies with God, not us. But, whether in this life or in the next, they will pay.

Copyright Richard Wheeler 2010. Permission granted for personal or non-profit use.

Review: "Kaleidoscope" by Patsy Clairmont

Leave it to Patsy Clairmont to create a book with a cover as cute as she is, a length as tiny as she is, and chapters as short as she is.

Beautiful cover and all, Kaleidoscope fails to connect. Chapters, each based on a single verse from Proverbs, come across as devotional stories. While one or two chapters may hit individual readers hard, most readers will have to either dig deep or read only one chapter per day/week and truly commit to thinking as hard as Winnie the Pooh to get something out of this book.

Mind you, the stories Clairmont tells are delightfully funny, but that doesn’t compensate for lack of depth in the Word. I have yet to read a book by a Women of Faith Speaker that truly dives into God’s Word. Some pointless questions and a few verses to reflect on after each chapter are the closest Clairmont comes to covering readers with the water of the Word of God.

On the bright side, she does bring some clear understanding to a few confusing proverbs, but, as lovely as its cover is, Kaleidoscope does not “find inspiring reflections of the divine that bring clarity to our world.”

*Quote from the book jacket’s description.

Book Summary:

Acclaimed author and Women of Faith speaker Patsy Clairmont causes womens' hearts to leap and their hopes to lift in this quirky, straight-to-the point look at the Proverbs.
Understanding the Christian life and the Bible can be a daunting task. But maybe God didn't mean it to be so hard. In Kaleidoscope of Proverbs, Patsy Clairmont pieces together some powerful messages from God and reveals new facets of beauty, inspiration, and instruction. Written for busy women, Patsy offers brief, powerful chapters that address the key aspects of their lives, hearts, and relationships.
In the Proverbs, God gives us small gems of hope and truth, and in Kaleidoscope of Proverbs, Patsy Clairmont unveils them for readers with her trademark humor and insightful teaching.


* I received a free copy of this book from BookSneeze.com in exchange for my honest review.

The Problem of Emotional Conversions

Biblical Salvation
Evangelist John Nordstrom
AAA Ministries:  Gospel Sowing to Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime

Biblical salvation becomes a reality when three components of the human body become interactively engaged: The mind, the heart, and the will (Romans 6:17). The gospel sower initiates the process of regeneration by delivering the doctrine of salvation into the prospect's intellect. The sower who dares pass beyond his jurisdiction and tries to also manipulate the heart, goes too far. The heart’s inner sanctum, is reserved for God alone. Truth delivered by the sower becomes a hammer in the hand of God, breaking down the fortified walls of the heart (Jeremiah 23:29). The final outcome is man’s will yielding to God’s will. True salvation takes place in the heart, not the intellect. It takes place after God has done his convicting work and not without it. God is the soul winner, not man (1 Corinthians 3:7).

There is nothing a gospel sower can do to cause the prospect to mean business with God.  The sower must focus on giving a correct gospel in an understandable way. The rest is up to God and the individual. When they die, their sincerity is between them and God.

I agree with much in the letter, but not with all. It draws a picture of intellect, heart, and will, to the exclusion of the spirit. This picture shows God pounding on the heart and the will, but ignores God giving life to the spirit and understanding to the intellect. Any Calvinist would offer tons of Scripture references that tear the letter to shreds.  (By the way, in interest of full disclosure, I triangulate somewhere above and between Arminians on my far left and Calvinists on my not-so-far right.)

Before I go on, I should point out that, while God ultimately wins souls, God delegates the privilege and duty of engaging in soul winning to believers. Somewhere, the Old Testament says, "he that wins souls is wise." Soul winning is a partnership between God and his ambassadors -- us. True soul winners give the glory to God and will one day cast their bejeweled crowns before His feet; yet it is God who places those jewels in their crowns and calls them soul winners. Therefore, I'm not following the false modesty of abandoning the term.

People sometimes claim to have had a head conversion without a heart conversion. The letter says that True salvation takes place in the heart, not the intellect.  This is false.  Both the intellect and the heart must be involved -- and the spirit, too. More often, I think, people have heart conversions without head conversions (especially in Charismatic circles). Perhaps legalistic sects such as Catholicism have will conversions without either head or heart conversions. (I'm not sure we should isolate "the will" as a separate function like intellect and heart. I think of it more as a verb -- to will -- resulting from the majority vote of the intellect, the heart, and the spirit.) The letter implies that people can even have head, heart, and will conversions based on the gospel and the emotional appeal of the soul winner, but accomplished without the work of the Spirit. Examples might include Judas in the gospels and Simon the Sorcerer in Acts.

The letter does not imply that an emotional appeal excludes the work of the Spirit. It is possible for God to quicken the sinner's spirit even if the gospel presenter includes an emotional appeal.

What a frustrating idea, that a fraction of those converted through emotional appeals are saved, and the rest are not. Between the intrusion of the world into the church and its saturation with unconverted souls, it becomes no wonder that "Christians" stand so undifferentiated from their neighbors. I must think, however, that all those false conversions represent a great lessening of coals upon those souls' heads and a great preservation of the societies in which they live.

On the other hand, might there be people who whose decision or act of will as a result of emotional appeal lead to greater things? Could the gospel with a God-prepared spirit result in an authentic conversion that lacks devotional energy because the soul winner left the person to cross the threshold alone? If we all did all things because we had the right information and the work of the Spirit upon our spirits, when would we need exhortation, encouragement, and provocation? Why would Paul and John have included such emotional appeals in their epistles? I conclude that the soul winner needs wisdom, caution, and balance (as do we all), since scriptures do not preclude the use of emotional appeal along with the preaching of the gospel.

What disadvantages do we find in false conversions? One is that false converts besmear the name of Christ when they stumble or fall away. The banner held high by remaining true converts ought to restore Christ's honor, but that brings us to the real danger. When false converts wander off, they discourage us. We feel betrayed because we put more trust in each other than we do in God. Sometimes, after times of failure, we question our own conversions because we know that things like what we did have also led to the revelation of others' false conversions. It hurts, especially when you were the person who "led them to the Lord." You wonder what you did wrong when, in truth, false conversions happen regardless of the soul winners' methods.

So we look for reasons why. In some churches that use strong emotional appeals, it's easy to blame the emotional appeal. We might conclude that all emotional appeals are wrong because the work on the heart and the will belong to God. That's an unreasonable extreme. Banning the emotional appeals makes about as much sense as banning the teaching of the gospel. After all, head-without-heart conversions are just as doomed as are heart-without-head conversions; and when false converts fall away, it hurts us just as much either way. What comes next, ban both the attempt to make the gospel plain and the attempt to appeal to the heart?

The first half of the answer lies in the wisdom to find appropriate proportions of intellectual and emotional appeals. At the same time, I'd like to acknowledge that God makes us with unique capacities. Some personalities have no capacity for emotional appeal, and it would be a mistake to force them to conduct altar calls with two dozens verses of Just as I Am at every service. Other personalities have little capacity for intellectual appeal. Let each man serve according to his gifts without rejecting others' gifts.

The second half lies in a wise response when false converts fall away. Some "false" converts are weak or misled believers who will later return, or they are believers whom God will call home prematurely for the preservation of their souls. A soul winner who judges such converts "false" takes on needless disappointment. Our disappointment indicates trust due God but misplaced in man and, even worse, in ourselves. Aside from sanctions prescribed by the Bible, we should leave judgment to God who alone sees our hearts.

Contradiction between John 3:17 and John 9:39

Dec 21, 2009

What do you make of John 9: 35-41?  In lots of other places in the Gospels, Jesus said He has not come into the world to condemn the world but to save the world.  In vs 39 He says for judgement He has come into the world....

The short answer lies in judgment being a process that includes the violation of a law, identification of the violation, indictment, conviction, sentencing, and execution of the sentence.  Christ's first coming served not to condemn the world, but to identify our guilt.  By providing a means of redemption, however, Christ also established a final standard -- faith -- that determines whether we go on to damnation or salvation.

Because the world has violated the Law of God, the world's guilt already condemns it.  God will sentence the world in the final judgment, but Christ did not come into the world to execute conviction and sentencing in His first advent.  Christ came, rather, to announce our state through his words, his actions, and the world's response to Him, so that we might turn to Him for salvation.  While Christ did not come into the world to condemn it, His coming does play a pivotal role in our judgment.

To set up the long answer, let's review Salvation 101.

In John 9:39, Jesus says,

For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. 

This seems to contradict John 3:17:

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved.

The gospel states that God removes us from the darkness and places us into the light when we place our faith in Him and in what He has done for us through His Son.  That requires a context:  Without this good news, all stand condemned before God.  Christ did not need to condemn the world because the world was already condemned.

Natural man responds to The Law -- or to the natural law that, according to Paul, lies within each of us -- in either of two ways.  One group is in a burning building but fail to realize it:  Even if they knew about the fire escape, they see no need to use it.    This self-righteous group misses the point of this law and interprets it as a path to righteousness, missing the unrighteousness that it reveals.  They fail to see themselves in the context of reality, a context that gives the gospel its value to them.

The other group knows that the burning building entraps it, but they have yet to trust and utilize the fire escape.  People in this guilty-conscience group see themselves honestly; they see that they live in condemnation.  Their dilemma provides the context for the gospel.  They accept their condemnation but have not yet taken the next step, consenting to God's provision of salvation.  These people, as Paul argues, stand closer to receiving salvation than does a pious Jew or Christian.

Let's look again at 3:17 with more context:

17  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18  He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19  And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

John 9:39 (For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind) aligns with 3:18-19.  In order to save us, God must first reveal to us the state of condemnation in which we stand.  For the two groups, we see four results:  Members of the first group, who consider themselves enlightened, either continue in the darkness of self-righteousness or step into the light that reveals their unrighteousness and, as a result, join the second group.  The second group likewise has options either to continue in faithlessness or to trust God for rescue from their condemnation.

Between all these options, Jesus focused narrowly on two results:  Those who cling to self-righteousness continue in condemnation; and those who recognize their condemnation can receive justification.

Between the two passages, we have three closely related Greek words centered on the topic of condemnation:  krima, krino, and krisis.  All have wide ranges of meanings, yet they retain distinctions of judgment, condemning, and verdict.

Krima, used in 9:39, denotes the decision or the process leading to the decision.  The Bible often calls the Old Testament the judgments of the Lord, referring to God's pronouncements concerning sin.  For example, God condemns the unjust balance and a lying tongue.  Moral law is like physical law:  If you try to violate such a law, you will suffer predetermined consequences.  In one case, the enforcement comes from gravity; in another, it comes from God's justice.  Judgment, then, refers more to the substance of the pronouncement.  The verse could be paraphrased,

I am come into this world to reveal man's condition relative to the Law, that the self-righteous might be revealed as spiritually blind and that the humble might receive enlightenment.

Again, this is consistent with with 3:18-19.  The natural man stands condemned not because Christ condemned us, but because we have violated God's Law.  Christ came into the world to shine light on all of us, revealing the dark path of the proud and lighting the path of those who acknowledge their need and consent to the rescue.  God desires to save the world with the result that men see the condemnation under which they stand and turn to the Light for remption.

Krino in 3:17 and 18 denotes the action of convicting or sentencing.  (The possible meanings are wider than that, but the context narrows the meaning down to just this one sense of the word.)  Whereas krima in 9:39 is like a man who has just thrown a hamburger wrapper out the car window and then sees a traffic sign that says, $250 Fine for Littering, krino in 3:17 is the judge issuing the fine. 

The noun krisis (condemnation) appears in 3:19 and refers to the result of the the action, krino (condemn), in 17 and 18.  If we read all four paraphrased verses together, their blending becomes obvious:

17  God sent not his Son into the world to damn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18  He that believes on him is not convicted: but he that believes not is convicted already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19  And this is the conviction, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

39  I am come into this world to reveal man's condition relative to the Law, that the self-righteous might be revealed as spiritually blind and that the humble might receive enlightenment.

 Before concluding, I'd like to toss in an unlikely interpretation of 9:39.  W. E. Vine's An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words states that the meaning would appear to be, 'for being judged' (as a touchstone for proving men's thoughts and characters)....  If the declension of krisis indicates such, then couldn't the word refer to the speaker rather than to the world?  Look at this fit between 3:16-17 and 9:39 with such an interpretation:

39  I am come into this world to be condemned, that the self-righteous might be revealed as spiritually blind and that the humble might receive enlightenment.
16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17  For God sent not his Son into the world to convict the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

God sent His Son into the world to save the world; He gave His Son to be convicted and sentenced for our sin.  His teaching and actions expose the lost and enlighten the humble so that whosoever -- not just those among some chosen or pious group -- through faith in Him, might be saved from perishing and might have everlasting life.  The commentators I checked did not get this meaning out of 9:39, but in its favor, the Scriptures often have multiple correct meanings (especially in Proverbs), and this interpretation fits beautifully with established doctrine.

I hope I didn't hide the answer in all my verbosity.

Pharisaical Christians vs. Anti-Pharisees

Pharisaical Christians vs. Anti-Pharisees

By Xion
01.10.09 AT 12:45 PM
http://online.worldmag.com/2009/01/09/the-church-of-you/#comment-386607

The Church of You can refer to two forms of popular Christianity. One sees God as a celestial daddy whose role is to solve YOUR problems and make YOU feel better. The other sees God as a task master and holiness as something to be achieved by following a long list of dos and don'ts.

It is possible to stray to the left and do whatever you want ignoring God. But what few people understand is that it is also possible to stray to the right, as the Pharisees did, exalting their own righteousness over that of Christ. They celebrate their own works and traditions and operate on a system of merit, not knowing that their own righteousness is as filthy rags.

Pharisaical Christians ignore the grace of Jesus Christ. They don't know that we are accepted by God not because of anything we do, but by what Christ has done. God favors us because of the work of his Son. We are no better than anyone else.

And so, Pharisaical Christians thinking they are holier than everyone else look down on sinners and other Christians who don't measure up to their own standards. These hypocrites don't even meet their own standards, but point the bony finger of accusation against others.

These people also worship at the Church of You, sanctification being all about them and their own holiness, not the holiness of Christ.

My Reply

01.10.09 AT 9:12 PM

Most of the contributors to the referenced thread would do well to ask themselves, What is the opposite of the thing I criticize, and am I doing it? The opposite of Calvinism, for example, says, I decide to be saved and I keep myself saved when I avoid unpardonable sin. The opposite of intellectualism says, I obey the experts in my denomination like a good soldier, or I ignore doctrine, just gimme that emotional high.

By asking myself such a question, I learned something important from Xion. Yes, I easily slip into wrong attitudes about my long list of dos and don'ts. (Note to self: Add "Reject long lists of dos and don'ts" to my long list of dos and don'ts.)

Yet, it remains that those lists stem from what God reveals about human un-holiness. For example, if fornication destroys holiness, then doesn't public attire that provokes sexual desire also erode holiness? In place of God's Word or centuries of application of God's commandments, I arbitrate right and wrong. So, if I burn my list of such dos and don'ts, how shall I emulate my holy Father?

You say you are saved by grace; but how will you prove it to me? How will you prove it to the lost person who just waits to spring the label of hypocrite upon you? How will you reassure yourself that it was a heart decision and not just an intellectual exercise?

The opposite of Pharisaism, toward which Xion leans in his criticism, easily leads to the fall of many. Xion should make the point, then, not that lists of dos and don'ts are "wrong;" but rather that the dos and don'ts form the vocabulary of love notes to God, written not in lip service, but in deeds.

Even people in the Church of Others can unwittingly attend the Church of You when service becomes a foundation for self-righteousness. Any strength and any pet peeve can tempt us to join the Church of You.

New Blog

I've joined forces with my daughter (NYCindividual) to start a new blog called Confab Remarks at http://confabremarks.blogspot.com/. Since I barely ever post on this blog, I will mainly be posting there from now on. I will still post here from time to time, but mainly on Confab Remarks. The new blog will include my comments on blog posts I read on other blogs as well as comments on articles I read. It's a place of discussion and a place to link with other blogs and to network. It's a place to post recommended articles. ETC.

Here's a Description:

Confab: A casual talk; confabulation. To engage in casual talk.

Remark: To say casually, as in making a comment. to note; perceive; observe. comment or mention. a casual or brief expression of thought or opinion.

Welcome to Confab Remarks!!! This blog is where I will post all the blogs I read and my comments on their posts. In a way, it's a tip page. In another way, it's a page for discussion. Please join me in the world of blogging!

What does it mean to be a Christian?

Question posted at http://help.com/post/87698-i-know-that-in-life-you-should-have#myLast
i know that in life you should have one religion and i was wondering…
if you say you are a christianthen what do you think it means to be a christian?

My response:
Christian isn’t something you be. Christian is something you become. The foundation of becoming is critical. I’d say that Christian is defined by Christ; that any other definition has no authority. What we know about Christ comes through the Bible. If you think you believe Christ, then you must believe the Bible because Christ believed the Bible. If you don’t believe the Bible, then you have no Christ to believe except a mythical one. That is, you can’t believe Christ if you have nothing of his to believe. Therefore, you have to decide: Will I believe the Bible, or won’t I? It’s an all-or-nothing proposition.

The reply from vballchik3575 is the only reply so far that comes close to answering your question, and it will do for a starting point. The faith of a child is sufficient for anybody, but becoming requires learning more about your God. That implies learning His perspective, and that causes the number of subjects to explode, but I’ll limit this to a few essentials.

The Bible begins by introducing a Creator with personhood — intelligence, will, emotion, etc. One of the perqs of being Creator is that everything you create is yours; and since God created all things under His own authority, He has absolute, life-and-death rights over all creation — including us. This Person consists of a single God who transcends time and space, mass and energy, yet somehow exists as what we, from within time and space, perceive as multiple Persons. It’s a mind-bender. As the Bible develops its revelation of spiritual things, we learn that there’s a central Father-figure, a Spirit, and a Son-to-be, all of whom claim to be the One God.

The foci of the revelation spell out the identity of the Son: Jesus, son of Mary (and step-son of Joseph) of Nazareth. God, we are told, inhabits the body of Jesus; and as a holy God, Jesus lived a holy, sinless life.

That’s as far as I can go without building the definition of Christian from another angle: That of mankind. Whether one believes in Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden as literal or figurative, it tells us that rather than bowing in total submission to God’s absolute authority, we all fall short, we all rebel. That is the entire meaning of the Ten Commandments. Yes, by keeping them, you can become more like God in a moral sense; but you can never achieve the absolute perfection required to enter the presence of an absolutely holy God. Not only do we fall short by doing wrong, but we also owe it to God to do every right thing that lies in our power to do. If we are indebted to God to do right, then we cannot offer anything that we do as payment for our failings. (If I bring you a cup of sugar that you loaned to me, I can hardly call it a gift to you, can I?) Therefore, the notion of weighing one’s good against one’s evil is misleading and irrelevant. In a hypothetical balance, our evil (and the good that we should have done, but didn’t) in the pan on the left will always outweigh the empty pan on the right.

All of the sacrifices of the Jewish temple system pointed to the terrible consequences of our failure. Even then, they were object lessons and a stopgap solution. The blood of bulls and goats (which ultimately also belong to God, not to us) just doesn’t cut it; indeed, they were symbols that pointed toward a greater sacrifice. That sacrifice was God’s Son; the righteous for the unrighteous; the holy for the defiled.

Now, I have to tag on two things that many churches corrupt. First, Christ, being God, could not be held by death. You have to believe in the resurrection because if there’s no resurrection of Christ from the dead, there can be no new life for us. Second, the gift has to be received as exactly that: a gift. To add other requirements such as church membership, keeping commandments, baptism, or any other thing than simply receiving the gift, then we insult the Giver and fail to receive the gift.

A Christian is someone who believes these foundational ideas, submits to them, and receives the gift. There are plenty of things that give evidence that the conversion was genuine and there are plenty of things to do (or not do) that coincide with becoming, moving toward the goal of being worthy of the name, Christian; but none of those things should be confused with the basics I’ve laid out that define the beginning of the process. And when you recognize the distance between fallen people and the Holy God, you know that it is quite a long process.

I’d like to know the reason for the question.

Salvation

Questions:
On the note of my last question: What do you think is required of salvation? Personally, I think that salvation is aquired only when you accept Christ into your heart as Lord and Savior. It has nothing to do with baptism or good works. However, after you become a Christian, God does call you to be a servant. That can include works. They are what you do to show Christ to others. This ties into my last two conversations when it comes to interpreting the Bible. No, we don't have to interpet the Bible correctly to go to heaven, but does God want us to interpret the Bible? How do we do that? What if we are wrong, or someone else is wrong? There is a child-like faith that Jesus tells us we need to have. How do we keep that child like faith and interpret the Bible at the same time? There is the child like faith, but interpreting the Bible complicates things because so many arguments can be made. So, how do we simplifiy things? Where is the line drawn?

My Response:
I thought I would comment on your questions. I found your questions concerning Bible interpretation interesting. The question of Bible interpretation is going to be a big debate in the future because of post-modern thinking. The issue of the absoluteness of truth is essential in dealing with this question. I'm not sure if you are familiar or not with the different "hermeneutical" systems. (Systems of Bible interpretation) Alas, the bottom line is that there is only one accurate interpretation (God's original intended meaning) and we will spend our lives searching and being students of God's Word to obtain the fulness of that meaning. Furthermore, God's Word was meant to be interpreted literally and normative, that is within the context of the passages surrounding it. (Also known as a "dispensational" approach to Bible interpretation) I would disagree with you on interpretation not being necessary for salvation. How then do we really know what the "all" mean when Romans states that "all have sinned". If interp. is not necessary, how then do we understand the death of Christ being necessary for salvation? We cannot neglect interpretation. Interpretation and faith go hand in hand in the search for God's ultimate meaning to what He wrote. The biggest stumbling block in Bible interpretation is man's presuppositions that he brings to the table because of his sin nature. Good post though with good questions. I have a number of "deeper" thinking posts on my blog if you are interested. PJ Posted 3/1/2006 at 11:19 PM by PastorJames33 - delete - block user Show us your Dunk Face at Sprite.com! (?) By the way, I would agree with you as well on your concept of salvation is by faith alone. We are all sinners and we would ruin heaven if we went there apart from God's grace obtained through faith in the death of Christ. Posted 3/1/2006 at 11:20 PM by PastorJames33 - delete - block user Show us your Dunk Face at Sprite.com! (?) I see what you are saying about interpretation going hand in hand with salvation through Christ, and I do somewhat agree with you. There are other sources of learning about Christ, though. Aren't there other writers and historians who have confirmed the truth of the Bible? Plus there are evangelists telling people who have never read the Bible about Christ, so it seems like there are some who become Christians before reading the Bible. It is essential that you read the Bible, though, to grown in your relationship with Christ. In that essance they go hand in hand, but the original relationship starts when you accept Christ as Savior and Lord. What is your opinion on the original intent of the Bible? "...one accurate interpretation (God's original intended meaning) and we will spend our lives searching and being students of God's Word to obtain the fulness of that meaning. Furthermore, God's Word was meant to be interpreted literally and normative, that is within the context of the passages surrounding it." So how would you interpret the Bible literally in today's world? (For example, regarding women pastors.) Posted 3/1/2006 at 11:42 PM by christianopinions - delete "Hermeneutics" means the set of rules by which we interpret. Most people know the most common rule, that we need to take passages in their context. A common quote goes, "A text without a context is a pretext." The context can always affect the meaning of a passage. It's possible, however, to lift some verses out of their contexts without distorting their meanings. For example, the text following "I permit not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over a man," explains how it's a matter of the different strenghts and weaknesses of the two sexes, Eve having been deceived by Adam having sinned willingly. Since the reason given has to do with human nature and not with the practices or beliefs of Paul's culture, lifting the verse "out of its context" doesn't change it's meaning. At worst, it make one vulnerable to the accusation of lifting things out of context, which raises a new issue that detracts from the main point. Unfortunately, quoting the entire context would (a) make for a wordier reading that most people don't have patience for, and (b) require one to explain the context and how the context reinforces the plain sense of the verse -- which makes for even greater verbosity. Fewer people realize that different levels of context exist. The neighboring verses provide context, but so do the chapter (as the outline of the book would define it; I'm not referring to the chapter divisions in today's Bibles), the book, the set of books written by the same author, the testament, and the Bible as a whole. Even the culture and history at the time of writing can give context. I hope PJ returns and lists some more rules of interpretation. My pastor when I was in college did a series on hermeneutics for our Bible study, but I only remember a few... inspiration, enlightenment, first mention, complete mention, and of course, context. Posted 3/2/2006 at 3:25 AM by alphadogtucker - delete - block user Show us your Dunk Face at Sprite.com! (?) I believe that someone becomes a christian when they accept Jesus into thier heart, like you said. "For if you confess with your mouth Jesus is God, and believ ein your heart that he is risen from the dea, you will be saved" Works are simply the product of our salvation. If one has no works that point to salvation, the question is did they truly mean it when they became a chritian, which of course on ly they can figure out. If they truly are a christian but have no works, they are probrably already feeling guilty and in turmoil, for the loly spirit will convict them of thier wandering heart. Back to your other question, I believe that women shouldn't be preaachers because they need to submit to the man, and the man needs to be the spiritua head of the family and church. If a woman is Pastor, she becomes the sspiritual head. A pastor is responsible for everyone in the church - the pastor is in spiritual authority over all others in the church, including her husbad and ll the other men in the church. I'm a girl, and I lead devotions to youth girls and children. When I grow a little older, I will teach other adult women - but I will not be in the charge of Men's spirtula needs. I can talk to them, I can give testimonys to them, I can share my faith, but never in the position of pastor. Posted 3/2/2006 at 1:49 PM by ebaben - delete - block user Show us your Dunk Face at Sprite.com! (?) I posted on my site my response to her questions. . .I appreciated them greatly. I think that I will do a major post soon on rules for Bible interp. It's a hot topic today in greater Christendom. It all goes back to: "What is the meaning of is". Anyhow, look under my post on necromancy and spirits. Scroll down to the very bottom to see my response. Alphadog is right, context, context context! It's the key that opens the door to meaning! He is also right about people being lazy and not wanting to think through the verboseness (what a word!) of the greater context, however, it is necessary. Thanks, hope to hear from you all, PJ Posted 3/2/2006 at 3:41 PM by PastorJames33 - delete - block user Show us your Dunk Face at Sprite.com! (?) hey- thanks for the comment- yeah i just wanted to get some more discussion going even though there are already these discussions going on-like your site so i might as well anser some of these question.... about interpretating the scriptures, i like proverbs 2: especially 1-6 even though it's not super-specific basically-studying the scriptures is a good thing. Just be careful- I've heard somewhere that each scripture's interpretation needs to be in harmony with God's four main attributes (love, justice, wisdom, power), and in harmony with itself, every other scripture, the ransom, and the facts and purposes of the bible. I've also heard it's good to try to stufy with a group of people- but i can't recall what scripture that is. those are just some ideas... Posted 3/2/2006 at 4:35 PM by not_afraidto_fall - delete - block user Show us your Dunk Face at Sprite.com! (?) not_afraidto_fall what you said about interpretation needing to be in harmony with God's 4 main attributes makes sense. The question is how do we do that? PastorJames33 and ebaben and alphadogtucker I was wondering how you take things in context. What is literal versus not literal? Back to the women being pastors topic, there are those verses about women keeping in silence and not being allowed in the church. How do you interpret them? One woman I know says that there will always be one man to submit to no matter what you do: God. What do you think of that?

Anonymous response to my response:
In regards to salvation, I have a hard time believing that God would d**n anybody to hell for eternity. I think that this is possibly where purgatory would come into play, since it is a stage before going to heaven where one reflects upon his or her life and is purified before meeting their maker. I dunno . . . I guess I think that there's some good inside everyone, and that since God loves the sinner and hates the sin, maybe He washes away the sins of everyone (even those who have never believed) so that the good in them is all that's left when they reach the pearly gates. Hmmm . . . it's an interesting thought.

Go to http://www.forumforfree.com/viewtopic.php?t=8&mforum=christianopinio for the rest of the debate. The site is full of spam now (so ignore the spam, it just came coming until I decided to leave the site alone) but the old conversations are still there.

Faith or Works?

I got this in an email a long time ago and was wondering what you all think of it.

The Letter
"You have joined a number of my web rings, and you seem to have a desire for Truth. I see that you also began a forum where you discuss opinions on many issues. On the Gate of Eden ( http://GateOfEden.com ) web site you will find one of the most important necessary conditions for seeking the Truth. After all, if the Bible were easy to understand, then everyone would read it and proclaim the same revelation. And it must be recognized that some of the greatest minds have read the scriptures, and they all come away with a different and often conflicting interpretation. And what they fail to understand is the fact that this is by design. You pose the question: "does God want us to interpret the Bible? How do we do that? What if we are wrong, or someone else is wrong? The original teachings of Yeshua and TheWay were purely spiritual -- we are the prodigal sons and daughters -- and we must return to the Edenic Kingdom within us while we are still in the body-vessel. Because a great number of the Gentiles lived a heathen lifestyle and were overburdened by a pagan mindset, they were unable to grasp the spiritual essence of the teachings of TheWay, and they failed to comprehend that the scriptures are the Key of Knowledge that must be turned within self, in order to open the inner "narrow gate" to the Kingdom. In their blindness, they created a dogmatic church than in its idolatry and paganism, became the Synagogue of Satan. The above conditions off the Gate of Eden web site of which I speak is found in the words: There are many other references to the Kingdom as something that a believer must find and manifest in their life. Throughout all of the New Testament it is asserted that if a person is to find the Kingdom, they must free themselves from the things and thinking of this world. Thus, Yeshua taught: "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking beautiful pearls, who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had and bought it" (Matt 13:44-46 NKJ). The Kingdom of God being within us, is indeed the treasure that is hidden in the field of our body/mind. And the Kingdom can only be found by those who are "...seeking beautiful pearls" and are prepared to sell all that they have in this world in order to acquire it. This inner reality is further portrayed in the words of Yeshua where he taught: "Another parable He put forth to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. So the servants of the owner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?' He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Do you want us then to go and gather them up?' But he said, 'No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 'Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn'" (Matt 13:24-30 NKJ). Thus, Yeshua came and taught men how to live and seek the Kingdom within -- but the devil created the false doctrines that men are saved by belief without producing a good crop of fruit. There is nothing in the scriptures that even remotely suggests that we can live in the manner of the unbelievers and heathen as cultural Christians attempt to do today, and expect to inherit the Kingdom. Further, Yeshua did not teach that man is saved by proclaiming belief without a total change of mind in conjunction with the manner that the disciple lived their life. One of the truly prime examples of this fact is seen where the English translation of the scripture says: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 3:2 NAS). The meaning of the original Greek, which literally means to “change the mind”, conveys a message of great depth that is not apparent in our English translations today. To phrase the thought that is being expressed, the true meaning is to “Open and unloose the mind, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”. This is truly important for the person of faith to come to terms with -- for it is the beginning of The Way. When we begin to put these words into their proper context with respect to the Kingdom within (Luke 17:20-21), then we can see that the Gate of Eden which in the New Testament is portrayed as the "narrow gate", can only be entered by unloosing the mind from the anchor of the doctrines and thinking of men -- opening the mind to the inner reality of the Kingdom -- and this can only be accomplished by living one's life in strict accord with the Commandments and Teachings of Yeshua and TheWay. Most believers of the simple faith will immediately reject the above, because they think in a group consensus mode -- i.e., believers are saved by faith. But because they have embraced the doctrines of men, they fail to understand salvation within the reality of the journey of the soul. Yeshua warned that while many are called, only a very few are chosen. But to even begin to understand this reality, and the Mysteries of God, you will have to unloose you mind from the limitations of the doctrines of men, and open your mind to the inner Kingdom which is at hand.
Allan http://Ebionite.com"

My Response
Old Testament salvation came through faith just as New Testament salvation does. Paul wrote that the Law was our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, for through the law we learn of our inability to earn salvation through any merit of our own. Even the Jews, Paul wrote, find themselves condemned by God's perfect Law. The points of the Law concerning sacrifices provided a temporary covering for our sin, but only the sacrifice of God the Son can completely wash away our sin. If I understand Allan correctly... well, as the doctors say, the following may sting a little. Sorry, but it's necessary. Allan's logic makes more leaps than an equestrian in a steeplechase! He certainly has a way of splicing things together to make his points. For example, he extensively quotes the parable of the tares, which explains why Christ didn't judge the world and separate the believers from the unbelievers during His first coming. Allan, however, violently twists it into a lesson about fruitful living and rejecting the doctrines of men. As another example, he correctly cites that the Greek word translated "repent" means to change the mind, but then, without citing any authority, turns "change" into "open and unloose." Allan's biggest error concerns believing that the Kingdom of God lies within everyone. When Jesus said that, He referred to the nature of the Kingdom, not to it's location. The Kingdom cannot lie within those who are dead (Paul), who are children of the devil (Jesus), who live in rebellion against the righteousness of God. Allan demonstrates a rejection of God's holiness when he claims that he can find sufficient righteousness within himself; that is, when he links human works to salvation. God's gift is righteousness sufficient for salvation, not the ability to achieve enough righteousness to justify us. Christ purchased our justification -- the declaration of righteousness -- through His work on the cross. It is a price that we, the destitute, cannot pay. The Pharisees indeed needed to "open and unloose" their minds from the shackles of legalism, but ironically, so does Allan: The "doctrines of men" against which Allan argues were those rules the Jews made to ensure adherance to the Law -- that is, to ensure achievement of salvation by works. When refering to the "doctrines of men," Jesus was preaching grace, not works! In inadvertent hypocrisy, then, while condemning the "doctrines of men," Allan alligns himself with the very same error, legalism. Sophism is the practice of assembling arguments that sound convincing but actually have major faults. Allan is a sophist. He majors on the Gospels and perhaps on James, but seems completely ignorant of Johannine, Pauline, or Petrine doctrine. Such an emphasis on the bridge period between the Old Testament puzzle and its New Testament solution misleads many into an inordinate dependence on works and accompanying lack of dependence on God. Allan's words indicate that he has yet to receive the gift of God as just that -- a gift. While I do not judge him, he gives strong indication that he yet lies in the same condemnation into which we all are born. If my words are blunt, so be it; that's the only way I know how to communicate: openly, truthfully, and vividly. But my heart weighs heavily for Allan and for all who have yet to escape eternal error.