Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
What the Bible says about Suicide
-
17-09-2009 3:45pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Stephentlig wrote: »The Gospel is over 2000 years old, and Catholics get a lot of their doctrine from tradition as well as the Bible.
We're agreed that the gospel is 2000 years old. The teaching re: mortal sin/venial sin isn't however - it being a RC doctrine which arrived somewhat later than the gospel.
Having no interest in the non-biblical basis for the doctrine of mortal/venial sin I'm merely pointing out the paucity of the biblical evidence.that evidence is found in Matthew 16 Antiskeptic.
Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence. Claiming the RC church the one true church is an exceptional claim - an not one well supported by an oblique reference in a single verse.
Are you aware of the kind of doctrines that can be supported by this approach?which is why there are over 30,000 different denominations and the Catholic church is still one holy catholic and apostolic church.
What has that got to do with the impoverished manner the doctrine of mortal sin is established by. Like, the basis for the RC church being the one holy catholic and apostolic church is a woefully weak as the basis for the doctrine of mortal sin.
You seem to suppose building a weak structure on another weak structure imbues the overall structure with strength .. for some reason.this subjective anaylsis remains invalid as antisketpic has not demonstrated how this is so.
Which would appear to lead to stalemate given that you're in the same boat. Lest you suppose "the RC church says so" an argument.St.Peter has been given the charism of infallibility in Matthew 16
You've a chicken/egg problem here. In order to be sure St. Peter was given any such thing you'd have to suppose the church infallible in interpreting the verse as it does. But how can you suppose the church to have been infallible without assuming that which you are attempting to demonstrate (ie: the church infallibly interprets this passage correctly)
Isn't this circular reasoning?certainly, when you can show me where it says ''Bible'' in the bible, yet you go around calling it a Bible.
we receive the doctrine of the trinity also through Holy Tradition.
I thought it was received through analysis of the texts. Are you telling me the RC church doesn't arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity primarily via the texts?James tells us that faith is faith and works are works. They are two separate entities, and must be coupled together to achieve salvation. Faith (a mental process) and works (an action) are required for salvation.
When James asks “Can his faith save him?,” the answer is a resounding NO. James is talking about salvation. The answer to the question is NO because we must add works to our faith. Works just don't flow automatically out of true believers. The Bible never says anything about false faith or saving faith. Faith may truly exist, but it is not enough to save us. Even the demons believe in Jesus and tremble. Remember, James was talking to "saved Christians" in his epistle. Yet James continues to warn them to avoid sin and do good, or they will lose their salvation. That is because their faith was not enough to save them.
Three cheers for the Reformation! And the ability to read more than verse or two in establishing our doctrina.
0 -
-
-
-
-
antiskeptic wrote: »We're agreed that the gospel is 2000 years old. The teaching re: mortal sin/venial sin isn't however - it being a RC doctrine which arrived somewhat later than the gospel.
Having no interest in the non-biblical basis for the doctrine of mortal/venial sin I'm merely pointing out the paucity of the biblical evidence.
Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence. Claiming the RC church the one true church is an exceptional claim - an not one well supported by an oblique reference in a single verse.
Are you aware of the kind of doctrines that can be supported by this approach?
What has that got to do with the impoverished manner the doctrine of mortal sin is established by. Like, the basis for the RC church being the one holy catholic and apostolic church is a woefully weak as the basis for the doctrine of mortal sin.
You seem to suppose building a weak structure on another weak structure imbues the overall structure with strength .. for some reason.
Which would appear to lead to stalemate given that you're in the same boat. Lest you suppose "the RC church says so" an argument.
You've a chicken/egg problem here. In order to be sure St. Peter was given any such thing you'd have to suppose the church infallible in interpreting the verse as it does. But how can you suppose the church to have been infallible without assuming that which you are attempting to demonstrate (ie: the church infallibly interprets this passage correctly)
Isn't this circular reasoning?
I thought it was received through analysis of the texts. Are you telling me the RC church doesn't arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity primarily via the texts?
Three cheers for the Reformation! And the ability to read more than verse or two in establishing our doctrina.
Antiskeptic all your doing is rehashing what you've already said.
your inability to debate to painfully evident, yet I'll point out just a few things you said.
I said we receive the doctrine of the Trinity ''also'' through holy tradition.
John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.
as for St.Peter and circular reasoning, Jesus said this to Peter before it was written, The Church is the one who infallibly interprets scripture.
its not a matter of private interpretation.
Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Stephentlig wrote: »Jas 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?
you see chozo your forcing your meaning into scripture, and your position doesnt have a biblical basis for it. but you see you need to get your head around this verse and understand that James is telling us that works are also needed for justification
I detect a kettle/pot/black moment in the making..
A little bit of clarification on the scriptural view of the law of sin and death.it is important to distinguish between the "works" James taught about in James 2:24 and the "works of the law" Saint Paul taught about in Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16,21; 3:2,5,10; and Eph. 2:8-9.
Protestants generally confuse James' "good works" from Paul's "works of the law" when they attempt to prove that "works" are irrelevant to justification and salvation. The "works of the law" Paul taught about in Ephesians 2:8-9 and elsewhere referred to the Mosaic law and their legal system that made God obligated to reward them for their works.
They would thus “boast” about their works by attributing their works to themselves. Cf. Rom. 4:2; Eph. 2:9. Saint Paul taught that, with the coming of Christ, the Mosaic (moral, legal, and ceremonial) law which made God a debtor to us no longer justified a person. Instead, Paul taught that we are now justified and saved by grace (not legal obligation) through faith (not works of law). Eph. 2:5,8. Hence, we no longer “boast” by attributing our works to ourselves. We attribute them to God who gives everything to us freely by His grace.
Romans 2 makes plain that the works of the law referred to at (your referance of) Romans 3:20 also governs the gentile. He tells us that this same law is available to those who haven't formal access to it - it being written in their consciences.14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
He concludes, contrary to your implication that one could potentially be justified by following this law (God obligated to do so), that no one will be so justified - indeed at Romans 8 he tells us that the law was powerless to achieve justification. He further upsets your notion that the law justified by unpacking the case of Abraham who was justified by faith - indicating that this always was the way of salvation. This conclusion is further reinforced by his telling just what the purpose of the law was and wasn't:
20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
Having established that both Jew and Gentile are under this law Paul can conclude that the purpose of the law was to (break out the fanfare) make both Jew and Gentile conscious of sin. Indeed, Paul goes on to detail just how the law incites sin in sinful men: red flag to a bull territory. That is the Protestant view of the law as discussed by Paul in eg: Romans.
You are right in saying we must distinguish between works of this law and works referred to by James - but I'm not quite sure why you appear to imply the Protestant unaware of the difference however. Perhaps it's because the Protestant distinction see's man moving from from the law of sin and death (obligation) to the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus (grace) whereas your own distinction moves from obligation to obligation.
Like, could you inform me how it is that God isn't obliged to reward your good works with salvation when the penalty for your not doing good works is Hell? You might consider yourself to have hopped through a quantum hoop with a scriptural sounding play on words here...We are no longer in a legal system of debt where God owes us (creditor/debtor). We are now in a system of grace where God rewards our works when done with faith in Christ (Father/child).
..but nothing has changed in essence. God "rewarding your works when done with faith in Christ" isn't grace - not when that reward is heaven - it's out and out wages. That your employer happens to be your father in this case is your perogative but a wage is a wage - and no amount of semantical wriggling changes that fact. Nor can anything but semantical jiggery pokery allow you to escape the conclusion that your arrival in heaven will entitle you to a certain amount of self-congratulation on a work well done.
Hardly room for "for it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from youselves, it is the gift of God--not by works.." is there?
Indeed it does and here is that kettle/pot/black moment I promised earlier - utilising you reference to Romans 11:23This is also why Saint Paul warned us that we could even lose our salvation if we did not persevere. cf. Romans 11:20-23; 1 Corinthians 9:27. This Catholic belief contradicts the novel Protestant notion of "once saved, always saved."22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!
The natural branches (the Jews) weren't saved in order that we could consider their being cut out to refer to a loss of salvation. So how do you arrive at the notion that the grafted in branches being cut out refers to a loss of salvation? Indeed, the notion of salvation isn't mentioned in the verse or context. Yet we've to suppose your not..Stephentligh wrote:..forcing your meaning into scripture..0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Stephentlig wrote: »Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16,21; 3:2,5,10; Eph. 2:8-9 - many Protestants err in their understanding of what Paul means by "works of the law” in his teaching on justification. Paul’s teaching that we are not justified by “works of the law” refer to the law of Moses or to any legal system that makes God our debtor. They do not refer to good works done in grace with faith in Christ. This makes sense when we remember that Paul's mission was to teach that salvation was also for the Gentiles who were not subject to the "works of the law."
Hopefully you'll have explained by now why God having to reward us on account of the works we do to retain salvation, doesn't involve his being our debtor.
Could you explain what this means: "They do not refer to good works done in grace with faith in Christ". Explain it with a view to God not being our debtor I mean.
Could also clarify what this means? "This makes sense when we remember that Paul's mission was to teach that salvation was also for the Gentiles who were not subject to the "works of the law". Clarify in the light of Romans 2, I mean - which tells us that the gentiles are subject to the same law as the Jews.Here is the proof:
James 2:24 – compare the verse “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” to Gal. 2:16 – “a man is not justified by works of the law,” and Rom. 3:20,28 – “no human being will be justified in His sight by works of the law.” James 2:24 appears to be inconsistent with Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:20,28 until one realizes that the Word of God cannot contradict itself.
Er.. the Protestant is working with two approaches to the law already:
a) the law of sin and death (to which the Jew and Gentile are beholden (says Romans))
b) the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus (to which the saved are beholden (says Romans)).
Where is this place where protestants "err"?This means that the “works” in James 2:24 are different from the “works of the law in Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:20,28. James is referring to “good works” (e.g.,clothing the naked; giving food to the poor) and Paul is referring to the “Mosaic law” (which included both the legal, moral and ceremonial law) or any works which oblige God to give us payment.
But Jesus summed up the law and the prophets by telling us that we need love our neighbour as ourself. How do you square the fact they are the same thing - after drawing such a distinction between the two?
And how do you square the "mosaic law" being written in the conscience of Gentiles? Do you expect us to believe scripture as suggesting ceremonial cleansing and the like as being that which was written therein? Or would it be more plausible to suggest that the Good Samaritan story is a clear cut example of the application of Romans 2 to the case of a gentile?
(it's worth pointing out that the Protestant is burbling along nicely with his theology at this point. He recognises that both applications of the law (ie: the law of sin and death / the law of the spirit of life in Christ) involve the same demands from God: love God and love your neighbour)).Here is more proof:
That last 'proof' wasn't proof of your position. All it indicated was that there are two sides to the law - sides that Paul entitles the law of sin and death and the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus . So far, so Protestant..Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16 - Paul's phrase for "works of the law" in the Greek is "ergon nomou" which means the Mosaic law or Torah and refers to the teachings (legal, moral) and works (ceremonial) that gave the Jews the knowledge of sin, but not an escape from sin.
Gives both Jews and Gentiles a consciousness of sin (say the scriptures). Men know they are sinning because they all have access to Gods law telling them. Far from being an escape from sin, such knowledge brings about a sense of condemnation (says the scripture/practical experience)We have further proof of this from the Dead Sea Scrolls which provide the Hebrew equivalent ("hrvt ysm") meaning "deeds of the law," or Mosaic law. James in James 2 does not use "ergon nomou." He uses "ergois agathois." Therefore, Paul’s "works of the law" and James' "works" are entirely different types of works. Again, they could never contradict each other because the Scriptures are the inspired word of God.
So far, so Protestant. Keep goingRom. 3:29 - Paul confirms that works of the law in this case refer to the Mosaic law by rhetorically asking "Or is God the God of the Jews only?" It does not mean "good works."
Let's have a look at what Paul is actually saying. We're both agreed that it is not works of the law which justify - so says Paul here. And what he is saying regarding God not just being a God of the Jews (but of the Gentiles too - there being but one God) is that salvation apart from works of the law, but by faith, is how Gentiles too are to be saved.
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.Yes we are saved but we need to do good works also in order to obtain salvation.
Non sequitur - how did you suddenly land at this conclusion from whence you came? You're quoting scripture that is speaking about all sorts outside the case you're trying to make. You'll need to be a lot more specific in making your case stick.good works are not just a result of faith, and such a novelty is nowhere to be found in scripture.
What else are they result of, if not faith. Scriptural answers on a postage stamp bearing in mind what Paul has to say in his opening remarks to the Romans on the source of obedience to Christ. Doesn't this lend support to an interpretation of James which concludes works a consequence of faith?Romans 1:5 Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faithwe are saved but can lose that salvation.
Which is the effectively the same as not being saved from the outset and failing to gain salvation it by works. Two sides of the same work-based coin really.0 -
Awesome post Soul Winner, you put my thoughts into words better than I ever could! I was spitting fire reading the above post about works gaining salvation. What a terrible, terrible doctrine to believe. If it were true, WHY did God send His only son to die a horrible death for our sins? If we can gain our way to heaven on our own strenght, it renders Christs sacrifice completely superflous. God belss you brother for speaking the truth.
PS I note your post has not yet been answered...
I recall someone doing precisely that (answering SoulWinners post I mean). I'd imagine SW has recanted of his attempt to cull James from the Bible.
There's fine argumentation connecting James to the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus - to whom the saved are indeed beholden0 -
-
antiskeptic wrote: »I recall someone doing precisely that (answering SoulWinners post I mean). I'd imagine SW has recanted of his attempt to cull James from the Bible.
There's fine argumentation connecting James to the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus - to whom the saved are indeed beholden
I agree, I think SW might change his mind on recollection! I think James has some good stuff in it, I particularly like the call to bridle the tongue. Very important lesson to be learned.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
First of all, don't get the idea that I think we can get by without doing good works. It's the way in which you state that we obtain salvation through our works that is the problem. I keep saying that yes, works are involved, but they are not what save or justify us.Stephentlig wrote: »Chozo all of what you debated about not needing works to obtain salvation have no scriptural qoutes to support them. Mine do( James:2:24)
just give me one part of scripture to support your position and we'll take it from there.
God bless
Stephen.
One scripture: The wages of sin is death.
The wages of sin is death, not works. Who paid the debt of sin? Jesus. He died. That is how the debt for sin is paid. His payment of the sin debt is the gift of salvation. We die in Christ when we take on His Spirit.
How do we receive this gift of salvation? Accept it by believing on Jesus Christ.
Another scripture:
ACTS 4:12
And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.
Obtaining salvation by works means that it's somehow earned through what we do. God does work in us to do His good will, but this is HIM doing the works, not us. We can do nothing to earn salvation.
I think you just have things a bit backwards, but I respect your beliefs.
Thank you. 0 -
-
-
Soul Winner wrote: »Better to lie with the result of saving lives than to be truthful with the result of ending lives. But it is still a lie. Hiding the spies is one thing but telling the enemy that they went thataway when she knew they were hidden on her premises is breaking God's law as it is bearing false witness.
Given that we're both Christians we no longer have the luxury of accessing relativity when it comes to our morals (bar perhaps for that relativity that might arise due to doctrinal differences between us).
Given that, your use of the word 'better' invites examination.
You're saying that it would be 'better' that she break Gods law rather than keep it. Given that what's best is 'doing what God wants you to do', how do you reconcile better to lie and save lives - in the case of giving up Jews to the Nazis? Surely 'better' would be to give them up if you're convinced that that's what God wants (via his laws instruction)?
Consider this though. On the one hand God instructs man "thou shalt not kill" and on the other, he instructs the Israelites to kill those in nations around them & kill transgressors of certain of his laws. In these instances God is the deciding agent and so is effectively pulling the trigger - with the Israelites being God's weapon of choice. The Israelites, even though they kill, aren't actually breaking God's command in these instances.
So what if God instructs someone to 'lie'? In this case they are like the Israelites killing for God - God is actually the one doing the misleading using the instructed 'liar' as his tool. And God misdirecting/deluding/misleading clearly isn't wrong.
Now faith is something that God causes to arise in man, so when Rehab misdirects by faith, she is doing so because she is being led to do so by God. God is the prime source of her action.But that is the whole point. It wasn't by this act of lying which God reckoned her righteous in His sight anyway, rather it was her faith, but what James is saying suggest otherwise, that it wasn't just her faith. She hid the spies because she feared God, she feared God because she had faith in God, she had faith in God because she had heard the stories about the Israelites and believed them.
Her 'lying' arose out of her faith. That is: a work arose from her faith. Her obedience in this instance, came (says Romans 1) from faith. Has it occurred to you that God's will was being carried out in her assisting in the Israelite plan? Joshua 1 indicates as much..
1 After the death of Moses the servant of the LORD, the LORD said to Joshua son of Nun, Moses' aide: 2 "Moses my servant is dead. Now then, you and all these people, get ready to cross the Jordan River into the land I am about to give to them—to the Israelites. 3 I will give you every place where you set your foot, as I promised Moses.
How can her lie be considered a transgression when it;
a) is in keeping with God's plan
b) arises from faith (which is supplied to her by God)James was a self righteous so and so. It just irked him to see anyone reveling in God's grace. He was weak in faith and never really experienced a true infilling of the holy spirit. The weak have been running things too long in the church.
I'm not sure how you figure that out from what is a short enough letter. Works as an outpouring of one's faith is pretty much what Paul exhorts in all his epistles so there's no big problem there - even though James language might cause one to pause for a moment.
Other than that there isn't anything all that controversial in James that I can see. I wouldn't be all that keen speculating about what he was like from whatever tradition might tell us.
Tradition isn't inspired, scripture is.
And he is quite correct. And you frame it well: the result/product of God-supplied faith will be good works. This in complete contrast to 'good' works that would stem from a self-attempt at righteousness. The one stems from God, the other from self.I've no problem with that at all but that is not what James was getting at. He wasn't simply saying that the result of faith will be good works, he was advocating that unless we exhibit good works then our faith is dead.
Look at it this way perhaps:
For 'good works' try inserting "fruit of the spirit" instead. What would be wrong with what James is saying now? Like, if we don't bear fruit then we clearly aren't attached to the good root. Conversely, if we are attached to the good root then we will, of necessity, bear good fruit; for a good tree cannot do other than bear good fruit. That parts of that good tree don't bare good fruit and must be pruned by the gardener (ie: process of sanctification) is a separate issue to the fact of us producing good fruit.
That is the sense of "must produce" that James is implying here. It's "you'll produce of necessity because of what you are attached to" not "you'd better produce good fruit or else..."
Faith without works is indeed dead. It's a faith that isn't the result of being attached to the good root. It's the kind of faith that will hear our Lord say "away from me you evildoers, I never knew you", come that day.Which meant that in order to pass muster with James we must at all times be doing good things which is impossible for us.
All he said was that faith without works is dead. And it is. I think he was right on the money and don't see any problem at all.0 -
chozometroid wrote: »First of all, don't get the idea that I think we can get by without doing good works. It's the way in which you state that we obtain salvation through our works that is the problem. I keep saying that yes, works are involved, but they are not what save or justify us.
One scripture: The wages of sin is death.
The wages of sin is death, not works. Who paid the debt of sin? Jesus. He died. That is how the debt for sin is paid. His payment of the sin debt is the gift of salvation. We die in Christ when we take on His Spirit.
How do we receive this gift of salvation? Accept it by believing on Jesus Christ.
Another scripture:
ACTS 4:12
And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.
Obtaining salvation by works means that it's somehow earned through what we do. God does work in us to do His good will, but this is HIM doing the works, not us. We can do nothing to earn salvation.
I think you just have things a bit backwards, but I respect your beliefs. Thank you.
There are many passages in Scripture where Jesus and the sacred writers teach that works are required for salvation.
For example, in the parable of the talents, Jesus teaches that those who increased their talents with good works were saved. Those who buried their talents by not doing good works were condemned (Matt 25:14-30).
When Jesus comes at the end of the world, He grants salvation based upon what we have actually done, not how much faith we had (Matt 25:31-46; 16:27). Jesus determines our eternal destiny based upon what we have done with our lives.
In Rev 2:5, Jesus warns the faithful to do the good works they did at first, otherwise he will remove their place in heaven. This proves that good works are necessary for salvation. Our deeds follow us, and determine our eternal destiny (Rev 14:13; 20:12; 22:12). That is why Jesus says "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt 10:22).
Paul echoes Jesus' teaching about good and bad works and how they determine our salvation (see Rom 2:5-8; Rom 14:10,12; 2 Cor 5:10). Romans 2:5-8 is especially clear. There is a polarity between bad works which lead to hell, and good works which lead to heaven, not just more rewards. Paul also explains this in 1 Cor 3:15 where he describes how a person must pass through fire based on the works he performed during his life. If the works are bad enough, the person is condemned. If the works are mixed good and bad, the bad works retard but not prevent his salvation.
See also James 2. James is speaking about salvific justification when He says "Can his faith save him?" (v.14). James' answer is an unqualified NO. If the Christian does not perform good works, he cannot be saved. "A man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24).
Soul winner who qouted me lovely passages from the Bible forgets that those passages dont say ''faith only'' of course we need faith, but its not just faith that justifies us. The only passage in the Bible that says faith only is in James ( 2:24 )0 -
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement