legalizing in the modern church

[Shermana]

b There are always penalties/prices to be paid for selfishness. but those prices are eternally damaging to one's spiritual well-being. All Jesus asks is that our hearts are in the right place.

Where did Jesus ask that your hearts are in the right place? What does it mean for your heart to be in the right place? Jesus said you should chop your hand off to avoid using it to go to the fire. What was the metaphorical meaning for that? Why did Paul say that unrepentant fornicators won't enter the Kingdom? What does it mean to be "Eternally damaging to one's spiritual well being" exactly, how does that apply to one's salvation?

Which, BTW, I already know you're going to give three pages of "scholastic" drivel denying.

So anything from the scripture itself that defies your view is 'Drivel", quite a common mentality among those similar to your belief.

 

[Shermana]

Hey shermana sorry I haven't responded to some of you questions its been busy. so I will comment here because I think this will answer were I am coming from. Ive been thinking maybe our definitions of legalism are different. Now I do want to comment on some things here. And actually I did type a long reply to your fist reply to me, but I hit the wrong button and accidental deleted all of it I, was like arggh then I had to go do some repenting lol. First of all when I say legalism I am talking about the ceremonial law not the Decalogue. I am talking about sabbath keeping, ceremonial washing, dietary laws ,circumcision etc, as a means of justification especially initial justification. Now you are right in a sense about faith alone. But allow me to explain, according to Jesus initial justification is based on faith and belief in his death, burial, and resurrection.

Absolutely right, faith without works is dead Paul is talking about the ceremonial law, while James is talking about ones behavior. But it actually runs much deeper than that.

There is absolutely no biblical distinction between "Ceremonial Law" and the rest of the Covenant. This is a common recent invention by those trying to redefine the Jewish Law. Ask any Jew if there's a distinction. Obviously it's a gentile invention with absolutely NO scriptural basis. James specifically says that faith without works does NOT SAVE. So let's establish that neither I or any Jew will accept this gentile concept that the Law is divided into sections like "Moral" and "Ceremonial", the Law is the Law. There is no scriptural divide. None. You don't get to pick and choose what parts of the Law you personally feel are not included in what Jesus was talking about. He said EVERY one of the commandments. Not a few. Sabbath is included. His female disciples obeyed Sabbath even after he died.

Its like this; James is referring to those who say they have faith but believe that works are not necessary for christian living. James is not referring to initial justifying faith, but demonstration of christian faith before man.

I highly disagree. He's talking just about those who say that you don't need to do works. Just like today, the debate raged on about whether grace alone was sufficient. James said no.

Christianity demands good works towards all man.

Where does it demand this? Why don't I see more Christians doing good works? Are they not truly saved?

One is not justified by works, but justified ones or those that are born again must do them to prove their christian consecration.

I've heard this SO many times, and it completely defies what James says. This would be badly twisting what James says. James says faith without works does NOT SAVE. Otherwise, please answer this question which always gets ignored: What are some examples of works a "Saved Christian" does as his "Demonstration of faith" that no other religions would have being done. This common argument is an attempt to put the cart before the horse, because at plain reading, James completely defies what you're saying. Or rather, what you're saying defies James. You have to twist what James says to get him to mean something other than that works are necessary for salvation. Even Jesus said you must "work" (take pains) to enter the Kingdom. This sort of Theology is entirely against what both Jesus and James,and to an extent, even Paul taught and involves radically twisting a few of their words and ignoring the rest.

like the example that James gives about Abraham. He gives the example when Abraham offered his son an an alter when God tested his faith.

That would be an action what Abraham did.

Now before this action Abraham was already justified by faith some 40 years before that incident

It also says Abraham was justified because he obeyed all the statutes and commandments. Most don't read Genesis who bring up this verse to recognize this I've noticed.

.

Matter of fact, Abraham was a righteous man before the levitical law and the Mosaic law

How did Noah know which animals were clean? How did Abraham know to offer tithe to Malchezdiek?

.

This is Paul's point as well a lot of times. The revelation of justification by faith was given to Abraham and is fulfilled in us when we put our faith in Christ. Not in its entirety, the moral law yes, circumcision and ceremonialism no.

Again, there is no, absolutely NO distinction in the Law whatsoever about ceremonial and Moral Law, none. No Jew will tell you this. This position requires making up a position that exists in NO ancient Jewish document in a desparate attempt to reconcile what they are forced to address.

Well, that I guess is were we actually disagree. You being an Ebionite, and I hope that is the proper term, which I did not realize that. I am sorry because I failed to notice your title religion, I am kind of oblivious at times lol. So I know that is were your rejection of Paul stems from. And understandably so, because he did teach against certain ceremonial laws for as a means for justification. But James does not mention ceremonial law either.

To say that James didn't mention ceremonial Law is like saying that he didn't mention Roman Law, you have no idea or way of proving this, it's all your own strawman and you cannot prove that he didn't intend for the so-called "Ceremonial Law' to be included. Jesus warned that anyone who taught to not obey the slightest of the commandments shall be called the Least in the Kingdom. Do you really want to take that risk by pursuing this idea that not even any Jew or Jewish writing in history has adopted that there's a distinction in the Law?

Not one Scripture in the book of James mentions sabbath keeping or the ceremonies or holy days or adhering to Judaism at all, and not to demean Judaism. I have studied James extensively there is not one mentioned of it. only conducted, love and benevolence.

I fail to see why it would have to specifically mention them any more so than specifically mentioning not ******* in the public water supply. Are you allowed to **** in the public water supply? Apparently so, he didn't mention it! Now notice that even after Jesus dies, his female disciples obey the Sabbath. Jesus says to pray that the great flight from the tribulation does not occur on Sabbath or in Winter. In winter is an entire season, but the Sabbath you could find shelter in almost anywhere, so it's not for the same reason. I have also studied James extensively and I know that your argument could be applied to anything that's not mentioned.

Right i agree, sin is defined as the breaking of the moral law or the decalogue.

The entire Law. Did the definition of Sin change since the Israelites were struck dead and punished for not obeying Sabbath? Again, you cannot put them into categories. I should make a whole thread.

I'm a Pentecostal we don't teach that Grace is a license to sin.

So then what is the penalty of sinning?

I know some denominations do, and I don't want to name them

I.e. Most "Christian" churches.

.

I do not believe in once in grace always in Grace, or once saved always saved. But I believe that teaching, which I believe is heresy, stems from Calvinism or is a derivative of it.

Calvinism's TULIP should be plucked and burned but it's not the only heresy that promotes this lawless mentality. Lutheranism itself is pretty anti-legalist.

But that is another topic but an interesting one. I guess it is kind of relative to this topic because Calvin taught Gods grace cannot be resisted. That if you are predestined to be saved you will get saved no matter what. And then you can never lose your salvation, in essence John Calvin believe that there is no free moral agency with man.

If anything, the NT seems to hint of predestination, certain aspects of Calvinism are nonetheless scriptural, but only certain ones.

Because they wont. You are right, or those that had faith backslid which is another thing that some denominations do not believe in. Which is unscriptural to believe in such a thing. I believe one can loose his salvation. Again obeying the conditions of the gospel is not legalism even God said obedience is better then sacrifice.. That is not legalism or not the biblical definition of legalism of the new testament..

Do you have a link or source that defines "Legalism" as you see it? I agree that one can lose his salvation. Obviously it's through works that define whether he keeps it.

Now again I ask, the question that few people ever address when they offer the same logic that "works are the demonstration of the saved", what KIND of works? What differentiates it from an unsaved person doing good deeds?

 

[Katzpur]

...Mormons think they have to work their way to finish their salvation that Christs death wasn't enough to save them from sin but was just a beganing point.

Well, you're still wrong. Mormons don't think they have to "work their way to finish their salvation, that Christ's death wasn't enough... but just a beginning point." We believe that nothing we could conceivably do on our own could "finish our salvation." God expects us to obey His commandments. They were, after all, "commandments," not merely "suggestions." The first principle of the gospel as taught in the LDS Church is faith in Jesus Christ. Unlike some Christians, who believe that all that matters is faith in Christ, we believe that our faith must not just be a "dead faith," the kind that exists without works, but a living faith through which our works glorify Him. Still, no matter how hard we were to try to live a perfect life, we would inevitably fail. Mormonism teaches that in spite of all the good we can do, it is by the grace of Jesus Christ that we are saved. We would be utterly lost without Him. You've twisted the explanation completely. You make it sound as if we don't believe that His death was enough whereas the truth of the matter is that we don't believe our works are enough. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that was not your intention.

 

[gseeker]

No ma'am that was not my intention, however other Mormons I've met and worked with have told me that even with their faith in Christ and all there works that they still can't be sure of their place in heaven. That would signify that both sacrifice and works aren't good enough.

 

[Katzpur]

No ma'am that was not my intention, however other Mormons I've met and worked with have told me that even with their faith in Christ and all there works that they still can't be sure of their place in heaven. That would signify that both sacrifice and works aren't good enough.

Well then, either you misunderstood them or they don't know their own religion very well.

 

[Tonix]

Honestly, its a toss up. Religions and sects have been dying out for thousands of years. If they can't keep themselves alive, does it really matter in the grand scheme of things?

 

[gseeker]

Well then, either you misunderstood them or they don't know their own religion very well.

So you know for a fact what heaven you will go to because of your works? You also believe that you have to confess your sins to a man? You don't believe in original sin, and you don't believe in grace?

 

[Katzpur]

So you know for a fact what heaven you will go to because of your works?

None of us "knows" for a fact what's going to happen to us after we die. All of us, regardless of our religion, are operating on faith. What I do "know" is what my Church teaches, and I "know" that you've misrepresented those teachings. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches the following:

1. God has given us commandments which He expects us to obey. These are "works," and we are reminded of them throughout the scriptures.

2. Because we are mortal beings, we have a propensity to sin. Despite our best efforts, we will at one point or another, commit transgressions against God, and when we do, we become estranged from Him.

3. When we are baptized, we enter into a covenant relationship with our Savior, Jesus Christ. We are cleased of our past sins, and are offered the promise of salvation in the future, provided we endure to the end in our faith.

4. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we are given the gift of repentence. Whenever we fall short, we can resolve to do better in the future, knowing that His sacrifice will enable us to be forgiven and reconciled to God.

You also believe that you have to confess your sins to a man?

Some sins must be confessed to someone holding the priesthood authority Jesus Christ left with His Apostles. Other sins can be confessed to God directly. Others must be confessed to the individual we've wronged. When we confess our sins to our Bishop, for instance, it is primarily so that he can help us work through the repentance process. It's not because he has the power to forgive us or to condone those sins. That is something only God can do.

You don't believe in original sin...

Well, let's put it this way... I believe that Adam and Eve disobeyed God when they ate the forbidden fruit. But, I also believe that Jesus Christ atoned for Adam's sin just as He atoned for mine. If He atoned for Adam's sin, then Adam was forgiven of his sin. God is not going to hold us responsible for for something Adam did; we are accountable for our own sins.

and you don't believe in grace?

I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can possibly say this when I just barely got through saying: "Mormonism teaches that in spite of all the good we can do, it is by the grace of Jesus Christ that we are saved. We would be utterly lost without Him."

 

[gseeker]

Jesus said call no man father or rabbi and the new testament goes into detail about how the priesthood and temple were done away with and how your body is now the temple. The curtain was torn. Confession to a man is not a Christian thing from the new testament but was a Catholic add on later on. Its okay though because Mormons believe that the Bible can be questionable but the tenants of Mormonism cannot be questioned right? If the Bible is wrong though then why have any faith in a religion basesd upon it?

 

[Katzpur]

Jesus said call no man father or rabbi...

Well, I don't, so I guess I pass that test, huh? (I'm assuming you do refer to your male parent as "father," though, so obviously the Bible cannot be taken literally with respect to that admonition. And I'm guessing that if you attend church, you address your minister in some way. What would that way be?)

and the new testament goes into detail about how the priesthood and temple were done away with and how your body is now the temple.

I'd say you've got to be kidding, but I realize you're actually serious. What on earth do you think Jesus was talking about when He told Peter He was going to give him the keys to the kingdom? He was speaking of priesthood authority -- the power given to men to act in God's name. Nothing the Apostles did was done without this authority. As they themselves pointed out, this authority had to be conferred upon a man by those already holding that authority. It could not be purchased or otherwise earned. When the Apostles were martyred, though, the authority they held was lost and the Church fell into apostasy. The Protestant reformers clearly recognized this. They just didn't have the ability to restore it. The reformed the existing Church but did not reestablish the original Church. With respect to our body "now" being "the temple," our bodies always have been the temple housing our spirits. This has been the case since the beginning. It certainly had nothing to do with some change brought about in New Testament times. That certainly does not mean that temple worship was ever intended to be obsolete.

Confession to a man is not a Christian thing from the new testament but was a Catholic add on later on.

Sorry, but this is an inaccurate statement. Confession to a priesthood authority was most definitely part of the Church Jesus Christ established.

Its okay though because Mormons believe that the Bible can be questionable but the tenants of Mormonism cannot be questioned right?

Wrong.

If the Bible is wrong though then why have any faith in a religion basesd upon it?

When did the Bible suddenly become "wrong"? We hold the Bible in high esteem. It has been described as "foremost among the Church's 'Standard Works'." We read and study from it every week in Church and are encouraged to do so at home on our own. If you really want to know what we think of the Bible, here's something for you to read.

You have a lot to learn about Mormonism, gseeker. I'm more than willing to continue this conversation, but if we're going to go anywhere except around in circles, you have to be willing to admit that your current knowledge on the subject is from less than accurate sources. Just out of curiosity, where have you gotten most of your information on Mormonism from?

 

[Reverend Rick]

I've heard this SO many times, and it completely defies what James says. This would be badly twisting what James says. James says faith without works does NOT SAVE.

If you will allow me to paraphrase just this once.

What I get from reading James is fruit inspection. I agree works will not get you into heaven BUT if one is truly saved by grace, they cannot help but have works.

It is impossible to be saved by grace and not have works.

If you do not have works, there is no way in hell you have been saved by grace.

Works are a by-product of grace. No by-product, no original product.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Where does legalism end and Christianity begans?

When it gives way to love!

Galatians 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. NIV

Too often Christians mistake the "Word of God" for the scriptures we call the Bible. Even those scriptures attest that Jesus is the Word of God (John 1) and they never, ever claim to be. They also never ever claim to be inerrant. Unfortunately, men have deified the scriptures turning them into yet another book of laws. It's nothing but modern idolatry and we need to avoid making that mistake.

Jesus was the pioneer and perfecter of my faith. It's written that he gave us a singular commandment, one that his disciples would be known for: Love. No, he didn't suggest that we would be known for intolerance, for hate, for Bible knowledge or even by what building we go to on Sunday. He gave us just love, and told us that everything hangs on this one commandment. Men constantly try to improve on it and complicate it, but only Faith, Hope and Love remain. Of course, the greatest of these is Love.

 

[gseeker]

When it gives way to love!

Galatians 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. NIV

Too often Christians mistake the "Word of God" for the scriptures we call the Bible. Even those scriptures attest that Jesus is the Word of God (John 1) and they never, ever claim to be. They also never ever claim to be inerrant. Unfortunately, men have deified the scriptures turning them into yet another book of laws. It's nothing but modern idolatry and we need to avoid making that mistake.

Jesus was the pioneer and perfecter of my faith. It's written that he gave us a singular commandment, one that his disciples would be known for: Love. No, he didn't suggest that we would be known for intolerance, for hate, for Bible knowledge or even by what building we go to on Sunday. He gave us just love, and told us that everything hangs on this one commandment. Men constantly try to improve on it and complicate it, but only Faith, Hope and Love remain. Of course, the greatest of these is Love.

Wow, great answer.
:clap

 

[Shermana]

Galatians pretty much is the giveaway that the schism between the Jerusalem Church (i.e. people who knew Jesus for a long time and studied directly under him) and the Pauline church (i.e. some guy who claimed to see a vision of Jesus and scolds the people who knew Jesus in person). The one single author of the Entire Bible (and of those books, their authenticity is questioned, the Dutch Radical critics have good reasons for saying Paul wrote none, not just the non Deutero-Paulines) who says the Law wasn't necessary to be followed, suddenly you can even ignore Jesus on the issue!

Interesting that Paul wishes castration upon those who preach circumcision, and says to let anyone who teaches a different gospel than him be damned (i.e. including those who believe you don't have to do any works to get into heaven and ignore his parts about unrepentant sinners being rejected from the Kingdom), I'd have to say that a self-declared prophet who wishes castration upon those teaching circumcision sounds a bit more extreme than most others to say the least.

For such a loving person, Paul wishing castration upon people seems a bit harsh.

Should you follow Paul's example and wish castration and damnation ("Let him be damned") upon those who promote circumcision?

Are you aware that Paul wishes damnation upon you if you go against anything he said which includes his very conservative calls to good works as a part of your salvation? ("Work out your salvation with fear and trembling)?

 

[Scuba Pete]

None of the disciples or apostles claimed to be perfect. That's a mantle placed on them mostly in recent years. Paul had his faults, including his "thorn in the flesh". It's obvious he was fairly frustrated and even flabbergasted that people were exchanging their freedom for more laws. That being said, he was pretty intolerant of certain peoples, and I don't see that in Jesus. Not at all. In fact, Jesus was often chided for his party going ways and was called a drunkard and a glutton. He even hung around with loose women, yet it was not them he really chastised: it was the religious right of the day. Even the Son of God lost his temper with that self righteous bunch, calling them white washed tombs and chasing them from the temple. There's a lesson in there for the religious right of the day, but they are too busy trying to keep everyone out of heaven.

People read the scriptures thinking that in them there is eternal life. That's wrong. In doing so, they miss listening to the Spirit of God that is trying to get through to them. He was promised to all who believe, but so many not only ignore the Spirit: they decry those who actually listen intently and act on what they hear.

I have found that Christianity is incredibly simple and ridiculously hard at the same time. It's simple in that all you have to do is to love your brother. It's hard in that all you have to do is to love your brother. God desires mercy: not sacrifice. Understanding this one concept will help us to understand what it means to love.