United Methodist Church to split in two

[Asithappens 974]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The concept (states most clearly in James) is that faith is not merely “belief.” It is to be lived.
So, the rule is that “a LIVING faith” is all that’s necessary. A faith that isn’t lived by the holder is a faith that’s not truly or fully believed.

If that were true then there wouldn't have been a "need" to have a bible verse stating that "faith without works is dead". 

To me, this is just another (bullshit?) way to get around scriptural conflicts. A ham-handed way to show that the bible is a seamless web of truth. 

Come on. 

Faith is faith. Works is works. Don't overcomplicate things. 

 

[Brisketexan 105190]

If that were true then there wouldn't have been a "need" to have a bible verse stating that "faith without works is dead".  To me, this is just another (bullshit?) way to get around scriptural conflicts. A ham-handed way to show that the bible is a seamless web of truth. 

Come on. 

Faith is faith. Works is works. Don't overcomplicate things. 

 

 

Well, as someone who practices law (that is, an ordered system of rules), we CONSTANTLY see refinement, to make the pre-existing rule clear.

Courts regularly write opinions explaining that “when we said x, that includes y, as we weren’t/didn’t have to be clearer in our first opinion.” They aren’t adding to the prior rule...they’re further explaining what it includes.

So, being told that faith is the key is the rule. Further explaining what is meant by “faith” is where James comes in. And it’s a rule that makes sense. If I SAY I believe in the tenets of Christianity, which by their terms require world for others, but I don’t PRACTICE those tenets, then I don’t really believe them. The belief must be real, and it’s not genuine of you don’t live it. Works is not an additional requirement. It’s an inextricable part of genuine faith.

 

[F250 28806]

2 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

i answered this already in one of the first responses i made to you.  look i appreciate the back and forth but if you're trying to argue your position and purposefully ignoring answers i've given in the past i'm not interested in engaging.  you don't have to agree with what i'm saying.  my stance is hardly anything groundbreaking, many people smarter than myself have expounded on those arguments.  

I'm not arguing, I am only interested in the historical aspect of this topic and not the "I believe" part which is why I dismiss the justification explanations.

 

 

[gsoda3 3277]

53 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

It's not fucking nuance. The bible itself states that faith without works is dead.

And "man" (could be some women) is interpreting this stuff. 

The bible/text is open (wide open in parts) to interpretation. You can't "nuance" your way out of this, imo.

 

52 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Which makes my point. They quote one part of the bible, I quote another. 

Pick and choose. Interpret. 

And fuck the slavery loving, anti-dancing baptists. Maybe when they learn to read they can climb to the heights of being a Methodist....

 

49 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

To me, that is just a ham-handed, in-artful way of avoiding the scriptural conflicts. 

Works will not inevitably follow. See deathbed confessions.

"...whoever believes in Him shall not perish..."

"by grace you are saved through faith, not of works, and this not of yourselves..."

"what good is it... if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds?  can such faith save them?... in the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by works, is dead"

"righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus... man is justified by faith apart from the works of law"

 

are those the scriptural conflicts you refer to?  scripture is read in context with mind to other parts of the scripture.  each piece enhances the understanding of the other.  what's hamfisted is reading two seemingly contradictory verses and refusing to reconcile their ability to coexist.  

 

this faith without works debate is not even really a debate anymore within the church.  faith is what saves.  true saving faith manifests through deeds.  someone who professes faith but has no deeds doesn't really have a saving faith.  here's what Jesus says.

"every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire"

"every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away and throws away"

 

like i said, it's not even a debate within the church.  it comes up a whole lot from people outside the church criticizing scripture cherrypickers though.

 

edit-  page wouldn't load after hitting reply.

Edited January 14, 2020 by gsoda3

['stache 21825]

On 1/13/2020 at 12:17 PM, formermav43 said:

This is nonsensical. Of course theology is human interpretation. by definition. Of course what is orthodox is “human interpretation”-it’s a matter of conforming to the historical consensus of what is correct interpretation.

You’re stating tautologies and acting like you’ve stumbled on something groundbreaking.

On 1/5/2020 at 12:47 PM, gsoda3 said:

 

 

Actually it's the opposite. Protestantism was borne out of the discipline of going back to Biblical teaching. Your 1500 years of tradition was more like 500 years of abuse in a direction trending away from the first 1000 years of tradition. Protestantism brought everything back to the roots of the faith.

 

I was responding specifically to this, the idea that Protestantism was "going back to Biblical teaching" which does not imply a "historical consensus" but an objective idea of what Biblical teachers were precisely. The second part about going "back to the roots of faith" I suppose could infer a "historical consensus" as opposed to an absolute, but my point still stands. Any faction claiming to know precisely what original "Bibilical teachings" means is wrong, because it has and always will be subject to varying interpretations and re-interpretations. And I don't claim any of this to be groundbreaking, others have said it better than I on this very thread. I'm just adding my thoughts to the conversation.

 

[gsoda3 3277]

20 minutes ago, F250 said:

I'm not arguing, I am only interested in the historical aspect of this topic and not the "I believe" part which is why I dismiss the justification explanations.

 

 

well i apologize for mischaracterizing your motivation then. 

 

your answer, which i'm quite sure i've stated before, is in the first 500 years of the church.  they battled to figure out what was true scripture and how to keep it pure from non-authoritative sources.  this was a result of Jesus's view of scripture and the Jewish treatment of it.  

[workswithseed 2109]

5 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I was responding specifically to this, the idea that Protestantism was "going back to Biblical teaching" which does not imply a "historical consensus" but an objective idea of what Biblical teachers were precisely. The second part about going "back to the roots of faith" I suppose could infer a "historical consensus" as opposed to an absolute, but my point still stands. Any faction claiming to know precisely what original "Bibilical teachings" means is wrong, because it has and always will be subject to varying interpretations and re-interpretations. And I don't claim any of this to be groundbreaking, others have said it better than I on this very thread. I'm just adding my thoughts to the conversation.

 

I don't know, us Church of Christ goers are pretty close! 

Ha, I'm glad I didn't go up n the 80's we were apparently very self rightchous group. 

[gsoda3 3277]

6 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I was responding specifically to this, the idea that Protestantism was "going back to Biblical teaching" which does not imply a "historical consensus" but an objective idea of what Biblical teachers were precisely. The second part about going "back to the roots of faith" I suppose could infer a "historical consensus" as opposed to an absolute, but my point still stands. Any faction claiming to know precisely what original "Bibilical teachings" means is wrong, because it has and always will be subject to varying interpretations and re-interpretations. And I don't claim any of this to be groundbreaking, others have said it better than I on this very thread. I'm just adding my thoughts to the conversation.

 

good clarification.  there was a historical consensus (for the most part anyway) of what was scripture.  there also used to be a historical consensus that the scripture was the ultimate authority.  the church moved away from that and the reformation bought it back to that point.  

['stache 21825]

On 1/11/2020 at 4:36 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, that 7DS kind of harks to the transactional nature of Catholicism:  certain sins deserve certain penance.  Although I think confession is actually a terrific spiritual and psychological device/practice.

It feels like sort of a cop-out to me. It seems that it would be even better for the soul and conscious to appologize directly to those you have wronged, not simply saying it in a box hidden from the other guy in a robe who had nothing to do with your sin. Growing up my most common confessions were masterbation (cause every sperm is sacred) and arguing with my parents (failing to honor thy mother and father). On the latter, it is much more beneficial to simply apologize to my parents and talk it out. The former never made sense to me, but that's what I was taught at the time as being naughty to myself in my own room. It really fucked with my psyche thinking I was evil for being unable to control those completely natural urges. But that's a rant for another day.

[F250 28806]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Methodists.  Although the point is subtle.  If one has faith, works will inevitably follow. Or so the argument goes.

 

4 hours ago, HouTex said:

As Johnny Carson famously said, “I did not know that.”

The Methodist position on "works" is pretty similar to Catholicism, both view works as a "means of grace", actually the Wesleyan tradition regarding sanctification is heavily influenced by the Orthodox church.

[Asithappens 974]

6 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

 

 

"...whoever believes in Him shall not perish..."

"by grace you are saved through faith, not of works, and this not of yourselves..."

"what good is it... if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds?  can such faith save them?... in the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by works, is dead"

"righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus... man is justified by faith apart from the works of law"

 

are those the scriptural conflicts you refer to?  scripture is read in context with mind to other parts of the scripture.  each piece enhances the understanding of the other.  what's hamfisted is reading two seemingly contradictory verses and refusing to reconcile their ability to coexist.  

 

this faith without works debate is not even really a debate anymore within the church.  faith is what saves.  true saving faith manifests through deeds.  someone who professes faith but has no deeds doesn't really have a saving faith.  here's what Jesus says.

"every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire"

"every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away and throws away"

 

like i said, it's not even a debate within the church.  it comes up a whole lot from people outside the church criticizing scripture cherrypickers though.

 

edit-  page wouldn't load after hitting reply.

You kinda made my point. 

Yes, I'm aware of those other verses. But there is still a verse that says "faith without works is dead". So... everyone is cherry picking. Just because the "church" has consensus on which cherries they picked, they still picked something. Someone (man) had to decide that. So, contrary to Luther, it's not "sola scriptura". 

[gsoda3 3277]

12 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

You kinda made my point. 

Yes, I'm aware of those other verses. But there is still a verse that says "faith without works is dead". So... everyone is cherry picking. Just because the "church" has consensus on which cherries they picked, they still picked something. Someone (man) had to decide that. So, contrary to Luther, it's not "sola scriptura". 

no sorry you completely missed the point.  i'm afraid i can't make it any more clear than that previous post.  

[troph 24900]

Salvation isn’t transactional in the way I’ve ever read the Bible, it’s transformative. If you have that faith then it transforms. If it doesn’t transform you, you aren’t saved. Becoming like Christ is transformation. The notion of just a belief in the deity of Christ and his sacrifice might be step one but from where I came from that is hardly true salvation.

[workswithseed 2109]

Repenting for your sins, believe that Jesus is your Lord, and be baptized. This is the tenants to be saved.

[HouTex 1887]

Man, it’s all about points. You have to get enough points to be saved.

[Brisketexan 105190]

1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

Repenting for your sins, believe that Jesus is your Lord, and be baptized. This is the tenants to be saved.

And these are the tenants to avoid:

[Gatorubet 30277]

On 1/15/2020 at 4:36 PM, Brisketexan said:

And these are the tenants to avoid:

Dammit Gozar...

[F250 28806]

On 1/15/2020 at 3:28 PM, workswithseed said:

Repenting for your sins, believe that Jesus is your Lord, and be baptized. This is the tenants to be saved.

This seems like an oversimplified explanation.

Consider Matthew 7:21

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

The counter to this would be an explanation as to what it means to believe, which is where Sanctification comes into play. Which leads us to this post.

On 1/15/2020 at 3:03 PM, troph said:

Salvation isn’t transactional in the way I’ve ever read the Bible, it’s transformative. If you have that faith then it transforms. If it doesn’t transform you, you aren’t saved. Becoming like Christ is transformation. The notion of just a belief in the deity of Christ and his sacrifice might be step one but from where I came from that is hardly true salvation.

The Sanctification process is where the rubber meets the road. Yes, it is about transformation.

[troph 24900]

Repenting for your sins, believe that Jesus is your Lord, and be baptized. This is the tenants to be saved.

Repentance is also not transactional. Confession may be the first step, but making an about face and living like Christ is a transformation. Either you are in the process of being transformed into his likeness or you are not. If you are, then you are repenting, if you are not, then you are not repenting. Same thing. Too many American Christians believe in a transactional salvation and I actually believe that it is a big part of the problem we have with Christians supporting Trump. The transactional view is super easy and then let’s you get away with a whole lot of crap. True transformation and the process of becoming Christ like leads to a much, much different kind of follower.

[workswithseed 2109]

3 hours ago, F250 said:

This seems like an oversimplified explanation.

Consider Matthew 7:21

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

The counter to this would be an explanation as to what it means to believe, which is where Sanctification comes into play. Which leads us to this post.

The Sanctification process is where the rubber meets the road. Yes, it is about transformation.

Well, yeah. I should have said those are the first steps into Christendom

 

[F250 28806]

10 hours ago, troph said:

Too many American Christians believe in a transactional salvation and I actually believe that it is a big part of the problem we have with Christians supporting Trump. The transactional view is super easy and then let’s you get away with a whole lot of crap. True transformation and the process of becoming Christ like leads to a much, much different kind of follower.

Yes.

Free Grace Theology which is historically tied to Dispensationalism (Evangelicals) is a fairly modern creation. Historically Christianity was either synergistic or monergistic until the 19th century when the current popular form of Christianity we see today developed. The concept of Free Grace/Dispensationalism and the Rapture are relatively modern creations. That kind of thing really changes culture.