Saving faith in Lutheran theology

[Bonnie]

I don't believe you.

You just say you do. Lip service.

"Be perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect."

Do you believe him?

"He who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."

Do you believe him?

He said you cannot be his disciple if you don't carry your own cross and forsake all that you have.

Do you believe him?

Did you give up all you own, sell it, give it to the poor to go traipsing all over the world, spreading what you think is the Gospel?

As for being perfect 100% all of the time, like God,, how is that going for you? Are you perfect? Do you ever sin? Remember, James said that if we keep the whole Law, but stumble in one point, we are guilty of ALL of it.

There is only one way to be perfect in God's eyes, this side of heaven...do you know that one way?

And I do believe Jesus, ALL of what He said...so, do believe John 3:16? Luke 7:50? John 5:24?

The thing is, I DO believe all of what Jesus said, but I ALSO know how to take ALL of what He said in context and take all into consideration. I do not isolate verses. ALL of what He said should be believed. Do YOU believe ALL of what He said?


And I notice you still did not tell me if you had read the sermon or not...did you? All of it? It is well-written, I assure you.

 

[Bonnie]

How predictable. So then you do not believe what Jesus said. Your response makes it quite clear that you deny his instructions.

How noticeable that you failed to answer my question.....

And your response here also reveals that you don't believe what he said on that score either.

And your response shows that you didn't answer my question yet AGAIN!

Given your responses so far, it is more than plain that you do not believe him. Would you like to modify what he said to suit yourself? Yes, you do don't you?

I modified NOTHING that Jesus said. But, would YOU like to modify your responses to me, by actually answering my simple questions?

Did you even bother to read that sermon I linked you to?

Would YOU Like to modify John 3:16? Luke 7:50? John 5:24?

Oh, BTW--do you know the ONLY way to be perfect in God's eyes, this side of heaven?

 

[Tertiumquid]

How predictable. So then you do not believe what Jesus said. Your response makes it quite clear that you deny his instructions.

Curious where Paul's letters fit into your theology.

 

[BJ Bear]

You seem to be suggesting that Jesus nullified everything else he said. Yes, that is what you are trying to do isn't it?

Most Christians believe Jesus is sinless and that necessarily implies that He did not lie. So if you come across a passage that makes you think it negates everything else He said when that passage is read according to the straightforward meaning of the words according to the immediate context then it is likely that you don't understand the passage and/or everything else He said.

One way to identify where and what the problem is to identify the main objection and then find a specific section of that explicitly deals with the topic and teaches what you think is a valid objection to the first passage. Read that second section according to its immediate context and see if your objection is valid.

If you do that and you still think the objection is valid then look closely at the immediate context and compare them to see if they really are speaking of the same thing in the same context.

If you xo that and still think that the objection is valid then examine the passages more closely to be sure you understand what they say.

In this case John 5:28-29 was posted as a valid objection. If a person looks at that passage closely then he will find that Jesus is speaking to those under the law who knew they were sinners. One way they knew this is because of the blood that was regularly shed for them on account of their sins. That means all of them should have understood that they were out based on their works. This is because Jesus used aorist participles with regard to having done good and having done evil. The takeaway from the aorist is that it occurred.

The people needed the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. He can only be received through faith alone as He is not a product of man's works. In Him alone is the forgiveness of sins such that a man will not be judged to have done evil and only done good because of His righteousness imputed to us.

The bottom line is that reading Luke 7:50 according to the common meaning of the words and immediate context only affirms the words of Jesus and does not negate a single one.

 

[Bonnie]

Most Christians believe Jesus is sinless and that necessarily implies that He did not lie. So if you come across a passage that makes you think it negates everything else He said when that passage is read according to the straightforward meaning of the words according to the immediate context then it is likely that you don't understand the passage and/or everything else He said.

One way to identify where and what the problem is to identify the main objection and then find a specific section of that explicitly deals with the topic and teaches what you think is a valid objection to the first passage. Read that second section according to its immediate context and see if your objection is valid.

If you do that and you still think the objection is valid then look closely at the immediate context and compare them to see if they really are speaking of the same thing in the same context.

If you xo that and still think that the objection is valid then examine the passages more closely to be sure you understand what they say.

In this case John 5:28-29 was posted as a valid objection. If a person looks at that passage closely then he will find that Jesus is speaking to those under the law who knew they were sinners. One way they knew this is because of the blood that was regularly shed for them on account of their sins. That means all of them should have understood that they were out based on their works. This is because Jesus used aorist participles with regard to having done good and having done evil. The takeaway from the aorist is that it occurred.

The people needed the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. He can only be received through faith alone as He is not a product of man's works. In Him alone is the forgiveness of sins such that a man will not be judged to have done evil and only done good because of His righteousness imputed to us.

The bottom line is that reading Luke 7:50 according to the common meaning of the words and immediate context only affirms the words of Jesus and does not negate a single one.

Thanks, BJ. Your answers are right on,as usual.

 

[BJ Bear]

Did you give up all you own, sell it, give it to the poor to go traipsing all over the world, spreading what you think is the Gospel?

Nice post.

Kretzmann had a good observation, if the guy loved his neighbor as he claimed then it would have been no trouble to give his wealth to them.

 

[Nic]

Nice post.

Kretzmann had a good observation, if the guy loved his neighbor as he claimed then it would have been no trouble to give his wealth to them.

Beautiful point!

 

[Tertiumquid]

Nice post.

Kretzmann had a good observation, if the guy loved his neighbor as he claimed then it would have been no trouble to give his wealth to them.

" God judges what is in the depths of the heart. Therefore his law also makes demands on the depths of the heart and doesn't let the heart rest content in works; rather it punishes as hypocrisy and lies all works done apart from the depths of the heart. All human beings are called liars (Psalm 116), since none of them keeps or can keep God's law from the depths of the heart. Everyone finds inside himself an aversion to good and a craving for evil. Where there is no free desire for good, there the heart has not set itself on God's law. There also sin is surely to be found and the deserved wrath of God, whether a lot of good works and an honorable life appear outwardly or not." Martin Luther (Preface to Romans)

....makes sense to me.

Edited to add: I fundamentally distrust all the CARM participants that go on and on about "works." They have no idea what sin is and how deep it is in their own hearts. It's blatant ignorance of God's holiness and human ability. In other words, they do not know Christ.

 

[HillsboroMom]

I had a seminary professor who said there was exactly ONE work necessary for salvation.

And it's been done already.

(Let the people say, AMEN, ALLELUIA!)

 

[Bonnie]

Taking scripture out of context isn't helpful.

Since you didn't cite a passage I will use one from the nt, from Luke 6. The context is not salvation by your works.

Read Luke 7:50, also, BJ.

 

[BJ Bear]

I had a seminary professor who said there was exactly ONE work necessary for salvation.

And it's been done already.

(Let the people say, AMEN, ALLELUIA!)

Because non Evangelicals might misunderstand that (like in the baptism thread) i will affirm necessary in the non philosophical sense. The work of God in baptism can"t necessarily (in the philosophical sense) be excluded. ^_^

AMEN, ALLELUIA!

 

[BJ Bear]

Read Luke 7:50, also, BJ.

Yes. ^_^

 

[Tertiumquid]

Where did the CARM Schwärmer go? I find it hard to believe they simply relented or agreed to disagree and so moved on from the Lutheran form.

 

[BJ Bear]

Where did the CARM Schwärmer go? I find it hard to believe they simply relented or agreed to disagree and so moved on from the Lutheran form.

I've heard that old folk song before but i don"t remember the answer. Or was it about flowers? Hmm...