|
Post by nella on Nov 9, 2006 16:13:43 GMT -5
Maybe we will move the Faith vs. Works discussion to another thread, but I have no idea why "faith without works is dead" would 'get' Martin Luther, or anyone who believes in the doctrines of grace, for that matter. I hold to the creed "salvation by faith alone." Salvation has nothing to do with works that can be done to obtain grace. Grace, by definition, is unmerited favor. You do not do something to gain an act of unmerited favor-- if it is unmerited no one, least of all God, would give it to you. Salvation is not attainable by works, but it is provable by works, if that makes sense.
~Nella
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Nov 9, 2006 17:01:38 GMT -5
Maybe we will move the Faith vs. Works discussion to another thread, but I have no idea why "faith without works is dead" would 'get' Martin Luther, or anyone who believes in the doctrines of grace, for that matter. I hold to the creed "salvation by faith alone." Salvation has nothing to do with works that can be done to obtain grace. Grace, by definition, is unmerited favor. You do not do something to gain an act of unmerited favor-- if it is unmerited no one, least of all God, would give it to you. Salvation is not attainable by works, but it is provable by works, if that makes sense. ~Nella Its been in many other threads ;D Nice theory, but unfortunately it doesn't agree with James. He doesn't just say "salvation is provable by works, but they're not really necessary," he says faith without works is dead.
|
|
|
Post by nella on Nov 9, 2006 20:22:36 GMT -5
Right! He says faith without works is dead, not salvation without works is dead.
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Nov 9, 2006 22:37:50 GMT -5
Right! He says faith without works is dead, not salvation without works is dead. huh. Your logic is circular. Faith is necessary for Salvation. However, faith is dead without works. Therefore without works there isn't any faith. Without faith there isn't any salvation. But since salvation without works isn't dead (I have no idea what that means, salvation isn't something you do), you can still have salvation even without works? Salvation doesn't just come magically, otherwise everybody in the world would be saved. You have to have faith, and you can't have faith without works. Therefore, works are necessary for salvation.
|
|
LilyJ
Full Member
Dedication and obsession go hand in hand sometimes....
Posts: 188
|
Post by LilyJ on Nov 9, 2006 23:22:51 GMT -5
Well said, HoG!!!!! (I'm loving having a fellow Catholic who is much more concise about the things he says... people actually LISTEN!!!)
This isn't meant to sound mean, Nella, but... do you have a source for your calims about a) how certain holidays are pagan in nature and b) why listening to certain music is "distasteful" and can affect the way you dress?
If THAT based off sources, or is that just your personal belief?
Sorry, I'm in a very cynical mood today....
|
|
|
Post by nella on Nov 10, 2006 12:40:32 GMT -5
HoG, I guess we can agree to disagree about James 1 :-).
Yes, Nen, and I would be happy to produce sources if you wish (in regards to sources on holidays). I didn't say listening to certain types of music was distasteful. I quote Colossians 3:16- "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God."
I know you are discerning with your music. Discrecion was the word you used yourself. Again, I quote Tim Sweetman. (refering to Christian participation in Halloween, but can be applied to almost any "grey area.")
“What we end up with is Christian discernment. When the Scriptures do not speak specifically on a topic, it is left up to the Christian. He is to follow the Spirit's calling to him on the specific issue, not his sinful self. He is to search the Scriptures for insight and understanding, instead of apathetically going with the flow of the culture that surrounds him. When he does this, God is glorified.”-- Tim Sweetman
Having studied the life, character, and doctrine of Martin Luther, I do not think Luther would have said that James should not be in the Bible. I did not deny that he could have said it, but I am not sure why he did if he did. James 1 does, by what the Holy Spirit has revealed to me, support his doctrine, which I am very familiar with. I don't believe everything that Martin Luther taught, but we do agree on sola gratia :-)
~Nella
|
|
|
Post by guest on Nov 10, 2006 13:46:07 GMT -5
Who gives a hoot in hades what tim sweetman says? Give me SCRIPTURE, or I shall respect you not at all.
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Nov 11, 2006 12:24:01 GMT -5
Isn't that so much fun?
But the thing you have to realize about Halloween is its all harmless now. People used to worship/summon/whatever-it-is-they-do-to demons. Now though its just a bunch of little kids (and not so little ones) dressing like monsters and trying to get candy (actually they don't even dress up like monsters anymore, this year I saw about 8 Supermen, 5 Spidermen...). They're not trying to worship any demons or preform satanic rituals, they're just there for fun and candy (candy's always fun).
OK first off, your first two sentences make no sense. "I don't think he said it, but I'm not denying he said it" doesn't quite work. Second, James 1 has nothing to do with anything we're talking about (but perhaps that's just a typo). Third, the reason Martin Luther would have tried to kick James out is that it blatantly denies his theory about Faith Alone. If you have studied the life of Martin Luther (which, by your own admonition, you have), you'll know Faith Alone was a huge part of all his reformation stuff. But "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.", isn't something you can interpret any other way.
|
|
LilyJ
Full Member
Dedication and obsession go hand in hand sometimes....
Posts: 188
|
Post by LilyJ on Nov 16, 2006 20:39:17 GMT -5
Oh yes! Okay. Give me three reliable sources (and that means FACTUAL, and valid) and I'll shut up completely. In that case, who said this: Maybe it's just me, but that sounds very condemning of music STYLES. Like I said before... I listen to heavy metal. I LOVE Metallica, it's my all-time favorite band. That doesn't associate me with "punks" or with someone who goes out every Saturday night and gets wasted. I'm still the "goody two-shoes" I've always been (with a little rebellious streak... but shhh... ). And I know for a FACT that at least around here, people don't judge other people by the kind of music they listen to. Even clothing isn't a big factor, unless it's something extreme.
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Nov 21, 2006 0:56:27 GMT -5
They are a most excellent band. Perhaps, in my opinion, not worthy of all-time-favoritism, but oh well ;D.
|
|
LilyJ
Full Member
Dedication and obsession go hand in hand sometimes....
Posts: 188
|
Post by LilyJ on Nov 21, 2006 21:51:51 GMT -5
Lol, to each their own. There are one or two songs by them that I refuse to listen to because of lyrics - and there's a lot of songs, especially recent ones, that are horrible. But they have so many songs that qualify, for my standards, as "amazing" (UNFORGIVEN, especailly... and Enter Sandman, of course... etc.) It's just the style I love, and they have intelligent lyrics that make you think - plus, I love the heavy style - and they're incredibly talented. I guess they're the one band whose songs I play over and over again and NEVER get sick of. Thus said, we have officially veered off-topic.
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Nov 22, 2006 12:55:41 GMT -5
We're pretty good at that around here (although come to think of it I don't think it started until I came along. hmmm...)
|
|
LilyJ
Full Member
Dedication and obsession go hand in hand sometimes....
Posts: 188
|
Post by LilyJ on Nov 24, 2006 13:04:57 GMT -5
Lol, shame on you! *thwacks HoG upside head with inflatable rubber baseball bat* Sorry, I'm hyper today. The random moods of Nen.... And in all seriousness... I'm amazing at getting off topic, too. So you're not alone. lol What was that about beef steak?!?!?!
|
|