J
jmm08
Guest
**LetsObeyChrist: **if you take me up on the test, remember you don’t go forward to receive the Eucharist. Just do the Holy Water thing on the way in and the way out.
- Status
C
CnDWelch
Guest
You carefully left out what else Paul told Timothy in chapter 2 of the same letter. Paul told Timothy, “[What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also”] (2Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach. The Catholic Church has been carefully handing down this oral teachings of the apostles for 2000 years. Where do you get your oral teaching from?
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
Observe this opened with definition that proposes the accidents are the property of its substance, in practical terms this means the detachment of a substance from its extension and accidents. Accidents can change without changing the substance and vice versa.
However the examples of detachment upon which Aristotle’s’ theory rests aren’t analogous to the change that is supposed to occur in Transubstantiation where finite bread becomes infinite God.
To be a similar event the ‘chair illustration" should be about a chair whose accidents are completely changed just as is said to be true of the substance of the Eucharist.
I have a wooden chair.
The chair is a chair. (“Substance”)
The properties “accidents” are: 4 24-inch wooden legs, a wooden back, a wooden seat.
Burn up all of the accidents (the entire become ashes).
The object is no longer a chair, it is now ashes.
Moreover the alleged “detachment” between substance and accidents proposed by this theory does render the accidents only symbols of the substance, clearly defeating what it was meant to accomplish.
You say my understanding is 21st Century, however transubstantiation theory was not officially accepted till the 13th century. When Radbertus (a french monk in the 9th century) first proposed it, the RCC fought against it for centuries.
So was the RCC infallibly correct when it rejected transubstantiation for 12 centuries? Or are they infallibly correct now that they accept what they once rejected?
I think 12 centuries of infallible correctness beats 8 centuries of infallible correctness, don’t you?
Do the math!
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
So your argument is “as all things are possible with God” there is nothing God won’t do.
Error and untruth doesn’t exist, as God can do anything He will do everything, as nothing is beyond His ability to do, there is nothing God won’t do.
So when Christ pronounced woes upon the wicked for their sin, as all things are possible with God, Christ was wrong to do so, as it is possible God might not judge their sin it then certain He will not judge their sin.
Very interesting…care to develop your philosophy even more?
Is the world round as it is within God’s power to make it flat and therefore He will make it flat?
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
Gerry Hunter:
Since an accident, in philosophy, is a property displayed by something that exists, but which is not determinant in its existance, it is an actual, not a bogus, distinction.
I am, as it happens, wearing a pair of trousers, which exhibit the accident of being blue. If I put them in a vat of green dye long enough, they would exhibit the accident of being green, but would still exist as trousers, just as they had before, in spite of the change in their colour – the accident.
Do I detect, I wonder, a (common enough among Protestants) rejection of any work of God that involves matter? Catholics do not reject God’s work simply because it involves matter, because matter was created by God, who saw that it was good, and who used it as he saw fit.
It is a high price to pay, to cut down one’s grasp on philosophy, and reject anything involving matter, simply to support a cutting down of the fullness of the Apostolic Faith. And it is a needless payment.
Blessings,
Gerry
PS: We are still waiting for you to explain your basis for ascribing any authority to Holy Scripture. If Protestant bias against matter explains their rejection of transubstantiation theory, what explains Roman Catholic rejection of the same theory when Radbertus, a French monk, first proposed it in the 9th century?
If the dogma is so obvious and taught by the fathers, why did it require 13 centuries for the RCC to adopt it?
As for the philosophical distinction, it clearly is bogus. If I burn your trousers up, whether they were green or blue doesn’t matter, they become the substance of ashes. They are trousers no more hence altering accidents certainly does effect the substance.
No doubt you will object to this, but only this 100% change in accidents is analogous to the change that is supposed to occur in Transubstantiation where finite bread becomes infinite God.
Another example for all philosophers to ponder:
I have a wooden chair.
The chair is a chair. (“Substance”)
The properties “accidents” are: 4 24-inch wooden legs, a wooden back, a wooden seat.
Burn up all of the accidents (the entire become ashes).
The object is no longer a chair, it is now ashes.
What is really odd about Transubstantiation theory is that it contradicts Catholic dogma the bread and wine ARE the body and blood of Christ. There is a “detachment” between substance and accidents proposed by this theory that for all practical purposes changes the accidents into symbols of the substance, soundly defeating RCC dogma the accidents are the substance!
Ps: Gods’ Word is above all words of men because it is God’s Word, and not man’s.
When Athanasius says:
Esti men gar hikanotera panton he theia graphe
Is indeed for sufficient above-all the of-God writing
***Context shows his characterization of Scripture as “divine” springs from his conviction it is above anything “human” ***including the councils of men:
Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divineScripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture… Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, Part I. History of the Councils, Athanasius.
Yet Catholic apologists reject this patristic testimony the church is to be ultra conservative (=sola scripturaist):
That’s strange, because no philosopher does, or ever did.
Since an accident, in philosophy, is a property displayed by something that exists, but which is not determinant in its existance, it is an actual, not a bogus, distinction.
I am, as it happens, wearing a pair of trousers, which exhibit the accident of being blue. If I put them in a vat of green dye long enough, they would exhibit the accident of being green, but would still exist as trousers, just as they had before, in spite of the change in their colour – the accident.
Do I detect, I wonder, a (common enough among Protestants) rejection of any work of God that involves matter? Catholics do not reject God’s work simply because it involves matter, because matter was created by God, who saw that it was good, and who used it as he saw fit.
It is a high price to pay, to cut down one’s grasp on philosophy, and reject anything involving matter, simply to support a cutting down of the fullness of the Apostolic Faith. And it is a needless payment.
Blessings,
Gerry
PS: We are still waiting for you to explain your basis for ascribing any authority to Holy Scripture. If Protestant bias against matter explains their rejection of transubstantiation theory, what explains Roman Catholic rejection of the same theory when Radbertus, a French monk, first proposed it in the 9th century?
If the dogma is so obvious and taught by the fathers, why did it require 13 centuries for the RCC to adopt it?
As for the philosophical distinction, it clearly is bogus. If I burn your trousers up, whether they were green or blue doesn’t matter, they become the substance of ashes. They are trousers no more hence altering accidents certainly does effect the substance.
No doubt you will object to this, but only this 100% change in accidents is analogous to the change that is supposed to occur in Transubstantiation where finite bread becomes infinite God.
Another example for all philosophers to ponder:
I have a wooden chair.
The chair is a chair. (“Substance”)
The properties “accidents” are: 4 24-inch wooden legs, a wooden back, a wooden seat.
Burn up all of the accidents (the entire become ashes).
The object is no longer a chair, it is now ashes.
What is really odd about Transubstantiation theory is that it contradicts Catholic dogma the bread and wine ARE the body and blood of Christ. There is a “detachment” between substance and accidents proposed by this theory that for all practical purposes changes the accidents into symbols of the substance, soundly defeating RCC dogma the accidents are the substance!
Ps: Gods’ Word is above all words of men because it is God’s Word, and not man’s.
When Athanasius says:
Esti men gar hikanotera panton he theia graphe
Is indeed for sufficient above-all the of-God writing
***Context shows his characterization of Scripture as “divine” springs from his conviction it is above anything “human” ***including the councils of men:
Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divineScripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture… Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, Part I. History of the Councils, Athanasius.
Yet Catholic apologists reject this patristic testimony the church is to be ultra conservative (=sola scripturaist):
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
I’m still waiting for his basis for ascribing any authority to his interpretation of holy scripture
After all, he believes it is authoritative, but not infallible.Divine Words have authority over human words because they are divine.As the Divine origin of God’s word establishes its authority it would be a diminishing of that authority if I added anything of myself to it:
KJV Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Hence I (and all sola scriptura exegetes) strive to relay the author’s intent without adding to it anything of our own.
There is your answer, only to the extent my words are the intent of God’s word are they authoritative, not because I have any authority, but because God is its authority.
That is clearly illustrated by Christ’s teaching sola scriptura (“only scripture has divine authority”) even when those speaking God’s word are hypocritical rebels:
DRA Matthew 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.
Observe the command is to obey them who sit, not those who stand.
It was the custom of the Jews to sit when expounding scripture, stand when just reading or hearing it, to indicate its authority.
Whatever these fetched from the Word of God itself was authoritative even though it was spoken by usurpers to Moses’ seat, Pharisees being laymen had no right to sit in Moses’ seat.
Their lack of authority, even when they were obvious hypocrites, had NO effect upon the authority of Scripture. It was still to be obeyed:
Jesus’ point was that Religious hypocrisy is NO EXCUSE to rebel against the Word of God.
God is God undiminished by men
The disciples having been directly taught this by Christ, refuse to obey them who sit in Moses’ seat when they command rebellion against the Word of God:
DRA Acts 5: 27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, 28 Saying: Commanding, we commanded you that you should not teach in this name. And behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine: and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us. 29 But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God rather than men.
= sola scriptura, God’s Word is to be obeyed above that of any human word including the words of men in any religious council (magisterium).
The teaching of Sola scriptura is pervasive throughout Scripture, implicitly and explicitly:
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
G
GregC
Guest
there is no “detachment” at all, my friend. you simply don’t understand fully. when the bread is consecrated, it becomes the body AND blood of Our Lord. same with the wine–it is changed into the body AND blood of Jesus Christ. no seperation at all. that is why it is not necessary to receive both species to receive Christ fully.
you continue to misrepresent St. Radbertus, so I will repost the link that explains his teachings truthfully…
newadvent.org/cathen/11518a.htm
please take my post in the humble, charitable spirit in which it is written. God bless you.
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
If that is so why doesn’t scripture proclaim:
(Acts 16:31) But they said: eat the Eucharist of the Lord Jesus: and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Answer why the efficacy of the Catholic Eucharist is so lacking in power to save. Why does this supposed “antidote for mortality” fail to save after only a few minutes in the world?
"We would like to remind our Catholic readers that their salvation is by no means assured and they should struggle daily to battle the world, the flesh, and the devil. "-http://www.olrl.org/
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
Count Chocula:
This is the context you missed:
John 6:62 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this (eat my flesh…drink my blood) scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Christ carefully directly contradicts any suggestion He taught eating literal flesh profits or gives life:
DRA John 6:64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
You skipped over lots of verses just to connect the wrong dots.
This is the context you missed:
John 6:62 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this (eat my flesh…drink my blood) scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Christ carefully directly contradicts any suggestion He taught eating literal flesh profits or gives life:
DRA John 6:64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
Little Mary:
On the contrary Christ is responding to their objection against eating His literal flesh.
They objected to His saying they had to eat His flesh. For Him to talk about someone else’ flesh would be response one expects from a loon, someone detached from reality.
Would you please cite the exact words where Christ distinguishes the flesh He commanded they eat and the other flesh you say He speaks about. I can’t see that in the context.
On the contrary Christ is responding to their objection against eating His literal flesh.
They objected to His saying they had to eat His flesh. For Him to talk about someone else’ flesh would be response one expects from a loon, someone detached from reality.
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
GregC.:
If accidents are only properties of a substance and not extensions of it, then there is detachment.
Thanks for the correction on Radbertus, having reviewed some of my statements I concede they could be misconstrued to mean I believe he invented the theory. I will correct that in future posts. It should be noted that elsewhere, for example in post #251 I said:
As for Justin Martyr I concede he does speak of transmutation that could be considered a forerunner of transubstantiation.
If there is no detachment then the accidents change when the substance changes.
If accidents are only properties of a substance and not extensions of it, then there is detachment.
Thanks for the correction on Radbertus, having reviewed some of my statements I concede they could be misconstrued to mean I believe he invented the theory. I will correct that in future posts. It should be noted that elsewhere, for example in post #251 I said:
As for Justin Martyr I concede he does speak of transmutation that could be considered a forerunner of transubstantiation.
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
Do your history, please. That was an early attempt to formulate the doctrine of the Real Presence, a doctrine accepted without question at the time of the attempt, and for the centuries of the Church’s existance preceding.
You are quoting Bart Brewer’s mangling of church history here. He, too, neglected the fact that the doctrine had been accepted without question. Best you find a better source. (And no, Loraine Boettner is not a viable alternative.)
It didn’t “adopt” it, and it articulated it because earlier attempts to articulate the doctrine were unsound, and causing confusion. It had never been in doubt among Christians before that time. That’s why the term for the accepted doctrine of the mechanism of the Real Presence, transubstantiation, was fixed at Lateran IV. And of course, the Church does not “adopt” doctrines. It does, though, formally articulate them when confusion arises in their articualtion, or heretics deny them, causing confusion among the faithful.
You might want to look up the concept of the “deposit of the faith.”
The Church neither can nor does add to it, nor take away from it.
Well let’s see: Aristotle thought it was legitimate; St. Thomas Aquinas thought it was legitimate, but you don’t. Having read their writings, and yours, deciding to ignore the assertion that it is bogus is one of the easiest decisions I’ve made in some time.
Once again, nothing original. Just rehash from anti-Catholic tracts. Recourse to Bart Brewer’s arguments blew your cover, by the way.
Blessings,
Gerry
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
IF obedience to ECFs is why you are converting to Catholicism you may want to reconsider that decision as it is a fact the RCC does NOT follow ECF teaching in many areas.
For example, about the 1,000 year reign of Christ(Rv c. 20), rejected by the RCC, ECFs said:
We must now point out how Papias… says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth.-Fragments of Papias, From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, VI (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1, p. 154).
But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.-Dialogue with Trypho, LXXX, (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1, p. 240).
The predicted blessing, therefore, belongs unquestionably to the times of the kingdom, when the righteous shall bear rule upon their rising from the dead; when also the creation, having been renovated and set free, shall fructify with an abundance of all kinds of food, from the dew of heaven, and from the fertility of the earth: as the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, related that they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach in regard to these times, and say: The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches…&c.
- And these things are bone witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp…-Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book 4, Chap. XXXVI-(Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1, pp. 562-3).
but about the faith they wrote not,
It seemed good,' but, Thus believes the Catholic Church;’ and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to shew that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolical; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles.-Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, Part I. History of the Councils, Athanasius.When Athanasius says:
Esti men gar hikanotera panton he theia graphe
Is indeed for sufficient above-all the of-God writing
***Context shows his characterization of Scripture as “divine” springs from his conviction it is above anything “human” ***including the councils of men:
Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divineScripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture… Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, Part I. History of the Councils, Athanasius.
W
whosebob
Guest
Jumping in late here, but I’ve been watching this thread for a couple of days and just haven’t sat down until now to type this out:
The quoted statements above are the weakest links in LetsObeyChrist’s argument. Yet he restates them over and over again in different ways, particularly the idea that Our Lord would have been a “loon” to respond with irrelevancies.
So one way to correct his misunderstanding of Jesus’ “Bread of Life Discourse” in John 6 would be to prove, or at lease to make a strong case, that the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ response to his listeners’ objections does NOT place “irrelevancies” into His mouth.
Moreover, I would argue that there are a number of notable times in the Gospels when Jesus does respond in a seemingly obtuse manner, BUT the clarity was to come when His statements were actualized. For example, Jesus predicts the torture and death of the Son of Man several times, and the Gospels tell us that the disciples did not understand His words; Peter in fact rebuked Jesus in one such circumstance. When Our Lord suffered and died on the Cross on Good Friday, His teaching was actualized. Even still, true understanding of these events wouldn’t come to the Apostles until the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.
Now . . . Our Lord told His listeners that His words are “spirit and life.” And so they are, for by them we are filled with and confirmed in a holy faith that our eating and drinking the flesh and blood of God’s Son will bring us to everlasting life.
But His words in John 6 don’t give us the Eucharist per se. Our Lord and Savior instituted the memorial of His Passion and Death at the Last Supper. The teaching in John 6 therefore is actualized the night before He died. Though, again, the Apostles’ understanding of Our Lord’s actions will be limited until Pentecost; indeed 20 centuries later we have still not exhausted this sacred mystery nor the words of Our Lord that present it to us.
Our Lord was not stating irrelevancies, nor was He a loon. It was simply beyond any human genius, even one intimately familiar with the Jewish Scriptures, much less those with hard hearts, to imagine that God would institue such an awesome rite to fulfill the Jewish Passover and indeed all of the God-ordained OT sacrifices. So John 6 isn’t enough to “get it.” Nor even Jesus’ words at the Last Supper, though that is where his seemingly obtuse or irrelevant statements are realized and actualized. In fact it is, as always, the Spirit that gives clear meaning to Jesus’ words – the Holy Sprit acting in the Church’s Magisterium which has infallibly interpreted John 6 across 20 centuries; the Holy Spirit acting in the heart, mind and soul and body of each believer that believes what Jesus and His Church teach us about the Eucharist and in good faith receives Holy Communion; and the Holy Spirit acting through the ministry of ordained priests that changes the bread and wine into His body, blood, soul and divinity when the words of the consecration are spoken, that is when the Catholic Church obeys Jesus’ command “do this in memory of me” by offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
So that’s my stab at it anyway. What do you think LetsObeyChrist? How did I do?
B
BobCatholic
Guest
LOC,
Please stay on topic for you’ve strayed into other things with your ECF rant. This lack of focus is making you appear as if you’re just ranting against the RCC rather than trying to do a discussion on the Eucharist. C’mon. You can do better than that.
Oh, and you have yet to answer any of my posts in any meaningful way.
Please stay on topic for you’ve strayed into other things with your ECF rant. This lack of focus is making you appear as if you’re just ranting against the RCC rather than trying to do a discussion on the Eucharist. C’mon. You can do better than that.
Oh, and you have yet to answer any of my posts in any meaningful way.
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
More relevent is Christ’s use of eating bread:
Matthew 16:5-12 5 And when his disciples were come over the water, they had forgotten to take bread. 6 Who said to them: Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. 7 But they thought within themselves, saying: Because we have taken no bread. 8 And Jesus knowing it, said: Why do you think within yourselves, O ye of little faith, for that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand, neither do you remember the five loaves among five thousand men, and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves, among four thousand men, and how many baskets you took up? 11 Why do you not understand that it was not concerning bread I said to you: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees? 12 Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees. -Douay Rheims
It is certain Jn 6’s imagery is adapted from Jeremiah, all the elements are there:
Jeremiah 15:16 16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them, and thy word was to me a joy and gladness of my heart: for thy name is called upon me, O Lord God of hosts.
“thy name is called upon me” = saved.
Christ is the Word of God made flesh, in Jeremiah the Word of God (from heaven) is eaten (ingested) for life:
John 6:48-52 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert: and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
The 4000 limit forces my reply into two posts.
You are correct, mere intellectual belief is not enough cf. Jn 6. Those Jewish disciples were willing to call Christ “lord” (=intellectual belief in Him as Teacher) as long as He gave them free food. Christ points out that belief is not enough:
John 6:34-38 34 They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. 35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you that you also have seen me, and you believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me: and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out.
Note in the following that John equates “Believe” and “Obey,” making them synonymous:
ASV John 3:36 He that believeth(pisteuoo on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth(apeitheoo) not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.
The same concept of obedient faith = true belief is found here:
James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
James preached the law of liberty (Js 1:25; 2:12) which is salvation by God grace through faith alone, not works (cp Eph 2:8) as we see in vss 2:17 ff where the dispute is about the nature of this faith, whether it can be disobedient faith like that of demons or must be obedient faith like that seen in Abraham etc.
continued
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
A continuation of #352
The “vain man” (=empty of good works man) believes he has found a contradiction in James’ “law of liberty,” if we are saved by grace alone through faith why does James preach good works? So he challenges James: “Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.”
His argument is “you cannot prove you have faith without works therefore saving faith without works doesn’t exist, you contradict yourself.”
James’ refutation is two tiered: “Demons have real faith without works, they believe and tremble, real faith exists without works; Their disobedient faith in Orthodox doctrine of Monotheism however is not enough to save them, neither will it save you. Faith without obedience is dead faith.”
James then proves his proposition with OT examples which, unfortunately are obscured by a misreading of James’ word, “justified” (dikaiow) is better understood as meaning “to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered”-Strong’s. Genuine saving faith results in good works in the person just as turning on a light bulb results in light.
That this is James’ meaning by DIKAIOW is clear by his own illustration of it in v. 26
James 2:24-26 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
=“A dark light bulb proves there is no electricity in the bulb”
That obedient faith saves while disobedient faith condemns is also the meaning of this verse:
KJV Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Note baptized appears only once, only believing NOT condemns. In the NT experience baptism always followed the reception of true faith (a gift from God Eph 2:8); when one really believed they were inspired to act on that belief (Phil 2:13) by being baptized, truly repenting of sin (born of water of repentence, Ezek 36:25ff)) and confessing allegiance to God by the resurrection power that raised Christ Jesus up from the dead, the Holy Spirit (1 Pt 3:21), hence born of the Spirit (Jn 3:3ff=drink my blood).
Having ingested Christ this true belief in Him becomes part of their being, they are radically changed:
KJV 2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
We must also eat Christ’s flesh, that is believe in the teaching about the Person and work of Christ (cp Mt 16:12 where eating bread = believing doctrine).
Believing in another Jesus does not save no matter how fervently one believes:
John 3:18 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Acts 4:12 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
A name in scripture is more than a label, one must believe in God the Son as LORD & Savior, the name of Jesus to be saved.
Romans 10:9-11 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Hence we see it written:
1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
That is why the belief of Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, can’t save them, the Jesus they believe in is not the only begotten Son of the Eternal Father, Saviour of the World.
The “vain man” (=empty of good works man) believes he has found a contradiction in James’ “law of liberty,” if we are saved by grace alone through faith why does James preach good works? So he challenges James: “Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.”
His argument is “you cannot prove you have faith without works therefore saving faith without works doesn’t exist, you contradict yourself.”
James’ refutation is two tiered: “Demons have real faith without works, they believe and tremble, real faith exists without works; Their disobedient faith in Orthodox doctrine of Monotheism however is not enough to save them, neither will it save you. Faith without obedience is dead faith.”
James then proves his proposition with OT examples which, unfortunately are obscured by a misreading of James’ word, “justified” (dikaiow) is better understood as meaning “to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered”-Strong’s. Genuine saving faith results in good works in the person just as turning on a light bulb results in light.
That this is James’ meaning by DIKAIOW is clear by his own illustration of it in v. 26
James 2:24-26 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
=“A dark light bulb proves there is no electricity in the bulb”
That obedient faith saves while disobedient faith condemns is also the meaning of this verse:
KJV Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Note baptized appears only once, only believing NOT condemns. In the NT experience baptism always followed the reception of true faith (a gift from God Eph 2:8); when one really believed they were inspired to act on that belief (Phil 2:13) by being baptized, truly repenting of sin (born of water of repentence, Ezek 36:25ff)) and confessing allegiance to God by the resurrection power that raised Christ Jesus up from the dead, the Holy Spirit (1 Pt 3:21), hence born of the Spirit (Jn 3:3ff=drink my blood).
Having ingested Christ this true belief in Him becomes part of their being, they are radically changed:
KJV 2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
We must also eat Christ’s flesh, that is believe in the teaching about the Person and work of Christ (cp Mt 16:12 where eating bread = believing doctrine).
Believing in another Jesus does not save no matter how fervently one believes:
John 3:18 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Acts 4:12 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
A name in scripture is more than a label, one must believe in God the Son as LORD & Savior, the name of Jesus to be saved.
Romans 10:9-11 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Hence we see it written:
1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
That is why the belief of Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, can’t save them, the Jesus they believe in is not the only begotten Son of the Eternal Father, Saviour of the World.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
LOC, repeating your position doesn’t make it more right
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
Count Chocula:
- Status