The Doctrine of Repentance

[Morkeliph]

First off, this is not a thread about the argument between Christianity and the rest of the world. This IS a thread about is the opposing Christian interpretations on the doctrine of repentance. Who I'm really looking for to participate in this discussion is the collection of religious people we actually have on these boards, like ProtossChick, etc. That being said, ALL are invited to participate, but please stay on topic and be respectful of others' choice of lifestyle and belief system.

Christianity, in the truth of it, can not realistically be viewed as one religion. There are thousands of different affliations within the realm of Christendom, each with their own interpretation of "Christian doctrine." There are Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, Mormons, Anglicans, etc., each sporting a different take on the various doctrines of Christ. What I want to discuss here is the doctrine of repentance. You need not tell us what your technical affiliation is (I don't care if you're Catholic or whatever), but what do you believe repentance is all about?

They way I understand it, repentance is a few things (correct me if you think I'm wrong):

Necessary for salvation
A principle of action
A change in behavior
First, according to the Bible, Christ taught that except a man repent, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That seems pretty straight forward to me. Why then do some groups assert that all you have to do is believe in Christ to be saved? Is belief really enough? What about repentance?

Second, it takes action to repent. Once again, this conflicts with the "by grace alone you are saved" model. The Bible also teaches, however, that "faith without works is dead" and that faith is shown via one's works. Therefore, repentance, which means "a change of heart," is a principle of action, or faith if you will, in which someone purposefully changes their heart.

Finally, how do you know when someone has repented? Well, it's the same way you know anything about anyone, by observing their behavior. I believe the Bible also talks of knowing that a man has repented when he "confesses and forsakes his sins." Confessing and forsaking are both actions, and the observed effect is a change in behavior. The penitent pornography addict no longer views pornography, the repented thief no logner steals things, and the forgiven homosexual no longer acts on his attraction towards men.

This is my understanding of repentance, but not all of Christendom agrees with my interpretation. As I mentioned earlier, some assert that all you have to do is believe and accept Jesus to be saved. I'm curious on what you're takes are on repentance. Even if you're not religious, if you were to explain repentance, how would you explain it?

[FallenLord]

Basic Christian Doctrine:
God is perfectly holy, righteous and just. He cannot tolerate disobedience to his Law, aka sin. (Note that temporal tolerance is not the same as eternal tolerance.) The penalty for sin is death, but there are many other consequences. (Shit happens, life sucks.) Enter hell: eternal separation from God.
God is perfectly loving. Despite the fact that sinners hate God and are enemies of God, he still loves them and wants them to be with him for eternity in heaven. He hates the sin, but loves the person.
Thanks to Adam, all humans are born into a fallen, sinful condition. We are incapable of perfectly following God's Law. We are not even remotely close to capable. We, in fact, sin incessantly. God can't tolerate our sin.
Because God is both simultaneously just and loving, he sent his Son to take our sin and be sin for us. Jesus lived a perfect life, according to God's Law. On the cross, he assumed all the worlds' sin and paid the penalty for it. This fulfills God's just nature: All sin has been paid for through Jesus. This gets us off the hook, as we no longer have to be worried that God will hold our sins against us.
(Note that were God only just, he wouldn't have sent his Son to pay for our sins. Note that if God were only loving, there would be no such thing as 'sin.')
Now that Jesus has done all the salvation sin-paying work for us, God sends his Holy Spirit to create faith in us through Baptism and the hearing of the Word. This faith gives us the ability to believe that Jesus is Lord, that he paid for our sins, and that God has forgiven us. However, we have the ability to reject this faith and God's gift of salvation and forgiveness.
Thus, God does all the work. Jesus died for our sins and the Holy Spirit creates saving faith in us. People do not "seek God out," he seeks them out.Repentance and behavioral adjustment (known as sanctification) are resultant products of the faith created in us by the Holy Spirit through Baptism and hearing the Word.

You cannot have repentance without faith/belief, it's non sequitor. Apart from God, we are dead in sin, enemies of God, incapable of doing anything to help ourselves. Faith/belief through the Holy Spirit comes first, sanctification is a byproduct. (Along with repentance, a part of sanctification.)

Repentance/sanctification are a continuous act, they are not a one time deal. Christians still sin just as much as everyone else. Paul talks of his constant battle with the old Adam (sinful human condition). That is why, at church, we use the "confession and forgiveness," to remind us that God does not see our sins, he sees Christ's perfection.

Once again, this conflicts with the "by grace alone you are saved" model.Grace alone, Word alone, faith alone. God's grace compelled him to send Jesus and create the option of salvation. Hearing the Word creates faith, which gives us full access to salvation.

Finally, how do you know when someone has repented?We are not called to judge whether our neighbor is repentant; only God can know the heart.

...

Many Christian denominations (the term won't bite you) stress man's participation in the work salvation or stress or that we have an end of the bargain to hold up once we're saved through faith. No.

Sanctification (includes repentance) and Christian growth are works of the Holy Spirit, they are byproducts of His influence in one's life. They are not requirements, they are responses. Most Christians are still infants in the faith, completely immature. They still want to hang onto the sinful behaviors of the old Adam, they resist the work of the Holy Spirit who wants to free them from sin. (Heck, I'm an immature Christian.) Even though we keep sinning, we go to church every week regularly and confess our sins to God and ask for forgiveness, which God freely gives. This is a formality and reminder for us; God has already forgiven our sins - even the ones we keep committing over and over and over - but we are forgetful and need to be reminded. (I do, at least.) Being a sinful person doesn't make you not a Christian, or even a "bad" Christian.

To the best of my ability, that's the Lutheran (i.e. Book of Concord) approach.

[Morkeliph]

Grace alone, Word alone, faith alone. God's grace compelled him to send Jesus and create the option of salvation. Hearing the Word creates faith, which gives us full access to salvation[...]Sanctification (includes repentance) and Christian growth are works of the Holy Spirit, they are byproducts of His influence in one's life. They are not requirements, they are responses.Thanks for your explanation FallenLord. Your explanation provides a good example of where my interpretation disagrees with that of other Christian sects. Many assert, as you have exemplified, that salvation comes through grace and faith alone. Where this gets confusing is the many references in the Bible the refer to the "baptism of repentance *for* the remission of sins." This would imply that baptism and repentance are both requirements for the remission, or forgiveness, of sins. There are additional references, such as Christ chastizing the Pharisees and proclaiming, "except you repent, ye shall all likewise perish." Finally, on the doctrine of Faith, there are various interpretations. The way I see it is faith itself is a principle of action. Faith doesn't exist unless it is demonstrated through behavior. Consider: "now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the *evidence* of things not seen" and: "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 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. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." I apologize the the second quote is so long, but I think it illustrates my point. So the question still remains, are works important, or are we saved just for believing? Does man have a responsibility in his own salvation of does God do all the work for him? And if God does all the work for him them why doesn't he just save all men now instead of making them endure their mortal lives? From my perspective, if we are going to assume that any of this is relevant in the first place, it sounds like man *does* have responsibility to do something, and one of those things is repent, or bring his behavior in line with God's will. Let's open this up to more discussion. Even if you're not religious, think for a moment within the Christian paradigm and give us you're understanding of the requirements for salvation. If you believed in God, what do you think he would require to be readmitted into his presence? I think it's an interesting topic, even if you aren't Christian.

[FallenLord]

Christian sectsIt won’t kill you to say denomination.

The problem is in how “repentance” is defined/understood..

Example. Assume there is a girl you really like and accordingly you have sex with her. However, the Holy Spirit and the Law convict you of your sin. In the divine service, you confess your sin and ask for forgiveness (perhaps you even went to a private confession). Of course, Christ has already paid for your sin. At any rate you don’t have sex with her any more; thus you have repented from the sin of fornication. Unfortunately, you still really like her. Enter lust. So, you get convicted again, confess and are forgiven. But lust is a tricky vice, and it keeps coming back. Sure, you may confess and be forgiven, but if you were really repentant, you’d have stopped lusting, right? Well, maybe. Anyhow, let’s say that through spiritual growth and the prodding of the Holy Spirit, you are able to overcome your lust. (Or perhaps you married her.) That takes care of that sin. But that’s about as significant as trying to erase all real numbers one at a time.

“If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” -1 John 1:8

No matter how mature a Christian you are, no matter how much you let the Holy Spirit take control, you will always be a sinful human being. Sanctification is a process completed when we die, it is not a goal for this life. And the vast, vast, majority of Christians will never be mature enough to even stop “simple” sins like lust. In fact, mature Christians simply tend to be more aware of their other sins rather than proud of the sins they don’t commit. (Paul calls himself ‘chief of all sinners.’) This is why the Christian faith is so comforting; God loves and forgives us in spite of our stubbornness and resistance to his will.

Twisting repentance into a work necessary for salvation “now that you are saved, you must follow the Law” is in direct contradiction to the Gospel. Paul tells us that we are no longer under the Law, we are free of it.

Finally, on the doctrine of Faith, there are various interpretations. The way I see it is faith itself is a principle of action. Faith doesn't exist unless it is demonstrated through behavior. ... So the question still remains, are works important, or are we saved just for believing?Works are the fruits of faith; faith produces works. They go together. Christians do produce “good fruit.” How much will be dependent on the individual. In any case it is dangerous to attempt to judge whether a person has faith; leave that to God.

And if God does all the work for him them why doesn't he just save all men now instead of making them endure their mortal lives?The question “if x, why doesn’t God just end the world now?” uses non sequitor logic.

[Morkeliph]

It won’t kill you to say denomination.Where do you get the idea that I refuse to use the word denomination? Could it be possible that sect and denomination portray the same meaning and sect is actually the word I chose to use?

You speak of repentance as though we are disagreed that it is an ongoing process. Repentance, as defined as behavioral change, never stops. Hence, if you fornicate with a girl and don't do it again, it may be said that you are repenting. As I define it, repentance is changing one's actions (and this includes "thoughts" and "desires") to be in accord with God's will. More accurately, repentance may be defined as "progression," in that via the process of repentance we become more God-like. You seem to call this sanctification, which is fine, but imply that it is unessential God's plan.

Speaking of which, this is where I believe most of the Christian denominations disagree: what exactly is God's plan? Let's consider your previous comment:The question “if x, why doesn’t God just end the world now?” uses non sequitor logic.I questioned, if man is already saved by grace, and as long as he accepts Christ he is saved despite his works, then why doesn't God take all the faithful as soon as they are saved rather than forcing them to endure mortality? You argue that this does not follow from previous statements, but perhaps that is because of how you choose to view the circumstances. Think about it this way: If God's plan were that all you had to do was 50 push-ups and you would be saved eternally in his kingdom, then wouldn't it make logical sense that as soon as someone fulfilled the requirement to just straight-up admit them to Heaven? Instead, after you do 50 push-ups, God keeps you waiting around, what would appear like no apparent reason. The argument of sanctifiation is like saying, "well, he keeps you around so you can learn to do more push-ups and maybe a few jumping jacks and sit-ups while you're at it, but even if you don't learn to do all these it doesn't matter because you're saved already nonetheless.

If you want a second vein into what I'm going to propose, consider this:Twisting repentance into a work necessary for salvation “now that you are saved, you must follow the Law” is in direct contradiction to the Gospel. Paul tells us that we are no longer under the Law, we are free of it.I believe if you read carefully you will find that the "Law" Paul was referring to was the Law of Moses, which constitutes the varies rites of animal sacrifice, passovers, and cleansing rituals that were followed up until the time of Christ. In the New Testament, also sometimes translated as the "New Covenant" Christ taugh a new law that was meant to fulfill, or replace the Law of Moses. Consider Matthew 5-7 especially, but the Gospels as a whole, for examples of Christ stating where the old law ends and the new law begins. Nonetheless, the principle is that man isn't free from following the law altogether, but that the rules were changed. Christ's law emphasizes the concept of grace, essentially meaning that God is willing to make up for where we are lacking. However, does this mean that we are now free from all responsibility, as long as we believe? The previously quoted scripture in James is just one example of where Christian doctrine denounces this ideology. In essence then, that statement of "now that you are saved, you must follow the Law" is a misrepresentation. Rather, "inasmuch as you follow the New Law as far as you are able, God will make up for where you were inadequate." For instance:"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

It would appear then that salvation, or at least the remission of sins, is contingent upon repentance, or doing the word. Christian doctrine also reports that no man can save himself, but that he must rely on God to do what he cannot. This is grace. Perhaps why Paul emphasizes repeatedly that you are not saved by works but by grace is because without grace, your works would amount to nothing. In other words, because of sinfulness, no man, no matter what he did, can ever save himself. However, God is willing to make up the difference, ignoring the fact that we are still unqualified, if we adhere to his request. Hence, it is always by grace we are saved, even when we commit all sorts of good works, because if God weren'y willing to forgive, then everyone would be condemned to damnation. However, God's grace is still contigent upon repentance and faith. Faith meaning that one's belief in God drives him towards action. (Faith without works is dead). Repentance then being that action towards which man must be driven. Thus, believing alone will not grant a man access to God's grace, but believing enough that you act upon it by sincerely attempting to bring you life into harmony with God's will (though you will still fall short), that does qualify a man for forgiveness. Otherwise, as long as I believed in the saving power of Christ, I could steal, fornicate, adulturate, lie, and even murder, but it wouldn't matter because Christ paid for these sins and I'll be save nonetheless than the righteous and penitent. This would be a case of mercy robbing justice. BTW, Christ did pay for our sins in the sense the he endured the punishment for us, if we repent, which is where grace is made possible.

So why does God keep us here even after we believe? Well, the answer is to repent. Repentance, as a process of behavioral change, is also a process of growth and development. The more we repent, the stronger we become, and the more like God we become. It makes more sense if you look at mortal life as maintaining some form of purpose. If belief in Christ were the only requirement for "salvation," then this life as it is makes very little sense. However, if life is meant to provide opportunities to grow and develop, then it makes sense why God would want us to be here as long as we are. Consider first a commandment Christ gave:Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.Now, if you believe that man is inherently imperfect, and cannot in this life be perfect, why would Christ give this commandment. It would be one thing if he said, "One day you will be perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect," but he didn't, he commanded "Be perfect." Would God give a commandment that he knew we couldn't fulfill? Would that be just or cruel? Obviously, if you believe in Christian doctrine, Christ intended us to fulfill this law. But how? Well, repentance may be viewed as the process of progressing towards perfection. Life's purpose then becomes a little more clear, and the role of repentance more apparent. All men are guilty of sin (we don't begin perfect), thus in need of repentance (we have to learn how to be perfect), which qualifies us for the grace of God (we cannot attain perfection without help), and enables us to live with God (we are now perfect like he is).

That, at least, is how I understand Christian doctrine, and is one of the reasons why I'm so fascinated by it. Of course, not all Christians view it this way, as you have provided an amazing example of FallenLord, but IMO this is what it is all about.

[GenocideAlive]

Why do these quotes disagree? (paraphrased)
It may be worthwhile for you to spend time dating the content of the Bible. Portions of the Bible used phrases or dated lingo that shows that it was added on to the Bible later by anonymous authors. Oftentimes the information that they added either directly conflicts or partially conflicts with other phrases in the Bible--either out of their ignorance or for purposes of covering their bases by taking away with one hand what they give with the other.

Oftentimes these addendums are self-explanatory in the (flawed) process of fabricating the Bible for the ignorant masses.

[frazz]

Portions of the Bible used phrases or dated lingo that shows that it was added on to the Bible later by anonymous authors.
It's called translating. Unless you chose to learn both greek, hebrew, and aramaic in order to gaina complete understanding of the Bible in its original form.
Oftentimes the information that they added either directly conflicts or partially conflicts with other phrases in the Bible--either out of their ignorance or for purposes of covering their bases by taking away with one hand what they give with the other.
Examples please.
Though before you give examples I would like to say that usually that sort of stuff is taken out of contex. People pick out one phrase while ignoring the directly surrounding verses.
So yeah, examples.
Oftentimes these addendums are self-explanatory in the (flawed) process of fabricating the Bible for the ignorant masses.
Fabricating. So you're saying that some time after Christ's death, someone made up the whole Bible?

[Morkeliph]

Fabricating. So you're saying that some time after Christ's death, someone made up the whole Bible?I think what he's saying is that they changed what had been written by others, and yes, even added somethings. Those monks who translated and transcribed the Bible weren't perfect either, and it is fairly well accepted by many historians that the Bible was changed here and there through the various translations that it underwent.

[GenocideAlive]

It's called translating. Unless you chose to learn both greek, hebrew, and aramaic in order to gaina complete understanding of the Bible in its original form.
You clearly have no idea as to what you're talking about as your next paragraph clearly illustrates. These comments don't belong in the IR.
Examples please. Though before you give examples I would like to say that usually that sort of stuff is taken out of contex. People pick out one phrase while ignoring the directly surrounding verses.
The book of Ecclesiastes:
5:15 Naked a man comes from his mother's womb, and as he comes, so he departs. He takes nothing from his labor that he can carry in his hand.

5:26 Moreover, when God gives any man wealth and possessions, and enables him to enjoy them, to accept his lot and to be happy in his work, this is a gift from God.

2:22-23, What does a man get for all his toil and anxious striving with which he labours under the sun? All his days his work is pain and grief; even at night his mind cannot rest. This too is meaningless.

2:24 A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work.

See if you can't find the original passages and the statements later added to soften the context of the book.

And then the epilogue, which is summarily tacked on to the end of the book yet strangely detached from the whole. You're only fooling yourself, if that.
Fabricating. So you're saying that some time after Christ's death, someone made up the whole Bible?
Quote me saying that "someone made up the whole Bible" either in whole or in part. Otherwise, stop taking my writing out of context to hide your shitty arguments and lack of information.

[JudasCloud]

See if you can't find the original passages and the statements later added to soften the context of the book.

And then the epilogue, which is summarily tacked on to the end of the book yet strangely detached from the whole. You're only fooling yourself, if that.



You are simply begging the question. You've assumed that because some verses appear to contradict others, they must have been added later. Yet you offer no proof for this conclusion. Maybe Solomon isn't a good writer? Maybe the verses aren't contradictory, but require one to look at the book as a whole, perhaps even the entire canon of Scripture to gain an understanding of them?

If you had given us proof that an earlier manuscript didn't contain certain "softer" verses that later manuscripts did, and you gave us links to websites or cited available books, than you might have shown yourself to be somewhat of a scholar. But as it is, you've given nothing but heresay and unsubstantiated opinion, and you've shown yourself to be nothing but immature, rude, arrogant and an abuser of elementary school fallacies.

Solomon has a proverb for the likes of you:

"A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion" Proverbs 18:2


Otherwise, stop taking my writing out of context to hide your shitty arguments and lack of information.

I find it amusing that you take verses of Solomon's good book out of context, and then complain that your posts are given the same treatment. And as far as "shitty" (great adjective, btw) arguments go - you have proven yourself the master.

[Morkeliph]

In GenAl's defense, notice how even the various translations of the Bible existent today have different words and meanings.

"A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion" Proverbs 18:2A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself. Proverbs 18:2

The second quote was taken from here: http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=2453471

[Hikari256]

It may be worthwhile for you to spend time dating the content of the Bible. Portions of the Bible used phrases or dated lingo that shows that it was added on to the Bible later by anonymous authors. Oftentimes the information that they added either directly conflicts or partially conflicts with other phrases in the Bible--either out of their ignorance or for purposes of covering their bases by taking away with one hand what they give with the other.

Oftentimes these addendums are self-explanatory in the (flawed) process of fabricating the Bible for the ignorant masses.

Sources please.


The book of Ecclesiastes:
5:15 Naked a man comes from his mother's womb, and as he comes, so he departs. He takes nothing from his labor that he can carry in his hand.

5:26 Moreover, when God gives any man wealth and possessions, and enables him to enjoy them, to accept his lot and to be happy in his work, this is a gift from God.

2:22-23, What does a man get for all his toil and anxious striving with which he labours under the sun? All his days his work is pain and grief; even at night his mind cannot rest. This too is meaningless.

2:24 A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work.


Yawn. Took those off of SAB, i'm guessing. What's the point you are trying to make? The first passage is just saying "you can't take it with you affter you die". Tye next says to "enjoy life." gee whiz, what's the problem? Passage three points out that life's a B**** and then you die. Passage four tells people to just enjoy what they can in life. Again, so what?


See if you can't find the original passages and the statements later added to soften the context of the book.

And then the epilogue, which is summarily tacked on to the end of the book yet strangely detached from the whole. You're only fooling yourself, if that.


Ecclesiastes, in case you didn;t get the point, is a work the explores the concept fo futility, and comments on how futile pursuit of various things in life are, The conclusion, and the verses you cite go, is to just enjoy the simple things in life, and not chase after vanity.

[FallenLord]

Unless I am incorrect, you are trying to separate faith/belief and response/works/action. The two are united, they go together.

"Faith -> salvation" because faith is accompanied by repentance/works, the two go together. We do not say "faith + works -> salvation," however, because the emphasis is wrong and it's redundant. Repentance is not critical issue. Faith comes first; without it, we are dead in sin. You cannot repent unless you already have faith, and faith (by definition) results in repentance.

The problem is when an emphasis on sanctification (repentance) is applied to the real world, it fails. First, it's like knowledge: The more you know, the more you know don't know - all of the mature "sanctified" Christians I know are extremely humble people with an immense recognition that they are miserable sinners. They need to hear the comforting message of the Gospel, not beat themselves up more trying to follow the Law.

Second, it places the emphasis on us. Sanctification is a process directed by the Holy Spirit. Christians should not concentrate on living a good, moral life. They should concern themselves with studying the Word, where the Holy Spirit works and grows faith. Good works and repentance will naturally follow. Focusing on the end and not the means is dangerous, and can lead to things like pride and legalism and pietism. The focus should always be on Christ and what he has done. IMO, any Christian who thinks he is somehow making sanctification progress needs his pastor to deliver some old school Law-based beatdown. Followed up by the joy of the Gospel, of course. :)

...

Another absolutely critical point is assurance of salvation. Really, that is what Christianity is all about. The Gospel assumes that a person is aware of their sinful, worthless condition and their absolute incapacity to help themselves. If they aren't aware of that or think they can participate in salvation somehow, they need to be hit with more Law. The Law, of course, causes despair; God wants us to rely totally on him. That's the entire point right there, Christianity assures salvation because God has done it all. When Christ died, he said "It is finished." And it is.

Accordingly, emphasis on repentance or sanctification or any other kind of "measuring stick" detracts heavily from this assurance of salvation. God does not want us to worry about whether or not we have repented from enough sins or "responded" with enough good works. These are issues which flow from the influence of the Holy Spirit in a Christian's life. They are byproducts of faith, not requirements for salvation.

...

I take issue with any kind of logic derived from "why does God keep us here." It's like the claiming that the war in Iraq is bad because our soldiers die; that is an argument against all war, not against any specific war. Luther's exposition on vocation is really nice: We're here to do what we're here to do. Doctors practice medicine, parents raise children, soldiers execute authority, teachers teach, evangelists preach, scientists research, engineers build, pastors shepherd, Christians spread the Word. Etc. Not all people are gifted in the same way.

Where do you get the idea that I refuse to use the word denomination? Could it be possible that sect and denomination portray the same meaning and sect is actually the word I chose to use?No offense was intended. However, denomination is the more accurate word in any case.

The Law:
There are three basic "sections" of the Law:
Moral law. (Ten Commandments.)
Sacrificial/lifestyle/ritual/etc. law.
Talmud. The Jews created this after their return from the Babylonian Captivity as a buffer to guard them against breaking the rest of the law. Unfortunately, by the time of Christ, the Jews had elevated the Talmud to the status of God's law. Note that whenever Jesus argued with the Pharisees, it was always over the Talmud.Christ fulfilled all of the Law for us, including the sacrificial/ritual law. "I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it."

Otherwise, as long as I believed in the saving power of Christ, I could steal, fornicate, adulturate, lie, and even murder, but it wouldn't matter because Christ paid for these sins and I'll be save nonetheless than the righteous and penitentThat's called "cheap grace." Perhaps if one is that resistant to the Holy Spirit, they are on the verge of flat out rejecting him entirely. But again, we are not called to judge our neighbors' faith or lackthereof.

Would God give a commandment that he knew we couldn't fulfill?So that we need him. God wants us to trust and rely on him for everything. Also, Jesus preached a lot of Law. Many Jews were patting themselves on the back because they followed the Talmud but ignored the spirit of the moral law. In fact, a lot of people completely misinterpret Christianity because they don't understand the difference between Law and Gospel and the purpose of each. The Law convicts us of our sin. The Gospel gives us access to salvation, but is meaningless without the Law.

notice how even the various translations of the Bible existent today have different words and meanings.Thought for thought, not necessarily word for word.

...

Genocide, if you have nothing better to do than derail threads beyond your comprehension with poorly constructed anti-Christian diatribe, more power to you. :tup:

[GenocideAlive]

I find it amusing that you take verses of Solomon's good book out of context, and then complain that your posts are given the same treatment. And as far as "shitty" (great adjective, btw) arguments go - you have proven yourself the master.
Conversely, _I_ find it amusing that some dickbreath with access to the Internet can't even look for himself before throwing around words such as "fool" "shitty" and other such laughable insults.
In the two opening chapters the author describes himself as the son of David, and king over Israel in Jerusalem, presenting himself as a philosopher at the center of a brilliant court. This could apply only to king Solomon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon), for his successors in Jerusalem were kings over Judah only. Consequently, the traditional Rabbinic and early Christian view attributed Ecclesiastes to king Solomon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon). This view has been abandoned by many modern scholars, who now assume that Qoheleth is a work in the pseudepigraphical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigraphy) tradition that borrowed weight for a new work by putting it in the mouth of a well-known sage. The modern view is that Ecclesiastes250 BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/250_BC) by a non-Hellenized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenized) intellectual in the milieu of the Temple in Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple). The latest possible date for it is set by the fact that Ben Sirach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Sirach) (written cca 180 BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/180_BC)) repeatedly quotes or paraphrases it, as from a canonic rather than a contemporary writing.
Now if you really want to look smart, scroll down that entry and read up on the cited books yourself. I'm not going to spend 30 minutes writing out sources for you to just ignore them. Either educate yourself or close your mouth.

In the meantime, sit down and shut up when your elders are speaking, son. Maybe you'll learn something. Probably not.

[Protosschick99]

Repentance. That's a simple one really. :)

I'll use myself as an example.

Let's see....What have I done in the past....?

Oh, I'll use this: I wasn't a good steward with the resources God had given me. I spent my money on foolish things like eating out, movies, junk I won't use--And for what? I ended up learning a hard lesson--Because of my spending habits and not saving enough, I suffered the consequences (Overdrawn account, more and more bills, etc etc)

Well, it took me a while to realize--"Gracie--You need a plan to control your money wisely."

So I repented and asked the Lord to forgive me of not being a good steward of my finances. It sucked because I'd write checks for my tithe and offering, and they'd bounce because I wasn't watching how much money I had in my account >.<

Anywayz--I asked the Lord to forgive me, and that I wouldn't do that again. And I haven't :) I've been doing soo much better with my money. You can see it in my actions. Because I know, in the natural, I just can't do it on my own.

I've even gone further as to ask the Lord and declare in Jesus Name that my bills are paid in full and that my finances will be debt free. God has honored that since I have repented and I no longer act foolish with my money and money is rolling in for me now and bills are being downsized for me! :)

Of course--When you repent, there will come temptations along the way. No doubt about it--But when you keep yourself in the Word continually, and you renew your mind with the Word of God, and you keep ppl around you who will encourage you daily, it helps--And it'll get easier and easier to overcome those temptations.

Pretty soon it won't even be a challenge. What use to trip you up--Trips you up no longer! :D

[frazz]

Honestly.

Wikipedia.



I'm not a regular here, but I'm guessing genocide is the forum troll?
You pretty much hit the nail on the head. But GA is probably the easiest one to figure out. Welcome to WB btw.
<><><><><><>
Anyway... Wow PC, that's pretty cool. I feel like my testimony is underpowered and insignificant.
Conversely, _I_ find it amusing that some dickbreath with access to the Internet can't even look for himself before throwing around words such as "fool" "sh****" and other such laughable insults.
And yet you only make a personal attack rather than rebutting the opponent's arguments. And your comments in Ecclesiasties, they are basically summed up like this: Ya, life stinks. Just deal with it. Enjoy what you can and don't worry so much about money and material objects. Remember once you dies you won't have any of the treasures(money, video games etc.) you built up on earth.

Whatever site you got that off of isolated the 'life stinks' and the 'enjoy what you can' parts and probably used them to disclaim the Bible.
In GenAl's defense, notice how even the various translations of the Bible existent today have different words and meanings.
"A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion" Proverbs 18:2
A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself. Proverbs 18:2
The verses mean the same thing. They both say a fool never looks from another point of view and is always ignorant without considering other sides and trying to gain a comprehension of the subject he is debating.
*cough* GA *cough*
The first says the fool only wishes to shout his opinion and be happy thinking he is right.
*cough*
The second one says the only thing the fool will learn is what he already knows.
*cou- whatever*
The first is probably an NIV. It's just a simpler way of writing the verses. If you really think about it you will find they both mean the same thing at the core.

[Morkeliph]

Anywayz--I asked the Lord to forgive me, and that I wouldn't do that again. And I haven't :) I've been doing soo much better with my money. You can see it in my actions. Because I know, in the natural, I just can't do it on my own.

Of course--When you repent, there will come temptations along the way. No doubt about it--But when you keep yourself in the Word continually, and you renew your mind with the Word of God, and you keep ppl around you who will encourage you daily, it helps--And it'll get easier and easier to overcome those temptations.Thank you ProtossChick99 for your honesty and sincerity in sharing that with us. I would like to use your story as an example, if I may.

My point thus far has been, it appears that faith, as defined in merely believing in Christ, is a necessary precursor, but not the totality of what qualifies is for salvation. The definition we put on faith is important here. If faith is just "belief in Christ" then we essentially have no responsibility for our actions in the hereafter as long as we believe in Christ. This means that repentance, baptism, sanctification, and all those good things are unessential to our salvation, and the question then arises, "Why bother?" If faith is "*action* driven by a belief in Christ" then the implication is that we have responsibility for our own salvation. Do not suppose that this means we save ourselves. We save ourselves by relying on Christ; by having exercising faith unto repentance. What else does "faith without works is dead" imply? Essentially, faith, without action, is dead, being alone. In other words, it isn't really faith if you're not acting upon it. Who is the judge of this? Well God obviously, and no other, but can the unrepentant murderer live in God's presence? Consider it this way: our character is defined by what we do. Therefore, what we persist in doing defines what we will ultimately become. If we perpetually abuse drugs, then carnal addiction becomes a part of our character. If we become addicted to pornography, we become lustful and sensual. Christ can heal us, purify us, of these spiritual infirmities if we have faith unto repentance. In PC's example, would she be out of financial trouble if she didn't take action otherwise. Prayer and asking for forgiveness were obvious a part of her behavioral change, but without the concious effort of organizing herself, etc., she would be in the same boat she was in previously. Now, did Christ help her to make the change? Sure. But could Christ help her if she didn't do anything herself? Not a chance. Mercy cannot rob justice, and characters do not change unless actions change.

The essential idea here is this, you reap what you sow. Sowing, obviously, is your action, your behavior. Are you going to be a different person in the hereafter than you were in this life? Think about it; by Christian doctrine, the same spirit the possesses your body in this life will exist in the hereafter, and if that spirit has become a tainted, lustful, murderous spirit, it will remain so and cannot be admitted into the presence of God. Christ's sacrifice is for Forgiveness, for someone to pay the price for sin, or bear the punishment, In otherwords, Christ paid the blood debt, bore our stripes, was punished vicariously for us, so that if we repent, we do not have to be punished. Additionally, he is willing to help us with the repentance process, while in this life, but he cannot do it for us. We choose our destination, and God will not take that choice away from us.

[GenocideAlive]

For instance, one rat I work with is trained to press a lever, then put his paws in an ink pad, and finally wipe his hands on a small piece of canvas hanging on the wall of his chamber. To this day, though it is not necessary in order for him to receive reinforcement, his bites the lever and then presses it with his paws. It is similar to the baseball player who has a career making game when wearing his "lucky blue socks." Because the socks accompanied reinforcement in the past the baseball player continues to wear them, but in reality they did not produce the reinforcement.
I spent my money on foolish things like eating out, movies, junk I won't use--And for what? I ended up learning a hard lesson--Because of my spending habits and not saving enough, I suffered the consequences (Overdrawn account, more and more bills, etc etc)

Well, it took me a while to realize--"Gracie--You need a plan to control your money wisely."

Anywayz--I asked the Lord to forgive me, and that I wouldn't do that again. And I haven't :) I've been doing soo much better with my money. You can see it in my actions. Because I know, in the natural, I just can't do it on my own.
Scary.

[FallenLord]

Morkeliph:

Most of this theology can be refuted by the thief on the cross. He lived a sinful, rebellious life; he agreed that his own crucifixion was just. There was no opportunity for repentance or sanctification. He was saved through faith alone.

If the Law is preached in such a way that we believe we can follow it; if we consciously believe we are becoming sanctified - then the Law is not being preached correctly. The purpose of the Law is to bring us, through despair over our inability, to an absolute reliance on Christ.

Every Christian will have a different positive level of sanctification and repentance that, through the power of the Holy Spirit, they will be able to achieve. Yet no Christian will ever come remotely close or remotely close to remotely close to full repentance of sanctification. As James says, “faith without works is dead.” He does not say, “faith without full works (sanctification/repentance) is dead.” All Christians by definition do good works. All achieve some degree of sanctification and repentance.

…and all those good things are unessential to our salvation, and the question then arises, "Why bother?"This does not miss the boat so much as it misses the ocean. The fact that my car spits out carbon dioxide is irrelevant to its transportation capability, so why bother? CO2 is a byproduct of the chemical reaction; I don’t have a lot of choice in the matter. Similiarly, sanctification and repentance and good fruits are byproducts of saving faith. (Also, baptism, is a ritual of assurance. I objectively know I have the Holy Spirit and faith because I was baptized; it’s not really related to sanctification.)

Think about it; by Christian doctrine, the same spirit the possesses your body in this life will exist in the hereafter, and if that spirit has become a tainted, lustful, murderous spirit, it will remain so and cannot be admitted into the presence of God.The thief on the cross is with God in paradise and, accordingly, free of sin. Sanctification is completed upon the permanent death of the Old Adam. If sanctification/repentance were supposed to be finished before death, none would ever enter God’s presence.

…

many modern scholars, who now assume (Pseudo)credentialism, what would we do without you. Look silly in our attempts to flame threads off track, I guess.

As far as wikipedia:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/12/16

[GenocideAlive]

I've seen that cartoon, and I enjoy it. However, I also understand where it comes from and what it's in regard to, which you apparently don't: Fancruft.

I will agree with you, though, Christianity is equivalent to Fancruft.

[Dark_Magneto]

"Sins" are indispensable to every society organized on an ecclesiastical basis; they are the only reliable weapons of power; the priest lives upon sins; it is necessary to him that there be "sinning".

Christianity has done its utmost to close the circle and declared even doubt to be sin. One is supposed to be cast into belief without reason, by a miracle, and from then on to swim in it as in the brightest and least ambiguous of elements: even a glance towards land, even the thought that one perhaps exists for something else as well as swimming, even the slightest impulse of our amphibious nature -- is sin! And notice that all this means that the foundation of belief and all reflection on its origin is likewise excluded as sinful. What is wanted are blindness and intoxication and an eternal song over the waves in which reason has drowned.

- Friedrich Nietzsche

[FallenLord]

I used to think it was just a coincidence that atheists were simultaneously incapable of understanding basic Christian doctrine and raving conspiracy theorists. Pretty soon I'll be inferring one from the other.

That or Nietzsche's delusions are blessedly off-topic.

I will agree with you, though, Christianity is equivalent to Fancruft.At what point did stuffing your excess bullshit in my mouth seem like a good idea?

[GenocideAlive]

At what point did stuffing your excess bullshit in my mouth seem like a good idea? Oh, I thought by endorsing a fancruft cartoon for purposes of this discussion you were thereby declaring your allegiance to such.

...maybe I didn't think so, but it was a humorous, fortuitious parallel. :)

[FallenLord]

Offhand retorts to your asinine hijacking attempts are for the "purposes of this discussion"?

I get it. The real humor is in your conception of self-importance. You're one damn funny guy, GA. :tup:

[Ender]

I used to think it was just a coincidence that atheists were simultaneously incapable of understanding basic Christian doctrine and raving conspiracy theorists. Pretty soon I'll be inferring one from the other.

That or Nietzsche's delusions are blessedly off-topic.

As are massive and completely incorrect generalizations of a specific group based on said group's religious (or lack there-of) beliefs.

Let's try and bring down the personal attacks, in here. This is an excellent topic and started off well. Get back to it, please.

[Dark_Magneto]

I used to think it was just a coincidence that atheists were simultaneously incapable of understanding basic Christian doctrine ...

This may come as a surprising new development to you, but some people are atheists because they understand the Christian doctrine, and they don't agree with it! Fancy that, eh?

Yeah, I discovered that I wasn't morbid enough for it. The thought of people being comdened eternally for finite transgressions (many of which are ridiculous) and all of humanity being damned, worthless sinners by default that have to suck up to a higher power and ask forgiveness for their very existence never sat quite well with me. I thought Nietzsche pointed this out rather well. But hey, that's just me. Some people get off on that shit. Whatever floats your boat.

[GenocideAlive]

Let's try and bring down the personal attacks, in here. This is an excellent topic and started off well. Get back to it, please.
Well, it was a nice thought, Ender. But anything that smells like religion is going to have FL posting rabidly in it. His blurbs tend to be one-dimensional.

[Ender]

Just letting everyone know that I'm keeping an eye on this thread, and I will start deleting posts that go over the line.