Why EVERY True Bible Believer is a Saint, What does the Bible Say?

Middletown Bible Church ^ | 10/10/03 | Middletown Bible Church

[Cvengr]

Thanks for posting the lesson.

[RaceBannon]

No, the topic is not Salvation, the topic is acting like you have been saved.

It is not about how to get to Heaven, it is about how those who have re eived God's Free Gift should act if they have received the fre gift, it is not about how to get the free gift.

Do you see the difference?

It is about behaviour, not Grace.

[Conservative til I die]

It makes you look up the answer so you learn what the Bible actually says on something.

I'd rather just read the Bible and understand what's going on as a whole than flip around just so I can fill in the blank.

[RaceBannon]

I understand that, but, it is a good exercise to look up the answers, it makes you think one step at a time, it also causes the new Bible to be broken in a little faster, you have to turn to more pages and books than a straight read thru! :)

[redgolum]

True at first. Luther's view of the book of James changed as he got older. He also didn't like Ecclasties (sp) that much, but realized it was a valible book.

I think the statement that "this passage has nothing to do with salvation" refers to the old Salvation vs Justification debate. The RCC see it as one act, many non RC denominiations see it as "Since we have faith, we will do good works to express that faith". Read the Joint Declaration of Faith.

This was one of the major issues in the Reformation. Unfortunatly it really becomes a matter of sematics. Both the Lutherans and RC's teach if you have faith, you will do works. If you don't do works, you don't really have faith.

[xzins]

I'm not sure it's a significant issue.

Sounds like a shouting contest over how people choose to use a certain word.

Regular saint or super saint......that's the issue, isn't it?

Saint Paul was a particularly annointed saint. Xzins, otoh, is just a normal garden variety saint.

[dangus]

>> No, the topic is not Salvation, the topic is acting like you have been saved.

You mean to say, "The topic is not how to be saved, but how to live as you have been saved." I would also argue that it covers "how to know that you have been saved," but let's not quibble.

My point -- and I think you're arguing a different point than I mean to argue -- is this:
Say a student knows little about Christianity. That student is searching for the answer to "What must I do to be saved." He is directed to James 2:14-17. He reads that passage which asks whether faith can save him. The apparent answer is "no, it cannot."

Question: Can his faith [alone] save him? (James 2:14)
Answer: Faith, if it is without works, is dead. (James 2:17)

We see in James 2:15-16 that it is works which accomplish charity, not faith. But when we turn to Romans, we understand that faith produces the works, and when we turn to Peter (2 Peter?) we learn that without faith behind the works, the works are fruitless and are destroyed.

My point is that reading scripture in isolation to answer set questions is a pedagogical technique which can be misused.

[redgolum]

So are you implying that the Bible is not the authoritive standard? Or that in times past many people had not the means to access the Bible and had to rely on others?

[dangus]

If I may presume to speak for him, the point is this:

"Tradition" is not a substitute for the scripture; it is how the scripture is understood. Scripture itself is a product of tradition. Protestants have had to deal with unorthodox or new-agey people interpreting the scriptures; many protestants speak about referring to the beliefs of "the community of believers" as a way of properly understanding the scriptures, in contrast to the interpretation of these modern heretics. That's all the Catholic Church did: look to the beliefs of those who are faithful Christians.

The difference is that Protestants look only to beliefs held in common among people today, and only to those who seperate themsleves from the body of Christ by denying breaking into schism and depriving themselves of receiving Christ in the form of the Eucharist. The Catholic Church looks back 2000 years.

So while Protestants insist that Jesus didn't really mean it when he said, "This is my body... this is my blood," the Catholic Church finds that it had always been held so. Likewise, while Protestants deny purgatory, the Catholic Church finds it has always been held so, as evidenced to this day by tombstones from the very communities in which the disciples dwelt.

[redgolum]

Good response, but as often is the case in such conversations, you painted with to large a brush in some areas. For instance, the statements on Jesus's presence in Holy Communion reflects only part of the non catholic community. Many denominations hold to a fairly RC view of Communion, conservative Lutherans and Anglicans for example.

As for the doctrine of Purgartory, it was not as cut and dried as you imply. There was considerable disagreement among the early church leaders about the nature of purgatory. If I remember right (forgive me if I am wrong, I am at work and don't have my references handy) Augustine himself was unsure. It was not a formalized doctrine till the Council of Trent. While many will say that Trent only clairfied what was already formally believed, it was also a political reaction to the German princes who were deeply involved in the reformaition. Purgatory was one of the doctrines that could be used to fight the Protesting Estates. As I have mentioned before, the Protestant Reformation was more of a political movement than a faithful protest. There is a large amount of blame to both sides.

As far as the "new agey" trend, this IS something that has affected biblical interptation. Unfortunatly it is not only limited to Protestants, just take a look at some of the threads on Free Republic. The stain of gnotisism is affecting all the traditions, both RC's, Prot.'s, E. Orthodox etc. There are extremes on both sides. Didn't I read where some here were complaining that the RCC was not "orthodox" enough? It is both sad and a bit amusing that the debates in Roman Catholicism mirror the debates going on in many conservative denominations. How do we hold true to teaching? What is the role of layity in the chruch? What is the posisition on XYZ?

Tradition does hold a place in Protestant denominations. The difference is it is not held up as the final authority as often as in the Roman Catholic side.

We all need to be aware first of our similarities in our Christain beliefs. Then deal with the differences.

Well, this post got way to long. I am going to go have lunch. By the way dangus, I do enjoy these conversations. :)

[Quester]

What kind of incompetent leader would Jesus have to have been to make the sole rule of faith something that 99% of people could not read, let alone afford to hold in their hands for about seventeen hundred years after His death?

Jesus made believing in His teachings the sole rule of faith.

Where better (in this time in which we live) to unquestionably and uncategorically receive His teachings other than in the writings of those who were personally taught by Him ?

What was the purpose of the canonization of the writings of the New Testament ?

[Quester]

Do you ever wonder why Jesus did not write a single word for us?

He had the Apostles do it for Him.

And why did he leave us without our sole rule of faith for 300 years?

He didn't ... the church had the Apostles and their disciples.

And why doesn't our sole rule of faith say that it is our sole rule of faith?

It is manifestly evident in that that it contains the very words of Christ.

Also, Jesus, Himself, appealed to the scriptures, rather than to any established authority, to support his teachings.

Jesus did not leave us orphans for 300 years. He gave us Peter and his successors.

No He did not, ... but it is not recorded in the scriptures that He left an ongoing Apostleship.

When Jesus told his apostles to go out and forgive men's sins, and that He would hold them bound in heaven if they held them bound on earth, to whom did he speak?

To the Apostles.

If I confess my sins to you, and you hold them bound, will He bind them in heaven?

You'd best hope not.

If not, then why not? Are you different from the Apostles?

My calling is different from theirs.

And if this was only something for the apostles to do, then why leave us as orphans after the apostles died?

The church has never been orphaned. The church has always had godly leadership which faithfully proclaimed Jesus' gospel of forgiveness.

If we are to simply confess our sins directly to Jesus, on our own, in secret, and without consequence, then why did our Lord tell his Apostles to go out and hear people's confessions? Was this all some huge cosmic practical joke?

Jesus didn't tell His Apostles to go out and hear people's confessions. Jesus sent His Apostles out to teach all mankind what He had taught.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Such teaching would include the message of the gospel and God's gift of forgiveness of sins to those who confess, repent, and believe.

Luke 11:1 And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.

2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

3 Give us day by day our daily bread.

4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

Jesus taught His disciples to pray to God for forgiveness of their sins.

And so the Apostles did ... and so the Apostles taught ... and so the Apostles wrote.

And so have done the many who have succeeded them in the ministry of the proclamation of the gospel of Christ.

[Quester]

OK. If you are gong to lie, obfuscate and avoid those scriptures that do not suit your heretical case, then I am finished with you. I do not argue with those who subjugate their reason to whim. Nor do I allow those who spread false doctrine into my home.

Adios.

Is this your typical response to being confronted with the scriptures ?

Your response is similar to that of Caiphas, the High Priest who tore his robes when Jesus declared to him that He was the Son of God, ... and then went on to send Jesus to His death.