Wondering About Faith (Ephesians 2)

[Spockrates]

I agree that God's love is unconditional. He loves even the worst of sinners. He hates sin but loves sinners.

God's unconditional love is not the same as God's grace. They are two different things. His love is unconditional. His grace is not.

If God's grace were unconditional, then everyone would be saved.

Salvation, however, is conditional!

God sheds His grace on us every day of our lives. Life itself and the very air we breathe is due to God's grace. We do nothing to earn this grace. God gives it freely.

I don't think anyone on this thread has defined God's grace. The only thing I am disagreeing with is that we are saved by grace ALONE.

Jesus laid down certain conditions for salvation. Faith is but one of them. When a person has faith in Jesus, obedience to His will follows.

I am not evangelical or a fundamentalist. I am simply a christian.

I'm happy you have started this thread. You are asking good questions. Thank you for explaining your position.

Oh yes, I know you are not Evangelical or Fundamentalist based on your expressed beliefs. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists would likely say you are sincere, but sincerely wrong and suggest you have denied the fundamentals of the Christian faith. As for me, I think you are onto something. I find your reasoning compelling and likely supported by scripture.



But I wonder if everything you have said is true. I mean, you say God's grace is conditional, but his love is not. Does that mean saving us is certainly not an act of his love?

 

[Spockrates]

Have you read the New Testament? The answers are there and not difficult to understand.

Yes, many times--some books more than others. I've also read the entire Old Testament a few times. My favorite books are Psalms and the Gospel of John. What are yours?

 

[atpollard]

I disagree with you. Here's why.

The thief WAS NOT saved by the gospel of Jesus Christ. He did not have the faith required by the gospel, like we do, which is to believe that Jesus died, was buried and raised from the dead..

Before He died on the cross, Jesus forgave people directly as He chose. Since His death, we must meet the terms of His will to be forgiven.

I am not saying that the thief didn't have faith. I'm saying he didn't have the faith which is required of us in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The thief could not believe in the resurrection of Jesus because it hadn't happened yet.

The truth is that the thief was not saved under the same law and dispensation that we are under. He was still under the Old Testament, not the gospel. That is why the thief was not required to believe what we must believe nor to receive the same baptism that we must receive. The terms of his forgiveness teach us nothing about what we must do to be saved.

Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection are the fundamental facts of the gospel that we must receive, believe, and hold fast in order to be saved. The thief on the cross could not possibly believe Jesus had been raised from the dead, because He had not yet died, let alone been buried and raised.

Romans 10:9 - If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

So, to have the faith required by the gospel, we must believe that God "has raised" Jesus from the dead.

The point is that the thief was saved before the terms of the gospel came into effect. So we cannot use his case to prove one way or the other what people must do today to be saved.

We have two excellent examples of "WHAT WE MUST DO TO BE SAVED" in Acts 2:36-41 and Acts 16:25-34.

A reasonable point.
My analogy, like any analogy, breaks if pushed too hard.

I see the irrefutable core of the Gospel and salvation to be a trust in Jesus.
Anything that removes Jesus from 'Front and Center' creates dangers.

Where I have struggled to wrap my brain around 'TRUTH' is how much is enough.
To give a slightly silly, but useful example ...

There are those (few in number) who place so much emphasis on Baptism that it becomes a Prerequisite for salvation.
And not merely any baptism will do.
You must be baptized by the right people (those with the authority, given by someone who received the authority, from someone who in turn had the authority, to empower the baptizer).
You must be baptized in the correct way ... three times (once in the name of the Father, once in the name of the Son and once in the name of the Spirit).
I forget whether it was three times forward or three times backwards ... but I remember that they claimed it mattered.
Anyone not properly baptized was, in their opinion, not saved.​

... this uses hyperbole to point out a far more legitimate concern for me.

Now much is enough?
Can a death-bed confession of someone dying of C.O.P.D. ... who cannot walk and can barely whisper ... lead to salvation?
Can the Gospel Truth be presented, understood and believed sufficiently to obtain the Grace that Jesus secured (as you said, through his life, death, and resurrection)?
I have trouble imagining someone standing before the Judgement Seat and being disqualified from eternal life for a point of technical ignorance ("sorry, you were sprinkled and salvation requires complete immersion").

My mentor taught me that Living the Christian faith means surrendering everything that you know about you TODAY, to everything that you know about God TODAY.
Tomorrow, you will know a little more about you and a little more about God.
IMHO, the Thief met that prerequisite.

IMHO, damnation (expulsion from the presence of God) comes when you know that God requires something and that you should do it (or shouldn't do it) ... but choose to reject God and do things your way.
Those who want no part of God ... are granted their wish.
Those who want a God other than the one who has revealed himself to them ... are granted their wish.

I could be wrong (it would not be the first time), but that is my current working hypothesis for how 'salvation' works.

 

[Desert Snake]

Hi, Disciple. Would you say there is a difference between the works mentioned in verse 9 and the works of verse 10?

9 ...not by works, so that no one can boast.10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
(Ephesians 2)
​

This is a good question. They actually can have the same meaning here, with no problem. The ''works'' aren't bad, however one cannot boast because of them, and they don't save alone. I think that one could also separate the meanings here, if contextually that would make more sense; I don't think that, either way of interpretation, changes the meaning, considering that we have other verses for comparison, elsewhere.

If no distinction is noted in the text, immediately, I would just read them as having the same meaning; so, no, I would not read them as having different meanings....
This verse is very straightforward, actually; it is directly stating that works don't save.

 

[Desert Snake]

Hello Disciple.

You said,

"The reason it states that one is saved by grace alone is because..."

Where does it state one is saved by grace ALONE in the Scriptures???

Ephesians 2, -9 & 10, the verses presented in the thread.

It is very clear, actually, and in these verses, it even seems to take out any 'saving capacity' at all from works; this is a direct statement, in the Bible. If you think it says something else, elsewhere, in the Bible, then there is a contradiction.
I think you may be mixing up, what Xians 'do', the works, with the principle of a saving aspect; the works are combined with faith, they actually are not entirely separate from faith, yet they are not a saving principle.

 

[Spockrates]

This is a good question. They actually can have the same meaning here, with no problem. The ''works'' aren't bad, however one cannot boast because of them, and they don't save alone. I think that one could also separate the meanings here, if contextually that would make more sense; I don't think that, either way of interpretation, changes the meaning, considering that we have other verses for comparison, elsewhere.

If no distinction is noted in the text, immediately, I would just read them as having the same meaning; so, no, I would not read them as having different meanings....
This verse is very straightforward, actually; it is directly stating that works don't save.

Sounds logical.

As an alternate view, I have spoken to others--Catholics, mostly--who tell me the works of verse 9 are different from the works of verse 10. They said the works of verse 9 are works of the law, as explained in Galatians--examples being circumcision and animal sacrifice. The works of verse 10 are the fruit of the Spirit, without which faith is dead, as James explains.

The former works are not necessary for salvation, they told me. The latter works are. Whether or not their opinion is true, I do not know. But their view is as logical as your own, and as that of Evangelicals and others who disagree with them.

I find it fascinating that such an important text can so easily and reasonably be interpreted in such contradictory ways. If the Bible truly is inspired--and I'm of the opinion that it must be--it seems as though God intended passages like these to be ambiguous. But why? Why make it so easy to get the wrong idea? Why not inspire Paul to choose words that cannot be misinterpreted so easily?

(I'm not expecting an answer or having a crisis of faith. I'm just wondering out loud. So thanks for listening.)

 

[lovemuffin]

So please tell me: Are you saying the Greek word pronounced pistis always means both faith and faithfulness? Or is your true opinion that it sometimes means faith and sometimes means faithfulness but does not always carry both meanings at the same time?

It's not really that clear cut either way. This is the problem of translation, as your example with the Theaetetus illustrates. Most words have multiple shades of meaning and connotation that can be difficult to translate, regardless of the source an destination language. The most useful way of approaching the problem, I think, is to hear a word in its broad connotation and shades of meaning, but also be aware that in different contexts different aspects of its meaning may be emphasized, so that in some contexts "faith" really does mean mostly something like belief, and in others it means something closer to faithfulness, and sometimes you really need to hear both aspects, as well as the aspect of trust.

Sometimes also authors use words in a more technical sense, and it's helpful to be aware of that also, although I don't know that it applies to Paul's use of pistis, but if you (for example) try to understand what he means by "righteousness", especially "God's righteousness" (dikaiosyne tou Theou), you'll find that it appears not only to be polysemic but to have a technical meaning within his framework for thinking about "justification" and the law. Or, if I read Maximus the Confessor (a 7th century ascetic author) he uses "knowledge" almost exclusively to refer to experience in a mystical sense, rather than abstract conceptual thinking. If you don't know that (either because you read it in a commentary or introduction; or because you read all of his works in some depth) you won't make sense of the text. There, it's not a question of translation but the fact that not only are words polysemic, but especially in systematic usage, they might be idiosyncratic and technical.

 

[katiemygirl]

Ephesians 2, -9 & 10, the verses presented in the thread.

It is very clear, actually, and in these verses, it even seems to take out any 'saving capacity' at all from works; this is a direct statement, in the Bible. If you think it says something else, elsewhere, in the Bible, then there is a contradiction.
I think you may be mixing up, what Xians 'do', the works, with the principle of a saving aspect; the works are combined with faith, they actually are not entirely separate from faith, yet they are not a saving principle.

Please show me the word ALONE in the passage. Underline it.

This is nothing more than your conclusion. It's what you have been taught. I am mixing nothing up.

The verse does not say grace ALONE. You are adding to God's word.

If we are saved by grace ALONE, then we have no need to believe, repent, confess Jesus before men or be baptized. We can live any way we choose. Eat, drink and be merry because you're saved no matter what.

Calvinism!! Heresy!!!

If grace ALONE is all that is necessary, then everyone can be saved, unless, of course, you believe in the false doctrine of unconditional election, which says God chooses certain individuals to save and then condemns the rest of humanity to rot in hell eternally.

That is as false as it gets!

 

[katiemygirl]

I see the irrefutable core of the Gospel and salvation to be a trust in Jesus.
Anything that removes Jesus from 'Front and Center' creates dangers.

I would agree with you here. Jesus MUST be front and center. Keep in mind what Jesus said. "Why call me Lord and not do as I say." Luke 6:46. He says the same thing in Matthew 7:21.

Where I have struggled to wrap my brain around 'TRUTH' is how much is enough.
To give a slightly silly, but useful example ...

There are those (few in number) who place so much emphasis on Baptism that it becomes a Prerequisite for salvation.
And not merely any baptism will do.
You must be baptized by the right people (those with the authority, given by someone who received the authority, from someone who in turn had the authority, to empower the baptizer).
You must be baptized in the correct way ... three times (once in the name of the Father, once in the name of the Son and once in the name of the Spirit).
I forget whether it was three times forward or three times backwards ... but I remember that they claimed it mattered.
Anyone not properly baptized was, in their opinion, not saved.​

... this uses hyperbole to point out a far more legitimate concern for me.

Yes some groups place more emphasis on baptism than they should, but why is that? I believe it is to compensate for those who go in the opposite direction and say it's not necessary.

How dare anyone contradict a command straight from the mouth of Jesus? He said, "Go make disciples of all nations baptizing them..." Mt. 28:18-20. He said, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved." Mark 16:16

Now much is enough?
Can a death-bed confession of someone dying of C.O.P.D. ... who cannot walk and can barely whisper ... lead to salvation?
Can the Gospel Truth be presented, understood and believed sufficiently to obtain the Grace that Jesus secured (as you said, through his life, death, and resurrection)?
I have trouble imagining someone standing before the Judgement Seat and being disqualified from eternal life for a point of technical ignorance ("sorry, you were sprinkled and salvation requires complete immersion").

The Bible doesn't address death bed confessions. I hope and pray God saves anyone who calls upon Him, no mattwr when.

As for mode, the word baptize is a transliteration for the Greek word baptizo, which mean immerse. Immersion is a picture of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

Will those who are sprinkled be saved? I hope so, but it's not up to me. I will teach others about immersion because that's what the Bible teaches. Then it's up to the person and to God.

Jesus said, "...in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." He said nothing about 3 times.

My mentor taught me that Living the Christian faith means surrendering everything that you know about you TODAY, to everything that you know about God TODAY.
Tomorrow, you will know a little more about you and a little more about God.
IMHO, the Thief met that prerequisite.

Your mentor spoke well!
The thief did meet the prerequisites for his time, but we do not live under the law of Moses. We are under the gospel of Christ, which has different prerequisites.

IMHO, damnation (expulsion from the presence of God) comes when you know that God requires something and that you should do it (or shouldn't do it) ... but choose to reject God and do things your way.
Those who want no part of God ... are granted their wish.
Those who want a God other than the one who has revealed himself to them ... are granted their wish.

Well said!

I could be wrong (it would not be the first time), but that is my current working hypothesis for how 'salvation' works.

Me too, my friend. We do the best we can. I just try to stick to Scriptures and not opinions of men..

God bless you!

 

[Desert Snake]

Please show me the word ALONE in the passage. Underline it.

This is nothing more than your conclusion. It's what you have been taught. I am mixing nothing up.

The verse does not say grace ALONE. You are adding to God's word.

If we are saved by grace ALONE, then we have no need to believe, repent, confess Jesus before men or be baptized. We can live any way we choose. Eat, drink and be merry because you're saved no matter what.

Calvinism!! Heresy!!!

If grace ALONE is all that is necessary, then everyone can be saved, unless, of course, you believe in the false doctrine of unconditional election, which says God chooses certain individuals to save and then condemns the rest of humanity to rot in hell eternally.

That is as false as it gets!

The verses are quite clear. You seem to be off topic, and i'm not really interested in that.

 

[Spockrates]

It's not really that clear cut either way. This is the problem of translation, as your example with the Theaetetus illustrates. Most words have multiple shades of meaning and connotation that can be difficult to translate, regardless of the source an destination language. The most useful way of approaching the problem, I think, is to hear a word in its broad connotation and shades of meaning, but also be aware that in different contexts different aspects of its meaning may be emphasized, so that in some contexts "faith" really does mean mostly something like belief, and in others it means something closer to faithfulness, and sometimes you really need to hear both aspects, as well as the aspect of trust.

Sometimes also authors use words in a more technical sense, and it's helpful to be aware of that also, although I don't know that it applies to Paul's use of pistis, but if you (for example) try to understand what he means by "righteousness", especially "God's righteousness" (dikaiosyne tou Theou), you'll find that it appears not only to be polysemic but to have a technical meaning within his framework for thinking about "justification" and the law. Or, if I read Maximus the Confessor (a 7th century ascetic author) he uses "knowledge" almost exclusively to refer to experience in a mystical sense, rather than abstract conceptual thinking. If you don't know that (either because you read it in a commentary or introduction; or because you read all of his works in some depth) you won't make sense of the text. There, it's not a question of translation but the fact that not only are words polysemic, but especially in systematic usage, they might be idiosyncratic and technical.

I hear what you are saying and agree. For example the same Greek word translated as faith in Ephesians 2:8 and in 221 other passages in the New Testament is translated as faithful in 4 passages of the NIV translation of the NT.

But isn't there something to be said for those translators who understand better than you or I do how to best translate the word in each context? I mean, if there were several good translations rendering the word as faithful, that would be evidence supporting the premise that the word should be understood as such.

In contrast, the lack of a good translation of verse 2 using the word faithful instead of faith is evidence supporting the premise that the word should be rendered as it is in the English translations. At some point we must put faith in the wisdom and expertise of the translators and say that it is possible they all translated the word incorrectly, but highly improbable.

However if you still have doubts, please consider this: Even in cases where translating the word as faithful would be better for a group of translators, they still choose the word faith, instead! Catholics, for example would likely prefer the word faithful in the given context. For they appear to believe that in order to be saved (v. 8) we must be faithful to the good works God prepared for us to do (v. 10). But a Catholic translation, the New American Bible still uses the word faith rather than faithful.

scripture

But if we still disagree, that's OK with me. As Socrates said:

The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. And the difference between him and me at the present moment is only this: That whereas he seeks to convince his hearers that what he says is true, I am rather seeking to convince myself! To convince my hearers is a secondary matter with me.

(Phaedo)
​

Like Socrates, my goal is only to convince myself.

 

[Pegg]

Thanks, MyGirl. I've spent much of my life talking about Christian beliefs with Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. They tell me the word grace means God's unconditional love. They say unconditional love has no conditions, so being saved by grace must mean I need not meet any conditions to receive the free gift of eternal life, other than to accept it through faith.

But are you saying grace is not what they say? Are you saying grace is actually God's conditional love?

Im not answering on behalf of KatieMyGirl because she may have her own view on this, but Gods love is not unconditional. If it were, he would not have given us laws.

And to prove that his love is not unconditional we can look at the history of the ancient nation of Isreal. When they were his chosen people, it was dependent on strict conditions:

“If you will strictly obey my voice and will indeed keep my covenant, then you will certainly become my special property out of all other peoples, because the whole earth belongs to me. And you yourselves will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” (Exodus 19:5, 6)​

Deuteronomy 31:16, 17

Jehovah now said to Moses: “Look! You are about to die,* and this people will begin to commit spiritual prostitution with the foreign gods that are around them in the land to which they are going.+They will forsake me+ and break my covenant that I have made with them.+ 17 At that time my anger will blaze against them,+ and I will forsake them+ and hide my face from them+ until they are devoured. ​

Gods love has never been unconditional nor will it ever be.

 

[Pegg]

I do not know. I used the word for clarity, even though its meaning is ironically unclear to me! but you are correct. Paul does not say from what we are saved in Ephesians 2.

Thats ok, i thought you had the idea of hell as being something similar to what christianity in general believes it to be ... a place of torment for the dead.

But to clarify what it is, we need only look at the original hebrew word for hell which is 'Sheol' - it means the 'grave', its literally the hole in the ground where a person is buried.
So when the scriptures speak of 'going to hell' it actually means death. And when mankind dies, they return to the ground and become dust. (hence why the priests will say 'ashes to ashes, dust to dust' at a funeral)

I thought your point was that he did not know. Please accept my apologies.

no, the point of the verse is that when the disciples asked for a place in the heavenly kingdom, Jesus said he wasnt the one who gives such positions... it is only Jehovah who chooses who will enter heaven.

Yes, I see that. I think a good place to start--with those who tell me faith alone is required--is with scriptures regarding repentance.

yes, exactly. If Gods love was unconditional, then he wouldnt require repentance. Repentance means to 'turn around'
It means that a person who is repentant 'turns around' from their sin and changes their behavior. They stop practicing the sin and start doing what is right. So a thief stops stealing and returns what he has stolen. A violent person stops being violent and starts acting in kindness and gentleness. A liar stops lying and starts to tell the truth.
That is what repentance means and its what God requires of us if we are to have any sort of relationship with him.

So then, I wonder why so many believe faith is all that is required. I don't believe ignorance is always the cause. For I've listened to some highly intelligent and articulate apologists explain and defend the idea. To support their views, they even quote such great thinkers as Martin Luther, John Wesley and John Calvin.

Jesus did not give Martin Luther or John Wesley or John Calvin the aurthority to lay down his teachings.... and the teachings of those men are quite frankly not from Jesus.
The only ones who were given authority and holy spirit to lay down the precepts of Christianity were the 12 apostles and their teachings have been preserved in the Christian scriptures. Those teachings are the basis for Christs teachings and if anyone teaches contrary to what is written therein, it should be discarded.

2Peter 2:1 However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you.+ These will quietly bring in destructive sects, and they will even disown the owner who bought them,+ bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. 2 Furthermore, many will follow their brazen conduct,*+ and because of them the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively.+3 Also, they will greedily exploit you with counterfeit words. But their judgment, decided long ago,+ is not moving slowly, and their destruction is not sleeping.​

John Calvin teaches 'predestination' - this vile teaching says that God has planned every action a person will take in their life. So if you are a sinner, its because God has made you a sinner and there is nothing you can do to change your actions.

Martin Luther was correct that God’s favor cannot be earned by works, but his reasoning was based on Pauls words to the Romans which is a discussion about 'mosaic laws' and not our own good works. He misapplied Pauls words as many do today.

John Wesley and the Methodist church demands strict adherence to the Sabbath. That is unbiblical and unchristian because Christians were set free from the Mosaic law.

We must examine the teachings of such teachers and compare them with the teachings of the Apostles. If we dont, we may be going astray ourselves.

 

[Spockrates]

Im not answering on behalf of KatieMyGirl because she may have her own view on this, but Gods love is not unconditional. If it were, he would not have given us laws.

And to prove that his love is not unconditional we can look at the history of the ancient nation of Isreal. When they were his chosen people, it was dependent on strict conditions:

“If you will strictly obey my voice and will indeed keep my covenant, then you will certainly become my special property out of all other peoples, because the whole earth belongs to me. And you yourselves will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” (Exodus 19:5, 6)​

Deuteronomy 31:16, 17

Jehovah now said to Moses: “Look! You are about to die,* and this people will begin to commit spiritual prostitution with the foreign gods that are around them in the land to which they are going.+They will forsake me+ and break my covenant that I have made with them.+ 17 At that time my anger will blaze against them,+ and I will forsake them+ and hide my face from them+ until they are devoured. ​

Gods love has never been unconditional nor will it ever be.

Would you say that although it's not unconditional, God's love certainly is undeserved?

 

[atpollard]

Please show me the word ALONE in the passage. Underline it.

Ephesians 2
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—9 not by works, so that no one can boast.10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Does this not say:
I have been saved ... By grace ... Through faith ... Not by works.

Which as verse 10 points out, does not mean that "works" have no place in our life.
It merely points out that good works are the 'fruit' of our salvation and not the 'root' of our salvation.
As James describes quite well, if I encounter an Apple Tree that never bears any fruit, I have every reason to suspect that it is either not an Apple Tree at all or that it is a dead Apple Tree.

How do you see this text differently?

 

[atpollard]

John Calvin teaches 'predestination' - this vile teaching says that God has planned every action a person will take in their life. So if you are a sinner, its because God has made you a sinner and there is nothing you can do to change your actions.

While I can understand why many people might disagree with John Calvin, I do not believe that this is a fair description of what Mr. Calvin actually taught.

A Calvinist would more likely claim that EVERYONE is incapable of generating the faith necessary for salvation on their own strength, and if God did nothing about it, then NOBODY would be saved. Therefore God chose some (not through any merit in those chosen, but simply because of God's Grace) to whom he would give the faith (as described in Eph. 2:8) to obtain salvation.

As I said, I can fully understand why many people do not like this, and would choose to reject it, but let's at least hate Calvinism for what it actually is rather than just a bad characture of what it says.

 

[Spockrates]

Thats ok, i thought you had the idea of hell as being something similar to what christianity in general believes it to be ... a place of torment for the dead.

But to clarify what it is, we need only look at the original hebrew word for hell which is 'Sheol' - it means the 'grave', its literally the hole in the ground where a person is buried.
So when the scriptures speak of 'going to hell' it actually means death. And when mankind dies, they return to the ground and become dust. (hence why the priests will say 'ashes to ashes, dust to dust' at a funeral)

Thanks for the reply. Are you of the opinion human beings have no souls that survive the death of their physical bodies?

no, the point of the verse is that when the disciples asked for a place in the heavenly kingdom, Jesus said he wasnt the one who gives such positions... it is only Jehovah who chooses who will enter heaven.

Agreed. Jehovah God calls the shots. His Son follows his lead.

yes, exactly. If Gods love was unconditional, then he wouldnt require repentance. Repentance means to 'turn around'
It means that a person who is repentant 'turns around' from their sin and changes their behavior.

​

They stop practicing the sin and start doing what is right. So a thief stops stealing and returns what he has stolen. A violent person stops being violent and starts acting in kindness and gentleness. A liar stops lying and starts to tell the truth.
That is what repentance means and its what God requires of us if we are to have any sort of relationship with him.

Does it always? I wonder when I think about Jesus' words:

17 Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. 2 It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. 3 So watch yourselves.

“If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them.4 Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying ‘I repent,’ you must forgive them.”

(Luke 17)
​

It seems to me that the person who begs forgiveness and says she repents of the same sin seven times a day hasn't really demonstrated a permanent change of action. Could it be that repentance has more to do with sincere desire than with perfect behavior?

Jesus did not give Martin Luther or John Wesley or John Calvin the aurthority to lay down his teachings.... and the teachings of those men are quite frankly not from Jesus.
The only ones who were given authority and holy spirit to lay down the precepts of Christianity were the 12 apostles and their teachings have been preserved in the Christian scriptures. Those teachings are the basis for Christs teachings and if anyone teaches contrary to what is written therein, it should be discarded.

2Peter 2:1 However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you.+ These will quietly bring in destructive sects, and they will even disown the owner who bought them,+ bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. 2 Furthermore, many will follow their brazen conduct,*+ and because of them the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively.+3 Also, they will greedily exploit you with counterfeit words. But their judgment, decided long ago,+ is not moving slowly, and their destruction is not sleeping.​

John Calvin teaches 'predestination' - this vile teaching says that God has planned every action a person will take in their life. So if you are a sinner, its because God has made you a sinner and there is nothing you can do to change your actions.

Martin Luther was correct that God’s favor cannot be earned by works, but his reasoning was based on Pauls words to the Romans which is a discussion about 'mosaic laws' and not our own good works. He misapplied Pauls words as many do today.

John Wesley and the Methodist church demands strict adherence to the Sabbath. That is unbiblical and unchristian because Christians were set free from the Mosaic law.

We must examine the teachings of such teachers and compare them with the teachings of the Apostles. If we dont, we may be going astray ourselves.

True, we must compare their teachings to scripture. But consider the Apostles themselves. Paul called himself the worst of sinners. Peter was chastised by Paul for being a hypocrite by showing favor to Jewish Christians and advocating circumcision. Could it be that none of us--Apostles included--are perfect in thought, word or deed?

 

[Pegg]

Would you say that although it's not unconditional, God's love certainly is undeserved?

of course its undeserved. We are sinners, guilty of misconduct and transgression of Gods laws. We certainly do not deserve his kindness and mercy thats for sure.

To deserve something means you are 'entitled' to receive it for whatever reason... but we have no entitlement to Gods mercy or love, he does not owe us anything.

 

[Pegg]

While I can understand why many people might disagree with John Calvin, I do not believe that this is a fair description of what Mr. Calvin actually taught.

A Calvinist would more likely claim that EVERYONE is incapable of generating the faith necessary for salvation on their own strength, and if God did nothing about it, then NOBODY would be saved. Therefore God chose some (not through any merit in those chosen, but simply because of God's Grace) to whom he would give the faith (as described in Eph. 2:8) to obtain salvation.

As I said, I can fully understand why many people do not like this, and would choose to reject it, but let's at least hate Calvinism for what it actually is rather than just a bad characture of what it says.

There is another disgraceful idea of calvin.... God 'chose some to whom he would give the faith to obtain salvation'

Really?

What makes your or I any more deserving of faith then the person who didnt get it? To imply that God chooses some over others is contrary to what is said about him in scritpure:

Acts 10;34-35 “For a certainty I perceive that God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.”

Revelation 22:17 And the spirit and the bride+ keep on saying, “Come!” and let anyone hearing say, “Come!” and let anyone thirsting come;+let anyone who wishes take life’s water free

​

God does not select some for salvation and others for destrurction. I will call out that false teaching for what it is.

 

[Pegg]

Thanks for the reply. Are you of the opinion human beings have no souls that survive the death of their physical bodies?

My view is based on truth that the soul is the living person. Adam became a living soul when life was put into him. Animals are called 'souls' in the book of genesis. And Ezekiel 18;4 says "All the souls to me they belong, so the soul of the father likewise the soul of the son.... the soul that is sinning, it itself will die"

Why does the bible say the soul dies if the soul is not the living person? I wouldnt make sense for God to give man an eternal soul and then tell us the soul can die, would it?

And consider the words of Ecclesiastes chapter 9:
2 All have the very same outcome,*+ the righteous and the wicked,+ the good and the clean and the unclean, those sacrificing and those not sacrificing. The good one is the same as the sinner; the one who swears an oath is the same as the one who is cautious about swearing an oath. 3 This is a distressing thing that happens under the sun: Because all have the same outcome,*+ the heart of humans is also full of bad; and there is madness in their heart during their life, and then they die!*
4 There is hope for whoever is among the living, because a live dog is better off than a dead lion.+ 5 For the living know* that they will die,+ but the dead know nothing at all,+ nor do they have any more reward,* because all memory of them is forgotten.

A dead person knows 'nothing' ... they do not keep living in some other form as many believe. In fact, we are no different to the animals in that regard: Eccl 3:19 For there is an eventuality*as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality.+As the one dies,*so the other dies;+and they all have but one spirit,*+so that there is no superiority of the man over the beast, for everything is vanity. 20 All are going to one place.+ They have all come to be from the dust,*+ and they are all returning to the dust.+

Does it always? I wonder when I think about Jesus' words:

17 Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. 2 It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. 3 So watch yourselves.

“If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them.4 Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying ‘I repent,’ you must forgive them.”

(Luke 17)
​

It seems to me that the person who begs forgiveness and says she repents of the same sin seven times a day hasn't really demonstrated a permanent change of action. Could it be that repentance has more to do with sincere desire than with perfect behavior?

I think the point of Jesus discussion is to point out the obvious and that is that we are sinners and will make many mistakes. We may make the same mistakes again and again. Repentance will be an ongoing requirement and sin is something that we will continually need to improve on. But it doesnt mean repentance is pointless.... repentance is the equivalent of getting back up on our feet and dusting ourselves off after we have taken a fall into the dirt.

True, we must compare their teachings to scripture. But consider the Apostles themselves. Paul called himself the worst of sinners. Peter was chastised by Paul for being a hypocrite by showing favor to Jewish Christians and advocating circumcision. Could it be that none of us--Apostles included--are perfect in thought, word or deed?

The apostles didn't need to be perfect to be given the responsibility to lay down Christs teachings. And likewise, no christian disciple needs to be perfect to preach the kingdom message. But what we do need is humility and modesty because without these two qualities, it would be very easy to set up ourselves as authorities on Gods Word and teach contradictory messages as many religious teachers do.