Biblical salvation, by faith only?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Regret
Biblically, works are necessary, beliefs otherwise are in error. Martin Luther was a great man, but he was in error in promoting a "faith only" belief.

DigiMark007
Partial information is usually a bad thing.

Luther was also quoted as saying (and this is a paraphrase, but I've seen the reference). "We enter the kingdom by faith alone. But if faith is truly alone, it is not faith."

Essentially what he was saying is that if you have true faith, the "good works" espoused by other practices would naturally follow along.

...

I don't agree with Luther, mainly because I don't agree with Christianity. But making claims based upon only part of the truth bothers me in any setting.

Regret
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Partial information is usually a bad thing.

Luther was also quoted as saying (and this is a paraphrase, but I've seen the reference). "We enter the kingdom by faith alone. But if faith is truly alone, it is not faith."

Essentially what he was saying is that if you have true faith, the "good works" espoused by other practices would naturally follow along.

...

I don't agree with Luther, mainly because I don't agree with Christianity. But making claims based upon only part of the truth bothers me in any setting. You need to read more of Martin Luther's words. Martin Luther felt that adding works to faith was an insult to God. While Luther was a great man, but he was indeed a proponent of salvation by faith alone. He is credited as being the author of this line of Christian thought.

Nellinator
What the Bible really teaches though, is that we must have faith first and the the fruits of the our faith will follow. If works do not follow then we do not truly have faith.

ska57
I could give to the poor, show up to church every Sunday, obey the golden rule, and follow the 10 Commandments, but if I die without having faith in Christ, I would go to hell.

Christianity is much more than just following rules or just going to church, it is a lifestyle, a relationship. And this needs to start with genuine repentance and faith in Christ Jesus, then others can tell by the fruits and actions of that person that they are a follower of Christ.

Unfortunatly, most just smash the Bible into others faces and tells them that they are going to hell, and never tell them that they are loved and they are not alone.

ska57
"On hearing this, Jesus said, 'It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice. For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.'" -Matthew 9:12-13

"If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all." -Isaiah 7:9

lil bitchiness
So what if person does a great deeds such as Dalai lama, but has not faith in a traditional way which would corralate with Christianity?

Does that make him Hell destined?

Dusty
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So what if person does a great deeds such as Dalai lama, but has not faith in a traditional way which would corralate with Christianity?

Does that make him Hell destined?

Something like that is really not for us to determine, or decide. Wiki describes hell as 'a complete and final separation of God's love and mercy from sinners who have rejected his moral standards of goodness and have chosen to live a rebellious life of sin.'

But if I was god, I wouldn't condemn someone to a life of hell that didn't strongly deserve it. Dalai Lama wasn't exactly a rebel who chose a life of sin. He never considered god's word, so how could he reject it?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So what if person does a great deeds such as Dalai lama, but has not faith in a traditional way which would corralate with Christianity?

Does that make him Hell destined?


The entire premise behind Christianity is faulty and mostly wrong, so, the Dalai lama would be responsible for his own karma and not anyone else's.

usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by ska57
I could give to the poor, show up to church every Sunday, obey the golden rule, and follow the 10 Commandments, but if I die without having faith in Christ, I would go to hell.

Christianity is much more than just following rules or just going to church, it is a lifestyle, a relationship. And this needs to start with genuine repentance and faith in Christ Jesus, then others can tell by the fruits and actions of that person that they are a follower of Christ.

Unfortunatly, most just smash the Bible into others faces and tells them that they are going to hell, and never tell them that they are loved and they are not alone.


This is essentially what I've been saying in many other threads - except much less wordy and long winded...He..He..well done!

usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by Dusty
But if I was god, I wouldn't condemn someone to a life of hell that didn't strongly deserve it. Dalai Lama wasn't exactly a rebel who chose a life of sin. He never considered god's word, so how could he reject it?

But remember neither was the Rich Man in the Lazarus parable - and he ended up in hell. I guess it really all does come down to *faith* and the intentions of one's heart. If you think about it - this makes a lot of sense. What could any of us really do for God - that he couldn't do infinitely better?

Atlantis001
It would be sooooo easy if it was just a matter of faith.

Salvation is a matter of understanding and acting. Faith can be purposeless sometimes since things can be modified and misinterpreted, for example, chirstianity is mostly a set of beliefs created by the romans in the councils, who know what part of christianism is really Jesus teachings. So being a follower of Christ does not necessarily mean to be a follower of christianism. Thats why we need to know whats going on, not just have faith.

finti
strange thing about this jealous god(s) who condemn someone to a eternal afterlife in a bad place (like hell) just because they didnt worship this god(s), are this god(s) so insecure about its/theirs own powers it/they have to punish the ones who doubt their alleged existence to eternal damnation................omnipotent omnipresence my ass...................... talk about feeble god(s)

Alliance
laughing out loud

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Regret
You need to read more of Martin Luther's words. Martin Luther felt that adding works to faith was an insult to God. While Luther was a great man, but he was indeed a proponent of salvation by faith alone. He is credited as being the author of this line of Christian thought.

I never said otherwise. I simply used more of his words (which you've obviously read wink ) to validate his position.

Why bring the man down without trying to understand the entirety of his beliefs?

Originally posted by Nellinator
...we must have faith first and the the fruits of the our faith will follow. If works do not follow then we do not truly have faith.

...my point exactly.

finti
just as it is wit St Claus

debbiejo
I never got my reindeer.........And I believed a whole bunch.

Alliance
Yes. Sometime ago Christianity figured out that physical incentives were a much more attractive force to those whose lives were not so horrible they would cling to any hope of potential freedom.

debbiejo
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8786335296503381053&q=sex&hl=en

Satan doth evil to some people though.....mostly Christians............lol

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by debbiejo
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8786335296503381053&q=sex&hl=en

Satan doth evil to some people though.....mostly Christians............lol

Satan is just a myth.

debbiejo
Did U look at what satan does to christians.........it's sooooo sad......See the choir...sad

Lord Urizen
Christianity: The Evolution of Lies



Would make a great book title ! eek!

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Satan is just a myth.

erm

I agree completely, but I've alwys disliked how we now use the word "myth" to mean false. A "myth" can have an infinite amount of intrinsic worth and not be factually true, but because we've turned it into a negative connotation the original meaning(s) of the word is(are) lost and its harder to see the metaphoric truth is something that is factually false.

..sorry, random tangent. And it obviously doesn't apply to the Satan "myth" since there's not a whole lot of good to be had there.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by DigiMark007
erm

I agree completely, but I've alwys disliked how we now use the word "myth" to mean false. A "myth" can have an infinite amount of intrinsic worth and not be factually true, but because we've turned it into a negative connotation the original meaning(s) of the word is(are) lost and its harder to see the metaphoric truth is something that is factually false.

..sorry, random tangent. And it obviously doesn't apply to the Satan "myth" since there's not a whole lot of good to be had there.


I don't think he meant is as a negative. I think he is just tryin to say that people taking a myth as literal fact can become quite dangerous and unprogressive.


The Myth itself is not harmful, but the intended realization of it is

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Regret
Biblically, works are necessary, beliefs otherwise are in error. Martin Luther was a great man, but he was in error in promoting a "faith only" belief.

But without faith it is all moot - yes? I understand in the Mormon faith the afterlife isn't simply "You're in Hell or heaven" - but for many Christians that is the case (it seems.)

For them - what damns a person? Sin apparently, since sin (all the way from the fall) stops one getting into heaven - separates one from God. But God set up a faith based system (with Jesus) for salvation.

Basically regardless of what you have done asking for Jesus forgiveness gets one in, and not asking keeps one out. So theoretically while "sin" is blamed it isn't really what gets one sent to hell - rather it is failing to have, or be of, the correct faith.

Yes, to me it sounds like Biblical salvation is by faith only. After all - a person can be full of good works. Yet in conventional Christianity you can good work yourself ragged but that isn't any good without Jesus faith. Likewise it isn't realising one might do bad things, or asking for forgiveness or even Baptism - since numerous faiths and philosophies have comparable practices. I can ask for forgiveness a lot from Allah - yet that isn't going to get me into Christian heaven (or vice versa), and even if I went and splashed out and had an earth mother bath (or whatever) it would qualify as a correct faith based baptism for any Christian Church - it is faith apparently. Sin, self awareness, asking for forgiveness, in religious terms, seem to mean little unless one is a subscriber to the right faith.

Regret
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
But without faith it is all moot - yes? I understand in the Mormon faith the afterlife isn't simply "You're in Hell or heaven" - but for many Christians that is the case (it seems.)

For them - what damns a person? Sin apparently, since sin (all the way from the fall) stops one getting into heaven - separates one from God. But God set up a faith based system (with Jesus) for salvation.

Basically regardless of what you have done asking for Jesus forgiveness gets one in, and not asking keeps one out. So theoretically while "sin" is blamed it isn't really what gets one sent to hell - rather it is failing to have, or be of, the correct faith.

Yes, to me it sounds like Biblical salvation is by faith only. After all - a person can be full of good works. Yet in conventional Christianity you can good work yourself ragged but that isn't any good without Jesus faith. Likewise it isn't realising one might do bad things, or asking for forgiveness or even Baptism - since numerous faiths and philosophies have comparable practices. I can ask for forgiveness a lot from Allah - yet that isn't going to get me into Christian heaven (or vice versa), and even if I went and splashed out and had an earth mother bath (or whatever) it would qualify as a correct faith based baptism for any Christian Church - it is faith apparently. Sin, self awareness, asking for forgiveness, in religious terms, seem to mean little unless one is a subscriber to the right faith. Yes, for many Christian sects your statements do fit absolutely. To a point, they even fit the LDS (Mormon) beliefs. If one is LDS then we believe the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel to be: first faith, second repentance, third baptism by those holding proper authority, fourth receiving the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands by those of the proper authority. Regardless of this, all mankind will go to heaven, minus a handful (I have heard the largest estimate being around one hundred, smallest less than ten) that had absolute knowledge of the truth and denied it, who will go to Hell (What Mormons refer to as Outer Darkness.) Prior to final judgement, some will be in spirit prison (a form of hell), but even in this state they have the opportunity of entering Paradise before the final judgement. Also, I do not believe any Mormon could make an absolute statement on the position where anyone will exist in Heaven. We believe everyone will have the opportunity to accept the Gospel, we believe that this is what was referred to when the Bible states that the bonds of death were broken, the absolute nature of death was altered through Christ's sacrifice to make it merely temporary or partial, this is why Christ was able to state to the thief that he would be with him in Paradise. So those like the Dalai Lama, the Buddha, various individuals believed to be great good people will have the opportunity of being in any possible state in Heaven.

m. sade
Originally posted by Regret
Prior to final judgement, some will be in spirit prison (a form of hell), but even in this state they have the opportunity of entering Paradise before the final judgement.

Do they have the Bible in spirit prison? Because, I mean, otherwise, what chance have any of us got.



Also....who's that guy in your signature you have so many pictures of?
Don't tell me he's a mormon...

debbiejo
It's funny how one with all the power condemns the others with no power...Sounds fair huh? This is the bible god.

And why the eternal damnation? Why not just "Wink" them out of existence..In fact since to some god knows all, then why let them be born just to burn forever? Or why create these souls/spirits to be implanted in these bodies since they will reject their creator? Why not just create believers???

Regret
Originally posted by m. sade
Do they have the Bible in spirit prison? Because, I mean, otherwise, what chance have any of us got.
I am unaware of exactly what is and is not available to those in the spirit world. Although all of mankind that has passed before exists there, waiting for the resurrection.Originally posted by m. sade
Also....who's that guy in your signature you have so many pictures of?
Don't tell me he's a mormon... B. F. Skinner, Behavior Analyst, one of the most influential psychologists of our time.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by m. sade
Also....who's that guy in your signature you have so many pictures of?
Don't tell me he's a mormon...

I don't know if he is a Mormon (I don't think so, but I could be wrong) but I know he is a famous psychologist by the name of Burrhus Skinner (B.F Skinner, don't ask me what the F. stands for, but I remember Burrhus.)

Beaten to the post! Oh well.

Regret
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I don't know if he is a Mormon (I don't think so, but I could be wrong) but I know he is a famous psychologist by the name of Burrhus Skinner (B.F Skinner, don't ask me what the F. stands for, but I remember Burrhus.)

Beaten to the post! Oh well. Sorry wink

No, he wasn't a Mormon. I am unsure of his religious affiliation, but I have always assumed he was an atheist.

m. sade
Originally posted by Regret
B. F. Skinner, Behavior Analyst, one of the most influential psychologists of our time.

ahhhh..... you are quite civil. apologies for the mormon remark doh honestly

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Regret
Sorry wink

No, he wasn't a Mormon. I am unsure of his religious affiliation, but I have always assumed he was an atheist.

That's ok. I kind of assumed the same (not sure why) but I'm usually not concerned with the religious affiliation of people unless it is relative to what they do (and in most cases it isn't), rather focusing on their achievements, and Skinner has more then enough of those.

Regret
Originally posted by m. sade
ahhhh..... you are quite civil. apologies for the mormon remark doh honestly No offense taken.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by DigiMark007
erm

I agree completely, but I've alwys disliked how we now use the word "myth" to mean false. A "myth" can have an infinite amount of intrinsic worth and not be factually true, but because we've turned it into a negative connotation the original meaning(s) of the word is(are) lost and its harder to see the metaphoric truth is something that is factually false.

..sorry, random tangent. And it obviously doesn't apply to the Satan "myth" since there's not a whole lot of good to be had there.

I agree with you, and I was not using that word "myth" to mean false.

Regret
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
That's ok. I kind of assumed the same (not sure why) but I'm usually not concerned with the religious affiliation of people unless it is relative to what they do (and in most cases it isn't), rather focusing on their achievements, and Skinner has more then enough of those. Same here. There are some times when religious views are important factors though, particularly if the subject is philosophical or unobservable in nature, neither of which apply to Skinner's professional views, imo.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Regret
Same here. There are some times when religious views are important factors though, particularly if the subject is philosophical or unobservable in nature, neither of which apply to Skinner's professional views, imo.

Exactly.

debbiejo
Skinner was one of the very first books I had read on psychology, oh and NO, he wasn't my boyfriend.....He was my boyfriends father.........Sad sad..I know...But at least in prison they get a good education...lol


Unfortunately I don't remember any of it right now....Soooo I can not comment on it in reference to this thread. Though since him there have been new theories on belief in ones own mind. I know Freud was a weirdo and very obsessed with the mother/father/sex thing........Oh and some of his experiments were just too sick! Though this is on the fringe a bit, I do like Jung. His works make more since to me.

People beliefs/experience influence their lives, even their dreams which one can learn from if one knows how to interpret them. It's all consciousness whether you are aware of it or not. Consciousness produces action which effects your environment which then creates you r reality.

Some of us grow up very unconsciousness unfortunately.

Regret
Originally posted by debbiejo
Skinner was one of the very first books I had read on psychology, oh and NO, he wasn't my boyfriend.....He was my boyfriends father.........Sad sad..I know...But at least in prison they get a good education...lol


Unfortunately I don't remember any of it right now....Soooo I can not comment on it in reference to this thread. Though since him there have been new theories on belief in ones own mind. I know Freud was a weirdo and very obsessed with the mother/father/sex thing........Oh and some of his experiments were just too sick! Though this is on the fringe a bit, I do like Jung. His works make more since to me.

People beliefs/experience influence their lives, even their dreams which one can learn from if one knows how to interpret them. It's all consciousness whether you are aware of it or not. Consciousness produces action which effects your environment which then creates you r reality.

Some of us grow up very unconsciousness unfortunately. Skinner's breakthroughs were post Freud, Freud was closer in time to Watson. Freud was never accepted into psychology during his lifetime, and Freud was a quack who had incestuous tendencies for his mother and sister. Most of Freud's beliefs were modified before they were accepted, and his research was poorly documented, so bad that it is probable he doctored much of it. I also have little respect for Jung regardless of his differences from his predecessor. Behavior Analysis is still a strong school of psychology, there is no "since behavior analysis ..." There are currently only two strong schools of thought in psychology, cognitive and behavior analysis, and psychology is split between them. The other schools have minimal impact on psychology today, and seem to be dying off or subsumed by cognitive psychology.

Physiological psychologists typically fall into one of these two schools in philosophy, but focus in neural study, and are closer to biology oftentimes than psychology.

Psychiatrists tend towards pharmacology, and are typically mainly interested in the impact of chemicals on behaviors than on psychology.

Nellinator
To be fair to Freud he made some strong contributions outside of behavior analysis. Of course, his behavior analysis is all crap, but his introduction of the idea of developmental stages is rather influential everywhere. His dream theory of day residue is also fairly good.

Regret
Originally posted by Nellinator
To be fair to Freud he made some strong contributions outside of behavior analysis. Of course, his behavior analysis is all crap, but his introduction of the idea of developmental stages is rather influential everywhere. His dream theory of day residue is also fairly good. What the f**k? Freud was antithesis to behavior analysis. Freud was the father of psychoanalysis. Behavior analysis does not hold Freud of any value that I am aware of.

As to his dream theories, dreams are merely random firing of neurons which then begin a series of firing that generally follow, thus a seeming near conscious experience. There is no evidence supporting any tie between a persons activities during periods of wakefulness and dreams.

Outside behavior analysis, his contributions are minimal, and the harm he caused was great. People think of Freud when they think of psychology, this misconception is worse than nearly anything else he did. His flaws so far outweigh his contributions as to make his presence in the history of psychology abhorent to many, if not most, psychologists.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Regret
What the f**k? Freud was antithesis to behavior analysis. Freud was the father of psychoanalysis. Behavior analysis does not hold Freud of any value that I am aware of.

As to his dream theories, dreams are merely random firing of neurons which then begin a series of firing that generally follow, thus a seeming near conscious experience. There is no evidence supporting any tie between a persons activities during periods of wakefulness and dreams.

Outside behavior analysis, his contributions are minimal, and the harm he caused was great. People think of Freud when they think of psychology, this misconception is worse than nearly anything else he did. His flaws so far outweigh his contributions as to make his presence in the history of psychology abhorent to many, if not most, psychologists.


Exactly....Freud himself was a nutcase...one of his many teachings was that if you dream about your teeth falling out, that means you want to have sex with your mother sick


He's like a much more obnoxious version of me.....everything in his line of reasoning goes back to sex....he relates all concepts to sex, even the ones where sex is irrelevant.


I think he had a permanent droolio smilie in his head that endured throughout his entire career

Nellinator
Originally posted by Regret
What the f**k? Freud was antithesis to behavior analysis. Freud was the father of psychoanalysis. Behavior analysis does not hold Freud of any value that I am aware of.

As to his dream theories, dreams are merely random firing of neurons which then begin a series of firing that generally follow, thus a seeming near conscious experience. There is no evidence supporting any tie between a persons activities during periods of wakefulness and dreams.

Outside behavior analysis, his contributions are minimal, and the harm he caused was great. People think of Freud when they think of psychology, this misconception is worse than nearly anything else he did. His flaws so far outweigh his contributions as to make his presence in the history of psychology abhorent to many, if not most, psychologists.
He did dabble in behavior analysis. Defense mechanisms would be a major contribution of his.

This is just one theory of dreams. There are many others. None has proven more valid than the other. I personally believe different dreams can be related to different theories. Day residue does apply in many dreams, but not in others as I do believe that many dreams are random firing of neurons.

I agree with you. Freud made things much worse, but his influence does still exist.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Nellinator
He did dabble in behavior analysis. Defense mechanisms would be a major contribution of his.

This is just one theory of dreams. There are many others. None has proven more valid than the other. I personally believe different dreams can be related to different theories. Day residue does apply in many dreams, but not in others as I do believe that many dreams are random firing of neurons.

I agree with you. Freud made things much worse, but his influence does still exist.


I also beleive Dreams are more than just neuron firings....just like our conciousness is more than just neural activity....just like our existance is more than just awareness....

Regret
Originally posted by Nellinator
He did dabble in behavior analysis. Defense mechanisms would be a major contribution of his. What the f**k? Defense mechanisms are not a behavioral concept. I have never heard of Freud doing anything in the area.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Regret
What the f**k? Defense mechanisms are not a behavioral concept. I have never heard of Freud doing anything in the area.

If I am thinking the right defense mech. it had to do with his "advanced" thinking on the ego, superego and Id. The "ego defense mechanism" is the barrier between Id and SE that stops them from conflicting (since the things the two represent aren't all that compataible.)

The mechanisms themselves later came to be things like denial and rationalisation, I believe it is claimed he was the first one to come up with the concept, but like so many of his theories those potential useful ones had to be fixed up/expanded up/reigned in by later thinkers in the field.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Regret
What the f**k? Defense mechanisms are not a behavioral concept. I have never heard of Freud doing anything in the area.
I know, they were supposed to be in seperate paragraphs. As in, defensive mechanisms are a major contribution of his, outside of behavior analysis. Of course, Freud really predated the modern idea of behavior analysis, but many of his theories were trying to explain behavior and tendencies.

ska57
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The entire premise behind Christianity is faulty and mostly wrong,

?

Alliance
Originally posted by ska57
?

This was the most on topic post on this page.

Adam_PoE

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by ska57
?

Ya, I know... the truth can hurt and hard to understand. rolling on floor laughing

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.