Precisely, Danny. Therefore, a person CANNOT be saved unless they are also doing good works, motivated and sanctified by their faith. You CANNOT have one without the other.

FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD.

It couldn't be any more plainly stated.

From my understanding faith is accepting truth for things you may not fully comprehend, believing and expecting for the things you cannot see. We realize faith from accepting Jesus as the Son of God the redeemer, forgiver of our sins and promise of eternal life.

When we accept Christ we do it by faith from what we have learned from the word of God and his testimony, laying our sinful nature aside by asking for forgiveness and seeking his divine direction in all we do. When we accept Christ he reveals truth to us as we mature in faith, through his word and the holy spirit that lives within each of us and acts as a moral compass for what is godly.

We are not saved because of our faith. We are saved because of God's grace, and the blood of Christ poured out for our sins. Our works do not give us faith. But our faith when authentic will produce good fruit. Producing good fruit can only be done by Christ working through us when we are obedient to him. We cannot produce good fruit without Christ in us. So, we cannot have good works until we repent and recieve God's grace of forgiveness. It is after God has saved us that our good works begin. Our transformed lives will be evident, not before, and not during. Our life doesn't completely transform over night, but is a growing process through faith in Christ.

St. James 2:20

So if faith and good works are bound inextricably as St. James rightly argues - and HIS authority comes from a source far more important than the reformers, why did Luther want to omit the Book of St. James? He chose in the end not to but it was Luther who added the "faith alone" phrase. Again, this phrase is nowhere to be found in either the Greek Septuagint or the Hebrew.

Truly, this is one of the major separations and misunderstandings between Orthodox-Cattholic theology and Reformed Protestant theology. At its core is sola scriptura - which the Bible itself refutes:

Jeremiah 25:3,7-8

1 Thessalonians 2:13 . . . when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as what it really is, the word of God

2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

1 Corinthians 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth, or by letter.

2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me . . . guard the truth which has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.
2 Timothy 2:2 And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Jude 3 . . . contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

[cf. Acts 2:42, which mentions "the apostles' teaching"]

Protestants defending sola Scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority, outside of written revelation. For example:

A) Matthew 2:23: the reference to ". . . He shall be called a Nazarene " cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was passed down "by the prophets." Thus, a prophecy, which is considered to be "God's Word" was passed down orally, rather than through Scripture.
B) Matthew 23:2-3: Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority, based on Moses' seat, which phrase (or idea) cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishna, where a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down is taught.

And now two examples from the Apostle Paul:
C) In 1 Corinthians 10:4, St. Paul refers to a rock which "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement, in the related passages about Moses striking the rock to produce water (Exodus 17:1-7; Numbers 20:2-13). But rabbinic tradition does.
D) 2 Timothy 3:8: "As Jannes and Jambres oppsed Moses . . . " These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Exodus 7:8 ff.), or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

A) Ezra 7:6,10: Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding, under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (7:25-26).
B) Nehemiah 8:1-8: Ezra reads the law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem (8:3). In 8:7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra, and who helped the people to understand the law. Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (2 Chronicles 17:8-9). In Nehemiah 8:8: . . . they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.

And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch . . . seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah . . . So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "How can I, unless some one guides me?"
(Acts 8:27-28, 30-31)

D) . . . no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.

(2 Peter 1:20)

E) . . . So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him . . . There are some things in them [Paul's letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

(2 Peter 3:15-16)

F) With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.

(Mark 4:33-34)

2 Timothy 3:16-17: The Protestant "Proof Text"
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (RSV)
This passage doesn't teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn't there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, in 2 Timothy alone, Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (1:13-14, 2:2, 3:14). And to use an analogy, let's examine a very similar passage, Ephesians 4:11-15:
And his gifts were that some should be apostle, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are able to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,
If 2nd Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors, teachers and so forth for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4:11-15 the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, knowledge of Jesus, the fulness of Christ, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3:16-17, yet it doesn't even mention Scripture.
So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.

I cite ALL of thwese and there are more because Luther ADDED something that was not there to begin with and ironically violated sola scriptura (one of the two pillars of the Reformation, the other being sola fide which depends UPON sola scriptura and is the central issue to this particualr discussion. Luther, by violating one, violates the other and thus presents significant difficulties for Reformed theology and the notion of Salvation) and more perilously, by adding the faith alone phrase, introduced false doctrine, i.e, doctrine not of God but of Martin Luther.

Guys, this isn't a mere p****** match. The discussion is a foundational discussion of God's teaching and as we are indeed called to spread the Good News, we must spread it accurately else we are in danger of the false doctrines that St. Timothy warned us of.

Yes, Orthodox-Catholic Christianity and Protestantism do share many important core beliefs: we ALL agree on the tenets of the Nicene Creed for instance. But, one cannot simply take a reductionist or more accurately a sweep it under the rug view of redemption or as it is know a bit differently in the Early Church conceptually as theosis.

+In Christ,
Vlad

Carrying the "Ark" and the message of the Good News is important to me.

Sometimes it falls on rocky soil.

Sometimes it is not easy.

If all I do is talk in Church, I am missing many opportunities.

Sometimes prophets are asked to leave town, by those who have less authority.


Harris
fisher of men

You can counter his inappropriate antics by having theme nights. My first would be a Tricks with Tarot Cards night. Use Steve Minch's Book of Thoth as a resource. Follow this with a Mentalism Night and encourage the use of Ouija Boards, Pendulums and other forms of divination. Then you could have a meeting devoted to Bizarre Magic leaning heavily towards the occult side of things. You could even end this meeting with a ceremony attempting to evoke the Old Ones and the King of all god(s) Cthulhu. Use Stephen Minch's Lovecraftian Ceremonies as your guide.

Either your evangelistic annoyance will get the message that his antics aren't appreciated or you'll scare him away. Either way you'll have a lot of fun and get to do a bunch of magic you normally don't get a chance to perform.

LOL...you also might make his eyes bleed, or his head explode...or spontaneously burst into flames.

;)

Sad.

You have to maintain a sense of humor, Danny!

We magicians sometimes take ourselves WAY too seriously.

Taking ourselves way to seriously and making fun of another brother without the person spoken about being around are two different things. Talking behind someone's back eliminates the conflict that would occur by them defending themselves of the charges. Would you say the same things if our brother was here on the forum? We don't know this person in question, nor do we know the poster, yet some of us are quick to not only pass judgement on his actions of preaching the Gospel, but poke fun of him as well. My opinion is he's doing something that most of us here make up excuses to not do.

I think I have a great sense of humour, but there is nothing funny to me about backbiting another brother in the Lord. If he was here to defend himself, I would leave it to him to address, but he's not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhG-tkQ_Q2w
Penn on proselytizing, and he's an athiest!

I was posting in reaction to Payne's post...which was funny in an irreverent sort of way...which is, I am sure what Payne intended.

The original poster said that the tactics of this un-named magician made others uncomfortable.

Most of us responded that you can't holler someone into heaven...you must love them in. The original poster's words made it clear that this guy spoke with venom.

I would agree with you about the back-biting, etc, IF WE KNEW WHO THIS GUY WAS...but we don't. We don't know his name, where he lives, what club he is in, or anything else for that matter.

I think most of us here agree: It is far better to love someone into the Kingdom than to beat the Hell out of them. And before you yell and scream at me for that phrase...I meant it literally. Some evangelists seem to think they can literally verbally beat Hell right out of the listener.

Yes, they might go forward for an "altar call", but based on the statistics I have read, they rarely follow through. So, the altar call salvation pitstop is worthless...unless, of course, you believe that once you pray the "prayer of salvation" you are forever and permanently "saved.

For those of us who follow the teachings of the Apostles, salvation is a process, not an event.

This will be my last post on this thread...unless someone hurls unfair accusations, or acts like a chimpanzee and starts throwing poo.

;)


IT'S A JOKE, PEOPLE...PULL YOUR KNICKERS OUT OF YOUR BACKSIDES AND SMILE!!!!!!!!!

Jesus did love people, but his message was very clear....we were sinners in need of a savior. He spoke more of Hell than about Heaven.

Question: If you just love people, how are they supposed to know the truth? we have to tell thaem about the REAL Jesus. For example,Mormonism is full of people who do good deeds and may even talk about Jesus. However, the Jesus they talk about is not the real Jesus and cannot save anyone. We have to preach the Gospel.

Romans 10:14-17:

14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?[a] And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Open air preaching is Biblical. Some people have done it badly, but there is a place for open air preaching that addresses sin. Some great Christian men preached about sin in the open air - Spurgeon, Wesley, Whitefield, etc.

For any readers who would like to consider the relationship between faith and works and any confusion they are dealing with in regard to the New Testament teachings of James and Paul, I recommend the following article which is from Chapter 3 of the book "The Gospel Under Siege" by Zane C. Hodges.

http://www.freegraceresources.org/deadfaithgus.html

I am very glad that salvation has nothing to do with what I do, but rather with what Christ did for me. If it was anything other than faith alone in Christ alone, we could not have the assurance of eternal life that John speaks of in 1 John 5:13 when he writes: "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life." This is certainly part of the "Good News" that this forum is all about!

There is nothing in this post that remotely indicates our brother was speaking venom. You are making negative assumptions about a brother based on very little info. In fact, the poster referred to him as a devoted gospel magician who is very nice and helpful.

Please be careful of Zane Hodges and people who deny Lordship Salvation. A great book to read of the topic is The Gospel According To Jesus by John MacArthur.

Concerning the faith versus works discussion, if one has faith, I mean truly has faith, he can’t help but to do good works. In other words, if one does not do good works (bear fruit) it is evidence he does not have faith. So, while I do believe in ‘saved by faith alone’, the two are intricately connected.

Speaking to the opening post, I have known many people, including my own father, who have been totally turned off by overbearing, aggressive tactics in attempting to convert sinners. A little prayer for wisdom in these situations would go a long way.

I'm very familiar with the "Lordship Salvation" -vs- "Free Grace" controversy. I'll stick with free grace! You can check out the problems with MacArthur's "Lordship Salvation" teachings in his book at the following link:

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1993ii/faith-works.html

Terry

I see that near the end of Jean-Eugène post he mentions complaints brought to him only generated venom about saving our souls. I suppose I missed it because it's rather subjective, a matter of opinion to Jean-Eugène who is asking for advice on how to handle our brother. I appreciate him coming here to get advice, but it saddens my heart to read some of the advices given from other christians on how to shut him up, and it saddens me to see someone think it's funny to backbite a brother in the Lord and then be sarcastic about it.