Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 8:19 PM
24 online now:
AZPaul3, edge, JonF, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, Theodoric (7 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,001 Year: 5,038/19,786 Month: 1,160/873 Week: 56/460 Day: 56/91 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   Assumptions about faith
itrownot
Member (Idle past 4104 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 10-15-2007


Message 46 of 54 (429073)
10-18-2007 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by ringo
10-18-2007 2:01 PM


Listen, ringo, for the third time (I think it is): It was more than apparent that you did not understand Ephesians 2:8, so I offered to edify you on it. No big deal, at least one would have hoped so, but not so with you. How ironic...you're debating grace, yet you are entirely ungracious to someone who only wanted to help you to understand a passage in which you were obviously over your head. What I offered you was not "assumptions of faith to be swallowed," but rather, a simple explanation for a slightly more complicated sentence construct that you were thoroughly confused about, by your own admission. Amazing. Anyway, you're welcome for the input.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ringo, posted 10-18-2007 2:01 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by ringo, posted 10-18-2007 2:46 PM itrownot has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16350
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 47 of 54 (429075)
10-18-2007 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by itrownot
10-18-2007 2:18 PM


itrownot writes:

Are you only just toying with me?

I'm trying to get you to think instead of just parroting the same tired old dogma. I thought that was what the topic was about.

Now you've accused me, among other things, of ignoring the fact that I have been shown unmerited favor by God, and then you proceed to restate the very point I made in my previous post.

I don't know where you get that idea. Maybe I'm being too gentle. :)

I'm saying that faith doesn't matter.

In the context of the topic, I'm saying we should question all assumptions about faith, especially our own. Instead of perpetually suffering from beam-in-the-eye syndrome, we should be asking others to question our own assumptions. I'd be only too happy if you'd point out any assumptions I'm making so we can question them together.

I'm saying that faith doesn't matter. Is that where I'm repeating you?


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by itrownot, posted 10-18-2007 2:18 PM itrownot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by itrownot, posted 10-18-2007 3:28 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16350
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 48 of 54 (429079)
10-18-2007 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by itrownot
10-18-2007 2:35 PM


itrownot writes:

How ironic...you're debating grace, yet you are entirely ungracious...

Grace cometh from God, not from Ringo.

... to someone who only wanted to help you to understand a passage in which you were obviously over your head.

I thought I made it clear that I had your "understanding" of that passage a long, long time ago. I've moved on. The focus of the topic is (I think) to move on from knee-jerk YEC-type "understanding" and to try to understand what we understand.


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by itrownot, posted 10-18-2007 2:35 PM itrownot has not yet responded

  
itrownot
Member (Idle past 4104 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 10-15-2007


Message 49 of 54 (429096)
10-18-2007 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by ringo
10-18-2007 2:39 PM


I'm not into dogma, either, as I've already said, I think, nor do I parrot it. I frankly don't need to serve some kind of apprenticeship either. I have searched things out thusfar in my own way, and I've paid my dues for it, too.

Unfortunately, I can't continue on line for now, as I am already late for an appointment, but I do feel as though you're beginning to come across better now, and I look forward to hearing more from you. Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by ringo, posted 10-18-2007 2:39 PM ringo has not yet responded

    
bdfoster
Member (Idle past 2986 days)
Posts: 60
From: Riverside, CA
Joined: 05-09-2007


Message 50 of 54 (429427)
10-19-2007 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Stile
10-18-2007 9:21 AM


Re: Still sounds like the same thing
I'm sorry, I thought your were characterizing my position as faith in doctrine.

Stile writes:


This is my point. You say "you really can't take away that one". Well, a YEC would say "you really can't take away Biblical Inerrency". What's the difference? To me, it's just two people deciding that two different things are "really important". Why should I care that you think grace through faith is really important, and not care that a YEC thinks biblical inerrency is really important? I really don't see a difference. Both statements have absolutely no bearing on how I live my life here and now. Isn't that what's important? How we all learn to live together here and now?

bdfoster writes:

It would be hard to come up with a theology that could be considered Christian without salvation by grace through faith.

And a YEC would say "someone who doesn't believe in biblical inerrency can hardly be considered a Christian". Why is your statement any different? It looks like exactly the same thing to me. It looks like exactly the same "we believe in this, we are True Christians" useless theology that has no bearing on how to live a helpful, fulfilling, good life. What's really important? Being part of a group? Or being part of helping society to improve upon itself?

Well of course a YEC could say that. They do say it all he time. My point is they're wrong. To require ANYTHING else in addition to belief in Christ is a contradiction of the gospel of grace alone. Yes they're all doctrines but to require belief in those doctrines contradicts a more basic doctrine, that all we have to do is believe in Christ.

Stile writes:

bdfoster writes:

But it is conceivable that the most basic Christian beliefs could be proved wrong.

This is the statement that actually sets you apart. This understanding that it's possible for physical things to have happened differently than we hoped. And the following implication that it really doesn't make a difference. But my question is... do you follow through with that implication?

What would happen if it was actually discovered that Jesus did not rise from the dead? Or perhaps didn't even exist at all?

If you'd remain a Christian, then the talk about the "important fundamental doctrine" isn't needed, it's extraneous.

If you'd lose your faith, then your faith in Christianity seems on par with a YEC's faith, to me. That is, based on superfluous hopes of a certain physical world that may or may not exist rather than being based on how to live one's life in the most benevolent way possible.

I'm not sure how that statement sets me apart. If you honestly ask a question you have to be willing to accept whatever answer you get. If it were discovered that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then yes I would lose my faith in Christ (although I would still be a theist). I have indeed founded my faith in Christ on hopes of a certain physical world that may or may not exist, specifically the resurrection. But if a YEC would lose his faith in Christ on the discovery that the earth is older than a literal reading of Genesis allows, then he has founded his faith on hopes of a certain physical world that has already been shown not to exist, instead of the resurrection. Which faith has a more solid foundation? :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Stile, posted 10-18-2007 9:21 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Stile, posted 10-22-2007 9:24 AM bdfoster has not yet responded

  
bdfoster
Member (Idle past 2986 days)
Posts: 60
From: Riverside, CA
Joined: 05-09-2007


Message 51 of 54 (429465)
10-20-2007 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by ringo
10-18-2007 1:59 AM


Re: Paul spins it
Ringo writes:

bdfoster writes:


God will have mercy on whom God have mercy.

Which is why the whole covering-the-sins-with-Jesus'-blood thing is irrelevant. Come right down to it, the whole Jesus thing is irrelevant.

The messenger is not the message.

Well for the purpose of this thread about faith assumptions maybe we can just assume that Jesus is relavant. Otherwise we will have to cover an issue that's been debated for millenia and settled nothing :) To this I'll just say that for Paul justification would be impossible without the atoning sacrifice of Christ. There's a debt that had to be paid.

As for God "selling" us salvation in exchange our faith, I don't think that quite describes what's happening with grace. First of all that won't work from an accounting point of view. Assuming there is a God, we don't have anything God didn't give us. Everything we have was either given by God or we aquired it using that which God gave us. God gave us free will which allows us to have faith. By giving it back to him we are not earning anything. I don't think we are entitled to anything in exchange for it, and I doubt God is very impressed with anyone who thinks they are. Again, since we don't have anything God needs, our sin-debt is unpayable. Paul says that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Righteousnes is the currency that buys justification or salvation and we don't have it. So God gave some to Abraham. The price that is paid for our salvation is not faith, it's the atoning sacrifice of Christ. Once paid, it can be applied to Abraham or anyone God chooses. We are all spiritually "children of Abraham" when we have faith, and God credits us with righteousness we could never earn. Just like we are all spiritually "children of Adam" when we sin. Abraham's blessing or Adam's curse.

Edited by bdfoster, : No reason given.


Brent
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ringo, posted 10-18-2007 1:59 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by ringo, posted 10-20-2007 11:10 AM bdfoster has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16350
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 52 of 54 (429477)
10-20-2007 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by bdfoster
10-20-2007 1:17 AM


Re: Paul spins it
bdfoster writes:

Righteousnes is the currency that buys justification or salvation and we don't have it. So God gave some to Abraham. The price that is paid for our salvation is not faith, it's the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

Do you really see a difference between that funny-money accounting and YEC theology?

...for Paul justification would be impossible without the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

Isn't that what we're talking about here? "Indispensible" assumptions?


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by bdfoster, posted 10-20-2007 1:17 AM bdfoster has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3418
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 53 of 54 (429890)
10-22-2007 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by bdfoster
10-19-2007 7:14 PM


Re: Still sounds like the same thing
bdfoster writes:

Well of course a YEC could say that. They do say it all he time. My point is they're wrong. To require ANYTHING else in addition to belief in Christ is a contradiction of the gospel of grace alone. Yes they're all doctrines but to require belief in those doctrines contradicts a more basic doctrine, that all we have to do is believe in Christ.

I agree that you think a YEC has, lets say, "more than he needs" in his theology. What I don't see is why you think the line you've drawn in your theology is any different, or even necessary. That is, different in it's approach to faith, it's obviously different in quantity.

You say a belief that Jeses was real and was actually resurected is required. I don't see why that's true. I certainly can still have faith in grace, and faith in the teaching of Jesus Christ to show me how to live a good life, and faith that Jesus Christ is the way to the afterlife... I can have all that faith and not believe that Jesus Christ was real. I can have all that faith and not "bank my theology" on the physical resurrection.

Does that give my faith a more solid foundation in the same way your faith is more solid than a YEC's?

I have indeed founded my faith in Christ on hopes of a certain physical world that may or may not exist, specifically the resurrection. But if a YEC would lose his faith in Christ on the discovery that the earth is older than a literal reading of Genesis allows, then he has founded his faith on hopes of a certain physical world that has already been shown not to exist, instead of the resurrection. Which faith has a more solid foundation?

Well, my faith does. Because yours has a possibility of being proven wrong on a physical level. Mine does not. And we both have faith in Christianity. We both have faith in the Christian afterlife. We both have faith in Jesus Christ. We both have faith in Jesus' wondrous teachings. We both have faith in God's grace.

My faith just has a more solid foundation, by your reasoning, anyway :)

If you want to say that I need to have faith in Jesus' physical resurrection... why? How does that change any of my faith statements above? And how is that any different from a YEC proclaiming that your theology needs to include faith in biblical inerrency?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by bdfoster, posted 10-19-2007 7:14 PM bdfoster has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 12246
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 54 of 54 (442965)
12-23-2007 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by bdfoster
10-17-2007 1:54 PM


Re: Sounds a bit like the same thing
bdfoster writes:

Yes, I do think it is unlikely it will be discovered that Jesus did not rise from the dead. That's one reason I am a Christian. I just finished reading the book, "The Resurrection of the Son of God" by N. T. Wright. He makes a very solid historical case for the resurrection.

The only problem around this time of year is that many of the Christians become unabashed materialistic consumers and change the power of the celebration into rote ritual and syncretistic symbolism devoid of any power. I suppose that feeding the homeless several days a year eases our consciences, though. :rolleyes:
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by bdfoster, posted 10-17-2007 1:54 PM bdfoster has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019