The Guild Of Christians

[Eliot]

Luke 13:3

I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

[Galdor]

Let's take a look at the passage in question here...

1Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them -- do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

Notice the context, two groups of people are being talked about, the Galileans (I'm really not sure what the deal with them was, I'd have to do more research to figure it out) but I think that they must have been sacrificed, and eighteen men who were killed when a tower fell on them. Jesus tells his listeners to repent twice, the first time with the Galileans in mind, and the second time with the eighteen men who were crushed under the tower in mind. In both cases the men were killed physically. In light of their death, Jesus tells his listeners that if they don't repent they too will perish. Now, it is possible that those men who died were not believers and went to hell, but that isn't what Jesus is talking about, he is only thinking about their physical deaths. In the NASB it says "you will all likewise perish." And so if Jesus was talking about these people's physical deaths, and he says that if his listeners don't repent than they will likewise perish, than what makes you think that eternal life is in question here? There is nothing in the context to suggest that Jesus is talking about spiritually perishing. Rather he has only physical death on this earth in mind.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Galdor
Jesus tells his listeners to repent twice, the first time with the Galileans in mind, and the second time with the eighteen men who were crushed under the tower in mind. In both cases the men were killed physically. In light of their death, Jesus tells his listeners that if they don't repent they too will perish. Now, it is possible that those men who died were not believers and went to hell, but that isn't what Jesus is talking about, he is only thinking about their physical deaths. In the NASB it says "you will all likewise perish." And so if Jesus was talking about these people's physical deaths, and he says that if his listeners don't repent than they will likewise perish, than what makes you think that eternal life is in question here? There is nothing in the context to suggest that Jesus is talking about spiritually perishing. Rather he has only physical death on this earth in mind.
May I throw my two cents in?

If we look at the words Jesus said, we see that he is tying their spiritual nature in with his warnings. He says, "Do you think that they were worse sinners?... Unless you repent, you too will perish" If Jesus was not tying in their fate with sinning and repentance, then the opposite should be true, "If you will repent, you will not perish". How true is that? We will all perish, repentant or not. Sinner and saint. Obviously Jesus was not talking about physical death, but the ultimate fate of all sinners. Repentance, therefore, is necessary for us not to "perish" but live. This "living" is eternal life. Therefore it is directly tied with John 3:16. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish but have eternal life". Believing in Christ, therefore, also includes repentance. How can we not repent and continue living in sin and still expect the rewards of heaven? Repentance is a choice we make when accepting the free gift of Christ's grace.

[Eliot]

Thanks, Thorin. :) You said everything I wanted to say, you just said it before me, that's all. :)

[Galdor]

You have a good point Thorin. But tell me, how is repentance included with believing? There is nothing in the word "belief" or "believe" to suggest that repentance is understood in the word. Personally I don't think that repentance is require red for salvation, if you wish I can quote you many verses that say the way to salvation is through belief in Jesus. Just look at John 3:16, repentance is never even mentioned in that verse.

Now, I don't think that someone would actually became a believer without repenting, but if we go down to exactly what saves a person, repentance is not a part of it. Think about it, in order to repent someone must first believe, for if they don't believe, than why would they repent? Someone can repent of something if they aren’t a Christian, just as a non-believer can do good things, but none of them benefit them. For without the Holy Spirit man can do no good thing. So in order for repentance to benefit someone spiritually speaking, they must first be a believer. And also repentance is a work, right? So than if we must also repent on top of just believing in order to be saved, than we are saved by grace + works, instead of by grace alone. And that view flies in the face of Ephesians 2:8-9 which states...

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9[b]not of works, lest anyone should boast.[b]

I think my friends that the bible makes it clear that we are saved through belief in Jesus for eternal life, no strings attached. If you want proof of it just read through the book of John sometime.

Now, going back to your objection on my view of the beginning of Luke 13… I've given it some more thought and I think that your point is notwithstanding. You deflect my view by stating that if I am right, than if someone repents they will not physically perish. But your point doesn't stand up. Let's say that someone is sick, the doctor tells him to take a certain medicine or he will die, therefore meaning that if he does take the medicine he will live. But many years later after taking the medicine when the man begins to die of old age could he say that the doctor lied to him because the opposite of dying would be to live? Obviously not, no one would suppose that the doctor was insinuating that if the sick man took the medicine he would never die. And if we would not interpret what the doctor said that way, than why would we interpret was Jesus is saying that way? It makes no sense to do so.

Sorry if the above doesn't make much sense, I'm not very good at putting my thoughts on paper. If it doesn't all just have to try again, and maybe I’ll be more clear the second time.

Btw, Thorin, your opinion is always welcome, as if everyone elses. My point was not to debate Eliot alone, but only to debate free grace verse grace+works.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Galdor
And also repentance is a work, right? So than if we must also repent on top of just believing in order to be saved, than we are saved by grace + works, instead of by grace alone....I think my friends that the bible makes it clear that we are saved through belief in Jesus for eternal life, no strings attached.But you're assuming that repentance is a physical act or work that we must do to be saved. Rather, it is a natural change of heart that is necessary for proper fellowship with God. Sin cannot exist in the presence of God. To say "I'm a Christian" and not have repented is to be a liar in the face of God. When we come to God to be accepted, we pray "Forgive my sins and come into my life". Repentance is part of God's grace. Nothing can save us, but repentance is part of the parcel. I know that still sounds conditional but one cannot truly experience one without the other.


Originally posted by Galdor
Let's say that someone is sick, the doctor tells him to take a certain medicine or he will die, therefore meaning that if he does take the medicine he will live. But many years later after taking the medicine when the man begins to die of old age could he say that the doctor lied to him because the opposite of dying would be to live? Obviously not, no one would suppose that the doctor was insinuating that if the sick man took the medicine he would never die. And if we would not interpret what the doctor said that way, than why would we interpret was Jesus is saying that way? It makes no sense to do so.But in that passage, Jesus was referring to the afterlife because he compares who he was talking to (the disciples?) with the plight of the Galileans. He tied their perishing directly to their sinning. Jesus wasn't referring to the Galileans exact situation in relation to the disciples, but to their sinful state that brought on their death. If it weren't, then Jesus would have to be telling them that they too would be sacrificed and have towers fall on them exactly as the Galileans did. I think that He was commenting on the "I'm not as bad a sinner as HE was" attitude that he was experiencing. Jesus was telling them that it doesn't matter, we're all sinners, and unless repentance occurs, we are all in the same state, be it Galilean, Samaritan or Pagan.

[HLGStrider]

I think that the verse Beth is quoting refers to the fact that evil cannot stand before God, but I don't see how it applies to the repentence bit.

I think on judgement day we will be purged of all that is "earthly" and our sins will be burned away leaving only the foundation we have in Christ. Therefore, we will enter heaven sinless.

The question is not whether repentence is needed for salvation but whether it is possible to be saved and not repent. Does that make sense?

I think it would be impossible to come to Christ and be saved unless we surrender our sins to him because if we aren't doing that we aren't coming to Christ. We're pretending we are.

[Dr. Ransom]

Here's something to think about. Can repentence occur before or after salvation? Did the theif on the cross "repent"? It's an interesting idea to think about. Suppose somebody believes, and only after beliving they realize how sinful and messed up they really are, were they saved at the point of belief or at the point of repentence? Or a little kid for instance, I personally was pretty young when I was saved, and I did not really understand sin or repentance very well if at all. I knew that for some reason Christ died for me on the cross. I didn't understand it, but I believed it. Did my faith save me before I realized what a scummy crappy sinner I really am?


Repentence nearly always is part of belief. I really have to stretch to think of times that it's not. But I don't believe that it is a seperate componant of salvation. At the very most, it's part of belief.

[Eriol]

Aren't you guys mixing "intellectual faith" with "saving faith" here? The demons believe too, and tremble. Intellectual faith is not enough. Saving faith, on the other hand, includes repentance, because it includes the willingness to put your works in the light of God.

(Note, I did not say that the goodness of our works is a factor :D. I just said that saving faith includes rejecting the darkness and striving for the light).

Once you see that your own works -- all of them -- are not fitting for the light of God, you repent. Or else you hide in the darkness. There is no second choice.

[Galdor]

Aren't you guys mixing "intellectual faith" with "saving faith" here? The demons believe too, and tremble. Intellectual faith is not enough. Saving faith, on the other hand, includes repentance, because it includes the willingness to put your works in the light of God.

There is nothing to confuse between the two, as they don't exist as stated. Tell me, what is the difference between "intellectual faith" and "saving faith?" The Bible clearly tells us that for eternal life we much believe in Jesus for it. If any contest this, I'll be happy quote plenty of verses.
Now, you either believe, or you don't. There is no in between. Some people define between "intellectual faith" and "saving faith" by saying "false belief," and "true belief." But what is "false belief?" Belief is belief. Would we say of someone when talking about gravity that they believe, but don't really believe in gravity? You either believe or you don't. Even someone who is un-decided still doesn't believe. So what is the difference between "intellectual faith" and "saving faith?" A person may know all about Jesus, know who he is, what he did etc. But that doesn't mean they believe it. Just like I know about Mohammad(sp?) and Ali(sp?), but I don't believe in them. So if you define "intellectual faith" as knowing about Jesus, but not believing, than your point is utterly in-valid, as knowledge isn't belief. But what else can you call it? There is no limbo place between belief and non-belief.

As for you usage of James 2:19, though common, is a sad miss-interpretation of the text. When I get home I'll post a segment of a paper I wrote that deals with James 2:14-26. But for now I'll just give one point against your view of 2:19. Was salvation ever offered to the demons? No, they can believe in Jesus all they want and it won't do them any good. Not because their belief isn't a "true belief" or "saving faith," but because salvation was never offered to them. Therefore to use the reference to the demons belief in defense of the "intellectual faith" vs. "saving faith" view is miss-use of the passage. For now I won't get into what it does mean, the segment of my paper that I'll post this evening will do that.

[Eliot]

What do you think, Eriol? Do we just have to believe, or do we also have to repent to be saved?

[Eriol]

For me it is clear (though I may be wrong ;) ) that saving faith includes repentance. The "metanoia", the new birth, includes repenting from the old life and a new birth in Christ.

But I'm waiting for Galdor's arguments on James :). He asked me to tell the difference between intellectual faith and saving faith; didn't I do that in my last post? Intellectual faith is a proposition, a conclusion from a reasoning. That is not enough.

As my Deep Thoughts say, we have faith in a Person, not in a Proposition. Philosophy does not save.

[Galdor]

“But someone will say, ‘You have faith; I have deeds. Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?” (James 2:18-20 NIV)

James goes on to present the counter argument of an imaginary objector. Most Bible translations show only the words “You have faith; I have deeds” as being from the objector. However, it seems more likely in the context of this passage that the objector’s words continue through verse 18. I am brought to this conclusion by cross referencing with other passages in Scripture where an imaginary objector speaks. For example, we see in 1 Cor. 15:35-36 that the objector is answered with the words “How foolish!” Also in Romans 9:19-20 Paul answers another imaginary objection with “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?”(NKJV) In both cases the objector was first answered with strong words of rebuke. Therefore, it is likely to assume that James does not start his reply to the objector until verse 19, where he begins by saying “You foolish man.” The objector’s point is to show that faith and deeds have no connection. To do this, the objector presents James with a challenge. He starts by defining the terms “You have faith; I have deeds.” The objector is giving James the easy part to play, and so he says, “Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.” “It can’t be done,” is the objector’s unstated assumption. Leaving his challenge behind the objector goes on to give an analogy to show that faith and deeds have no connection. “You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.”(NASB) The objector is pointing out that while James believes in one God, and as such he does well, the demons also believe in one God and yet they shudder. The objector’s point is to show they believe the same thing, but that their belief produces different reactions in each. It is as if he is saying, “So you see? There is no connection between faith and deeds.”

At this point James begins his response to the objector’s argument. Starting out, as previously cited, by calling the objector a “foolish man,” James goes on to ask the objector if he wants “evidence that faith without deeds is useless.”

Ok, that was the promise segment of my paper...

Now, back to the intellectual faith vs. saving faith issue. You say that intellectual faith is, "a proposition, a conclusion from reasoning. That is not enough." How do you came to a belief through any other way than reason? If someone tells you his name, you believe him, why? Because you reason that he has no reason to lie to you, and you have no reason to not believe him. You believe in gravity because you can reason that if when you jump off a tall building you will fall to your death, and that there is overwhelming proof that gravity exist, than you believe it. You see evidence of something, you reason, and you come to a conclusion. Obviously we don't always consciously go through those steps, but sub-consciously it is what we do. If a conclusion from reasoning isn't enough to get someone saved, than am I saved?

I first believed at three or four, and why did I believe? Because my parents taught me that the Bible was true; and so I reasoned that if my mom or dad said it, than it must be true. And now that I'm older and know more, I reaffirm my faith because I look at the evidence that the Bible is true, I reason, and I come to the conclusion that I am right. So am I not saved?

Note: I’m not accusing Eriol of saying I’m not a believer, the question was only for the sake of argument.

Still Eriol, you have yet to explain to me the difference between intellectual and saving faith. Unless of course you think the only difference is that saving faith involves repentance, and if so that would bring us back to the start; is repentance required for salvation?

For now though I will assume that you think there is more of a difference between the two than just repentance. And if so, explain it to me. Maybe you mean that intellectual faith is belief, but not strong or deep enough to save someone, and that saving faith on the other hand is deep and solid belief. But if so, tell me, how many of you were solid in your faith when you first became a "Christian?" If not, than you must not have really become a Christian when you thought you did. And so now we face another problem, just how strong must your belief be to be saved? How solid must your faith be ere you have earned salvation? Which takes us to yet another problem; if it is our level of belief that saves us than we would be saved by our own merit, rather than by the grace of God.

"As my Deep Thoughts say, we have faith in a Person, not in a Proposition. Philosophy does not save."

We believe in the proposition that there was a Jesus, and that this Jesus was who he said he was, the Christ. And through belief in the proposition we believe in the person.

[Angoreth]

Sorry if I am interupting on anything but I am a christian and I just wanted to say that I am another for the group.:)

[Éomond]

Hmm, well, this Guild looks cool. I'm a Christian, how do I join? :)

[HLGStrider]

But if so, tell me, how many of you were solid in your faith when you first became a "Christian?"

I was. ..but I'm not a natural doubter or questioner or skeptic or whatever. ..just a naive kitten.

I think it takes giving your heart to Christ in believing that he can take it.

[Eriol]

I suppose it is easier for me to grasp this, Galdor, since I was a "re-convert" as an adult. It seems you never went through the stage where everything fits, BUT... you don't want to believe. And this is the difference between saving faith and intellectual faith; the latter is a matter of the mind, and the former a matter of the whole being, including (most importantly) the will.

Perhaps this is why this is so clear to me. I've been through it, and you haven't. Believe me ;); it is not as simple as you put it, "through belief in a proposition we believe in a person". It is very easy, and possible, to know all there is to be known about Christ -- and not believe in HIM. Even knowing that he is God; even knowing that he is the Savior. It is not a rational thing, this matter of the will. And we need to go around it before we are saved. Mere knowledge is not enough; we must surrender our own will.

[Flame of Anor]

Angoreth and Eomund, I do believe the only thing that is required is that you be a Christian. Welcome to the Guild.

-Flame

[Angoreth]

That makes sence:). May I ask what the subject is about as of the moment?

[Eliot]

We're discussing whether you just have to believe in Christ to be saved, or you have to believe and also repent.

What's your opinion, Angoreth?

[Éomond]

"Well, if anyone has asked my opinion, which I know they I have not......"

Well, I don't have time now, but thanks, yeay, I'm in a Guild. But I believe repentance is not nessacary. But I'll post more on it later. Just kinda ignore this post till I post again. :)

[Angoreth]

Well I think repenting is an important part. You see by repenting you are saying , “God I know my sin’s and I am handing them to you to forgive me. I am wanting to repent and ask your forgiveness.” I think by repenting you are telling God “yes I know I have sinned and I am sorry, and I will try to do better when this sin comes across my road again.” And also I think by repenting you are giving yourself the chance to see where you did wrong and you can know how to handle that sin if it tries to tempt you again. Also I think God gave us a sense to repent because it is giving us the chance to make our selves better and not just putting it all on God. Like when you ask God for help, you shouldn’t just ask for help and leave all the work on God's part. yes I know it is possible for him to handle it, but it is showing your devotion to him and that you are willing to help better the situation.
So my opinion is that Believing and repenting go together. Because you cannot be a sinner and be born again that is a total contradiction to the bible. So I think repenting is actually a need that shouldn't have to be said.

[carnëyávië]

Yay! It's so good to find fellow Christian Tolkien fans! You know, I have a great place that you guys would love...

Kevin Max.com Frodo Forum (http://www.kevinmax.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=9) You have to register, but it's worth it...

[HLGStrider]

Hey, guys. I'm trying to compile a list of those who want to keep the Guild of Religion rather than have it deleted. I've already pm'ed a lot of you, but a lot of you I haven't.

If you are in favor of keeping it, please pm me.

If you want to get rid of it, it's only fair to include this, pm Aule. I think he's doing the opposite list.

[Aulë]

It's not on whether religious topics should be deleted. It's on whether Religion deserves it's own Guild-space on the main page. This is a Tolkien forum after all...

[Angoreth]

Tahst true it is a Tolkien forum. But also as Tolkien being a religious man, so are we..well men and woman.:)

[HLGStrider]

I didn't say it was about religious topics being deleted. . .though the talk was of having this section archived. I said it was about the Guild being deleted. ..

though we shouldn't debate this here. I've posted that the debate is ongoing so that these people can become involved.