The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Stonok]

We had an elderly pastor preach as a guest for us today. I thoroughly enjoyed him. I like older Pastors who don't just scream at you, but are patient and reasonable. This guy even preached part of his sermon from the Creeds, which not many Baptist pastors do.

[Pope Joan]

The people in the Brudehof movement live communally, they share all things together.
The Catholic Worker movement had some intentional communities. One of them still exists in Combermere, Ontario
My wife and I lived in an intentional Christian community for over five years, in Chicago and Tulsa.

Communism works fine in small groups (especially small homogeneous groups). It's when you try to scale it up that the flaws appear.

So let us just have small contained government. Why not?

[Diopolis]

What are y'all's opinions on how the Epistle of James seems to conflict with Romans, Ephesians, and Galatians on the subject of whether we are justified by faith alone or by faith and works?

It doesn't conflict. Faith and works are both necessary to salvation, for faith without works is dead. Paul simply chose to emphasize faith, because the communities he was dealing with disproportionately had issues with heresy.

[Pope Joan]

What are y'all's opinions on how the Epistle of James seems to conflict with Romans, Ephesians, and Galatians on the subject of whether we are justified by faith alone or by faith and works?

It doesn't conflict. Faith and works are both necessary to salvation, for faith without works is dead. Paul simply chose to emphasize faith, because the communities he was dealing with disproportionately had issues with heresy.

My Mennonite friends tend to cite and discuss James and Proverbs more than Paul or Isaiah. Why? Mostly because they are more practical, like a hands-on guide for living

[Byzconia]

The people in the Brudehof movement live communally, they share all things together.
The Catholic Worker movement had some intentional communities. One of them still exists in Combermere, Ontario
My wife and I lived in an intentional Christian community for over five years, in Chicago and Tulsa.

Communism works fine in small groups (especially small homogeneous groups). It's when you try to scale it up that the flaws appear.

To communists' credit, most of them realize this. The main issue is "how to get there," which is where all the various schools start to pop-up (Marxism, anarchism, religious communism, and whatever else). Of course, I don't really see countries just poofing into a bunch of autonomous communes, but who knows.

[Byzconia]

Communism works fine in small groups (especially small homogeneous groups). It's when you try to scale it up that the flaws appear.

So let us just have small contained government. Why not?

Or a reasonably-size government that allows people freedom in their personal lives while enforcing laws against exploitation and abuse.

[The Archregimancy]

Communism works fine in small groups (especially small homogeneous groups). It's when you try to scale it up that the flaws appear.

To communists' credit, most of them realize this.

The history of the 20th century would rather suggest otherwise.

But perhaps we should gently nudge the discussion of communism back towards the thread topic...

[The Blaatschapen]

To communists' credit, most of them realize this.

The history of the 20th century would rather suggest otherwise.

But perhaps we should gently nudge the discussion of communism back towards the thread topic...

Communion is only two letters different.

Does that help?

[Minachia]

What are y'all's opinions on how the Epistle of James seems to conflict with Romans, Ephesians, and Galatians on the subject of whether we are justified by faith alone or by faith and works?

It doesn't conflict. Faith and works are both necessary to salvation, for faith without works is dead. Paul simply chose to emphasize faith, because the communities he was dealing with disproportionately had issues with heresy.

And Paul chose to emphasize faith by saying that we are saved by grace through face and not by works, for salvation is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8-9)? And if he was doing this to combat heresy, wouldn't he, by your own beliefs, be a hypocrite because he is advocating for the heresy of grace alone through faith alone?

[Minachia]

The history of the 20th century would rather suggest otherwise.

But perhaps we should gently nudge the discussion of communism back towards the thread topic...

Communion is only two letters different.

Does that help?

Well, Communion is the true Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, given to us for Forgiveness, Life, and Salvation, while Communism is a godless ideology that resulted in death and chaos the world over, so...
no?

[Byzconia]

It doesn't conflict. Faith and works are both necessary to salvation, for faith without works is dead. Paul simply chose to emphasize faith, because the communities he was dealing with disproportionately had issues with heresy.

And Paul chose to emphasize faith by saying that we are saved by grace through face and not by works, for salvation is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8-9)? And if he was doing this to combat heresy, wouldn't he, by your own beliefs, be a hypocrite because he is advocating for the heresy of grace alone through faith alone?

For that matter, Paul also contravened kosher laws and suggested others do the same. Sounds pretty heretical to me.

[Minachia]

And Paul chose to emphasize faith by saying that we are saved by grace through face and not by works, for salvation is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8-9)? And if he was doing this to combat heresy, wouldn't he, by your own beliefs, be a hypocrite because he is advocating for the heresy of grace alone through faith alone?

For that matter, Paul also contravened kosher laws and suggested others do the same. Sounds pretty heretical to me.

Christ fulfilled the Jewish Ceremonial Law, which the Kosher Laws are a part of, so that is not heretical.

[Hakons]

It doesn't conflict. Faith and works are both necessary to salvation, for faith without works is dead. Paul simply chose to emphasize faith, because the communities he was dealing with disproportionately had issues with heresy.

And Paul chose to emphasize faith by saying that we are saved by grace through face and not by works, for salvation is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8-9)? And if he was doing this to combat heresy, wouldn't he, by your own beliefs, be a hypocrite because he is advocating for the heresy of grace alone through faith alone?

St. Paul does not contradict himself. There is a difference between an economy of salvation that requires faith among other things and one that requires faith alone. St. Paul and the Church agree whole heartedly that works alone do not grant you salvation. The teaching is clear that salvation is a gift from God, and not something you can work to on your own. We all sin, so it is the grace of God that saves us. However, St. Paul and the Church are equally clear that faith alone is not enough for salvation. What good is a Christian that doesn't fully profess the faith? What merit does one have in merely wishing to help the poor instead of actually helping the poor? Christ is clear in His commandments. How can one believe in Him and the Gospel, yet not do what He and the Gospel commands? Truly, faith and works are necessary. Works are nothing without faith in God, and faith without works is dead. This is the teachings of the Church, and Martin Luther's theorization of Sola Fide was so removed from the truth that he proposed to remove the epistle of James from the Bible because it so thoroughly contradicted his central tenant (which is extremely ironic considering Luther was also a proponent of Sola Scriptura).

[Minachia]

And Paul chose to emphasize faith by saying that we are saved by grace through face and not by works, for salvation is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8-9)? And if he was doing this to combat heresy, wouldn't he, by your own beliefs, be a hypocrite because he is advocating for the heresy of grace alone through faith alone?

St. Paul does not contradict himself. There is a difference between an economy of salvation that requires faith among other things and one that requires faith alone. St. Paul and the Church agree whole heartedly that works alone do not grant you salvation. The teaching is clear that salvation is a gift from God, and not something you can work to on your own. We all sin, so it is the grace of God that saves us. However, St. Paul and the Church are equally clear that faith alone is not enough for salvation. What good is a Christian that doesn't fully profess the faith? What merit does one have in merely wishing to help the poor instead of actually helping the poor? Christ is clear in His commandments. How can one believe in Him and the Gospel, yet not do what He and the Gospel commands? Truly, faith and works are necessary. Works are nothing without faith in God, and faith without works is dead.This is the teachings of the Church, and Martin Luther's theorization of Sola Fide was so removed from the truth that he proposed to remove the epistle of James from the Bible because it so thoroughly contradicted his central tenant (which is extremely ironic considering Luther was also a proponent of Sola Scriptura).

Ehh... yes, I agree, mostly. Just as Stonok and Korhal IVV said on the previous page, faith is ultimately what justifies us, but true faith almost never exists without works, i. e. if you claim to have faith but do nothing good, than you're either terribly mistaken about yourself, at best, or an outright liar, at worst. Luther seems to have missed the obvious solution to the problem, and it would also seem that the conflict between Catholics and Protestants about this is semantics more than anything.

[Byzconia]

For that matter, Paul also contravened kosher laws and suggested others do the same. Sounds pretty heretical to me.

Christ fulfilled the Jewish Ceremonial Law, which the Kosher Laws are a part of, so that is not heretical.

An argument I've heard before, but it doesn't make sense. Firstly, what does it even mean to "fulfill the law"? Jesus never really explains what this means in any detail (just like most things he talks about). Second, considering that the early pre-Pauline Christians were still practicing kosher laws (and most other Jewish rituals), it strikes me as a bit odd to completely discount it simply because Paul's argument eventually won out among the politicians and priests.

[Minachia]

Christ fulfilled the Jewish Ceremonial Law, which the Kosher Laws are a part of, so that is not heretical.

An argument I've heard before, but it doesn't make sense. Firstly, what does it even mean to "fulfill the law"? Jesus never really explains what this means in any detail (just like most things he talks about). Second, considering that the early pre-Pauline Christians were still practicing kosher laws (and most other Jewish rituals), it strikes me as a bit odd to completely discount it simply because Paul's argument eventually won out among the politicians and priests.

The purpose of the ceremonial law was to point to Christ, so after His death and resurrection, it no longer directly applies, but we should still live by its principles, i. e. worshiping and loving God. Because the first Christians were Jewish, they felt no real reason to abandon their traditions, which is a valid argument to keep them since we weren't told to stop practicing them, just that we're no longer bound to them, but Gentile Christians weren't going to start observing the Jewish custom because, again, God's people are no longer bound to it.

[Minachia]

An argument I've heard before, but it doesn't make sense. Firstly, what does it even mean to "fulfill the law"? Jesus never really explains what this means in any detail (just like most things he talks about). Second, considering that the early pre-Pauline Christians were still practicing kosher laws (and most other Jewish rituals), it strikes me as a bit odd to completely discount it simply because Paul's argument eventually won out among the politicians and priests.

The purpose of the ceremonial law was to point to Christ, so after His death and resurrection, it no longer directly applies, but we should still live by its principles, i. e. worshiping and loving God. Because the first Christians were Jewish, they felt no real reason to abandon their traditions, which is a valid argument to keep them since we weren't told to stop practicing them, just that we're no longer bound to them, but Gentile Christians weren't going to start observing the Jewish custom because, again, God's people are no longer bound to it.

Actually, St. Thomas Aquinas makes a point that continuing to observe the ceremonial law is the equivalent to saying that the Christ has yet to come, and thus a sin.

[Byzconia]

The purpose of the ceremonial law was to point to Christ, so after His death and resurrection, it no longer directly applies, but we should still live by its principles, i. e. worshiping and loving God. Because the first Christians were Jewish, they felt no real reason to abandon their traditions, which is a valid argument to keep them since we weren't told to stop practicing them, just that we're no longer bound to them, but Gentile Christians weren't going to start observing the Jewish custom because, again, God's people are no longer bound to it.

Actually, St. Thomas Aquinas makes a point that continuing to observe the ceremonial law is the equivalent to saying that the Christ has yet to come, and thus a sin.

But then, based on what you said above, Aquinas would then essentially be arguing that the Jewish Christians were sinning by continuing to follow their traditions. Likewise, what if a Jew converts to Christianity, but wants to retain their Jewish culture? I don't think they'd be particularly happy with the argument that they're sinning everytime they celebrate Passover or Hanukkah with their family.

[Minachia]

Actually, St. Thomas Aquinas makes a point that continuing to observe the ceremonial law is the equivalent to saying that the Christ has yet to come, and thus a sin.

But then, based on what you said above, Aquinas would then essentially be arguing that the Jewish Christians were sinning by continuing to follow their traditions. Likewise, what if a Jew converts to Christianity, but wants to retain their Jewish culture? I don't think they'd be particularly happy with the argument that they're sinning every time they celebrate Passover or Hanukkah with their family.

Yes, that is exactly what Aquinas is arguing, because anyone that is continuing to follow the ceremonial law is essentially denying Christ.
Besides, Passover occurs at the same time as Holy Week and Easter, which really should take precedence, while Hanukkah isn't really related to the ceremonial law because it celebrates the story of the Maccabees and isn't a part of the Law of Moses, so I assume it's fine for a Jewish Christian to continue celebrating it.

[Byzconia]

But then, based on what you said above, Aquinas would then essentially be arguing that the Jewish Christians were sinning by continuing to follow their traditions. Likewise, what if a Jew converts to Christianity, but wants to retain their Jewish culture? I don't think they'd be particularly happy with the argument that they're sinning every time they celebrate Passover or Hanukkah with their family.

Yes, that is exactly what Aquinas is arguing, because anyone that is continuing to follow the ceremonial law is essentially denying Christ.
Besides, Passover occurs at the same time as Holy Week and Easter, which really should take precedence, while Hanukkah isn't really related to the ceremonial law because it celebrates the story of the Maccabees and isn't a part of the Law of Moses, so I assume it's fine for a Jewish Christian to continue celebrating it.

Fair enough, on Hanukkah, but as far as Passover goes, like I said I'm pretty sure a new convert wouldn't take kindly to being called sinful for wanting to continue practicing their heritage. Seems like a great way of alienating people. Regardless of that, though, it seems hilariously tone deaf (to me) for a 13th century Christian to call the first Christians (the ones who actually knew Jesus fur realz) "sinful." Sounds like St. Tom needed to let some of that hot air out his head.

[Minachia]

Yes, that is exactly what Aquinas is arguing, because anyone that is continuing to follow the ceremonial law is essentially denying Christ.
Besides, Passover occurs at the same time as Holy Week and Easter, which really should take precedence, while Hanukkah isn't really related to the ceremonial law because it celebrates the story of the Maccabees and isn't a part of the Law of Moses, so I assume it's fine for a Jewish Christian to continue celebrating it.

Fair enough, on Hanukkah, but as far as Passover goes, like I said I'm pretty sure a new convert wouldn't take kindly to being called sinful for wanting to continue practicing their heritage. Seems like a great way of alienating people. Regardless of that, though, it seems hilariously tone deaf (to me) for a 13th century Christian to call the first Christians (the ones who actually knew Jesus fur realz) "sinful." Sounds like St. Tom needed to let some of that hot air out his head.

Well... I mean... there's nothing wrong with calling someone sinful, because we all are. (Romans 3:23)
Though... I guess that if you celebrate Passover in the context of Jesus being God's sacrifice to save us all, then it might be okay. But that's just conjecture, someone more familiar with the relationship between Passover and Easter would be able to explain it better and/or correct me if I'm wrong.

[Byzconia]

Fair enough, on Hanukkah, but as far as Passover goes, like I said I'm pretty sure a new convert wouldn't take kindly to being called sinful for wanting to continue practicing their heritage. Seems like a great way of alienating people. Regardless of that, though, it seems hilariously tone deaf (to me) for a 13th century Christian to call the first Christians (the ones who actually knew Jesus fur realz) "sinful." Sounds like St. Tom needed to let some of that hot air out his head.

Well... I mean... there's nothing wrong with calling someone sinful, because we all are. (Romans 3:23)

But the context is different. It's one thing to say, "We're all sinners" (I object to this, of course, but recognize that Christians believe it), it's another thing to say, "You're sinning by practicing you're cultural heritage." The former is a basic part of the religion that everyone (more or less) accepts, the latter sounds like a personal insult (even if that's not how it's intended).

[Minachia]

Well... I mean... there's nothing wrong with calling someone sinful, because we all are. (Romans 3:23)

But the context is different. It's one thing to say, "We're all sinners" (I object to this, of course, but recognize that Christians believe it), it's another thing to say, "You're sinning by practicing you're cultural heritage." The former is a basic part of the religion that everyone (more or less) accepts, the latter sounds like a personal insult (even if that's not how it's intended).

There's a difference between what something sounds like and what it is.

[Byzconia]

But the context is different. It's one thing to say, "We're all sinners" (I object to this, of course, but recognize that Christians believe it), it's another thing to say, "You're sinning by practicing you're cultural heritage." The former is a basic part of the religion that everyone (more or less) accepts, the latter sounds like a personal insult (even if that's not how it's intended).

There's a difference between what something sounds like and what it is.

First, you can't just ignore PR. If people don't like what you're selling, they're not gonna join (that's why the early Church incorporate so many pagan elements into a lot of its practices--people were more likely to convert). Secondly, you're kind of going whole hog on this Thomas Aquinas thing. I get that he's an important philosopher and all, but again, it seems just a tiny bit arrogant to call the first Christians "sinners" (outside the context of "everyone's a sinner," of course). Again, Aquinas was writing in the 1200s, folks like Peter actually knew Jesus (assuming the NT is a somewhat accurate biography of the historical Jesus--which is questionable, but I digress), so I'd think the latter would have a bit of a better understanding of what was "sinful" and what wasn't.

[Minachia]

There's a difference between what something sounds like and what it is.

First, you can't just ignore PR. If people don't like what you're selling, they're not gonna join (that's why the early Church incorporate so many pagan elements into a lot of its practices--people were more likely to convert). Secondly, you're kind of going whole hog on this Thomas Aquinas thing. I get that he's an important philosopher and all, but again, it seems just a tiny bit arrogant to call the first Christians "sinners" (outside the context of "everyone's a sinner," of course). Again, Aquinas was writing in the 1200s, folks like Peter actually knew Jesus (assuming the NT is a somewhat accurate biography of the historical Jesus--which is questionable, but I digress), so I'd think the latter would have a bit of a better understanding of what was "sinful" and what wasn't.

Fair enough.