Christianity: Justification & Sanctification vs Justification/Sanctification

[LightSun]

Interesting. "Good for me, but not for thee" comes to mind. What else did the Lord Jesus Christ say?

(Are you able to call Him the Christ? Are you able to call Him the LORD?)

Hello I call him a teacher and role model. I've read the new testament and I find the book Gospel of John my favorite. I am a student and avid reader of comparative religion. I also find secular wisdom to my taste. I was saved in the teen years. I am now not of belief. I do meet persons that I communicate no matter their belief system or lacking thereof. One belief which I share is that it is not so much what you profess to believe but rather do you walk your talk. To me that does tell the person in question underlying ethical stance on how they do interact with their fellow human humans.

 

[LightSun]

Sorry, neither.


One might well wonder. From what I have read, it had everything to do with politics and empire building, and nothing to do with Jesus, morality, or seeking spiritual inspiration.

Yes. The putting together of the church canon was ultimately decided upon by the Roman emperor Constantine (I think) at The Council of Nicene (I believe this to be correct). He wanted to consolidate his empire. Any book or teaching that took away from his agenda was rejected. It is the reason that there are so many numerous sects of Christianity. Each with their own church canon. Each of the sects have a different number of books that meet church muster. The protestants do not incorporate the Apocrypha while in the Catholic church this text is included. I believe the bible was written by man with all his hidden unconscious stereotypes, prejudices and fears. It could metaphorically be said that it was inspired much as any other literary work.

 

[LightSun]

When the church put itself higher than the Bible?

Some years ago there was a popular saying: "What would Jesus do?" The Church/churches over time have exhibited all too human behavior that seems hard put to meet this test.

There are some individuals that have a vehement dislike of church teachings. To me they are as dogmatic as those who follow church teachings blindly not using human reason. It is their contention that all manner of evil has been done under the auspicious of the church. Their contention is our planet would be better off without religion. I don't personally subscribe to that belief. To me 'evil', ignorance and human folly would continue with the church or without it. The nefarious elements being partly our blind spots, rationalization, denial, emotional reasoning and out of limits nationalism to the detriment of the rest of the world's nations.

 

[LightSun]

This looks like an interesting document, but I'm not sure how much it would tell me about the example of Jesus. I might find more in the Gospels that were not included in the official Biblical canon, such as from Thomas, Mary Magdalene, or the Sayings Gospel.

I've come across that the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene come closest towards Jesus teachings and intent. I think it a shame that in the early church days women were important members of the movement. It seemed that Peter's parochial mindset pushed the women further out from church power.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Yes. The putting together of the church canon was ultimately decided upon by the Roman emperor Constantine (I think) at The Council of Nicene (I believe this to be correct). He wanted to consolidate his empire. Any book or teaching that took away from his agenda was rejected. It is the reason that there are so many numerous sects of Christianity. Each with their own church canon. Each of the sects have a different number of books that meet church muster. The protestants do not incorporate the Apocrypha while in the Catholic church this text is included. I believe the bible was written by man with all his hidden unconscious stereotypes, prejudices and fears. It could metaphorically be said that it was inspired much as any other literary work.

Incorrect. This is from Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code. The first council of Nicene was convened to address the Arian heresy.

 

[LightSun]

If you actually helped someone, does your intent matter?

This is only opinion. I shall say, yes deeds count even if the heart is not fully infested. One is taking on the teachings of the wise ancient masters: Lao Tzu, Mahavira, Buddha, Jesus, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle amidst the group of inquisitive curious personalities. One walks the talk and in my view that is the greatest telling of a persons heart. All do have a bit of doubtful feelings. The key is to act in spite of these doubts and do what is right.

- - - Updated - - -

Incorrect. This is from Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code. The first council of Nicene was convened to address the Arian heresy.

No I believe I saw this on a discovery channel documentary of the early church.

 

[LightSun]

So you agree that Christians should follow the example of Christ? The only place that can be found is in the Bible.

Coriolis I as a young men had the notion of being a priest. In my mindset I would only teach the four gospels of Jesus. The old testament and the new testament are foreign to each other. They share a common cultural background. The Old testament was of an angry and jealous God. Like I said earlier Jesus was a reformer and introduced God as a loving and merciful God. I had from my theologian studies come across the idea that the New and Old testaments were in fact two separate religions.

According to the researcher and theologian Jesus ancestry is depicted as going back to the time of King David thus a royal lineage can be established, and this was extremely important as to establish Jesus as of royal blood and the anointed son of God. This will establish legitimacy for the new faith to sprout and grow as well also not being extinguished.

 

[Coriolis]

Incorrect. This is from Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code. The first council of Nicene was convened to address the Arian heresy.

I cannot vouch for the specific time and place, but the decisions about canon were made at the time that the authority of the church as an institution was being solidified. Divergent points of view were suppressed or excluded, and only those writings that supported the intended hierarchical structure were retained. Even the fundamental notion of monotheism was meant to parallel the notion of a single ruler (e.g. king) in earthly governance. Previous to that there had been a diverse assortment of "Jesus groups" without rigid structure or hierarchy. Obviously those interested in consolidating power were not happy with such an arrangement.

All of this predates DaVinci Code by many years, though some of the details may have been used by Brown or other novelists to add to a historical backdrop.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

I cannot vouch for the specific time and place, but the decisions about canon were made at the time that the authority of the church as an institution was being solidified. Divergent points of view were suppressed or excluded, and only those writings that supported the intended hierarchical structure were retained. Even the fundamental notion of monotheism was meant to parallel the notion of a single ruler (e.g. king) in earthly governance. Previous to that there had been a diverse assortment of "Jesus groups" without rigid structure or hierarchy. Obviously those interested in consolidating power were not happy with such an arrangement.

All of this predates DaVinci Code by many years, though some of the details may have been used by Brown or other novelists to add to a historical backdrop.

From your point of view (a non-believer), these opposing views would be called "divergent." But, these divergences weren't the Apostolic Tradition, IE: they were/are heresies. Many councils were convened throughout Church history to hash out what is Orthodox and what is not. This is a fact.

As an aside (and to keep things on-topic), the problem these days is that many of the Reformed and their critics (often who were Reformed, themselves) know not much about Church history to begin with so old ideas (heresies) that were dealt with in the past (via councils) keep cropping back up, IE: Jehova's Witnesses, Pentacostalism, Gnosticism, etc. "Those who know not history are doomed to repeat it."

Of course, the Apostolic Traditions embrace the existence of these councils to begin with so it is nye uncomfortable for us to discuss the dates of when the New Testament canon was completed (~ Council of Carthage: 397 A.D.). These facts are only uncomfortable for lay Reformed Protestants to discuss because it's not uncommon for most to believe the Bible miraculously appeared completed and translated into King James English.

Since most of the Western world (Western Europe, North America, Australia, White People) was founded on mostly Reformed principles with a minor in Roman Catholicism (which is the father of Western Christianity), it's understandable that these facts (NT established by councils, etc.) that were openly embraced in the East would suddenly be considered "Esoteric" or "insider information" or even "a scandal" (when discovered by said Westerners) that in fact it's simply Christianity untainted by the West post-schism. It's really quite entertaining. Please keep going.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

No I believe I saw this on a discovery channel documentary of the early church.

Thank you for citing your source. You might get better information on TBN if you are going to cable television for knowledge (which is only slightly better than getting your information from a movie starring Tom Hanks).

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Hello I call him a teacher and role model. I've read the new testament and I find the book Gospel of John my favorite. I am a student and avid reader of comparative religion. I also find secular wisdom to my taste. I was saved in the teen years. I am now not of belief. I do meet persons that I communicate no matter their belief system or lacking thereof. One belief which I share is that it is not so much what you profess to believe but rather do you walk your talk. To me that does tell the person in question underlying ethical stance on how they do interact with their fellow human humans.

[MENTION=7680]lightsun[/MENTION], what I like about you is that you post way more information about yourself than necessary, so that I may understand the context of what you're trying to say. Thank you for that. I, also enjoy the Gospel of St. John.

On-topic: Your statement about "being saved in my teen years" leads me to believe your experience with Christianity was of the Reformed variety, because only a Reformed Protestant would believe that Justification and Regeneration is easily attained through faith alone, or "Sola Fide."

Now, to the point of my original questions to you (Are you able to call Him the Christ? Are you able to address Him as LORD?), your inability to do so ("Hello I call him a teacher and role model") has confirmed to me in-fact that you do not have the Holy Spirit within you.


1 Corinthians 12:3

3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

 

[LightSun]

[MENTION=7680]lightsun[/MENTION], what I like about you is that you post way more information about yourself than necessary, so that I may understand the context of what you're trying to say. Thank you for that. I, also enjoy the Gospel of St. John.

On-topic: Your statement about "being saved in my teen years" leads me to believe your experience with Christianity was of the Reformed variety, because only a Reformed Protestant would believe that Justification and Regeneration is easily attained through mere faith without works.

Now, to the point of my original questions to you (Are you able to call Him the Christ? Are you able to address Him as LORD?), your inability to do so ("Hello I call him a teacher and role model") has confirmed to me in-fact that you do not have the Holy Spirit within you.


1 Corinthians 12:3

3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

I was saved in the protestant Nazarene church. From there I attended Baptist bible school. No, I only consider Jesus as mortal. I am definitely not of religious persuasion. My spirituality resides in nature as I find this to be the truest aspect of God (metaphor).

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

I was saved in the protestant Nazarene church. From there I attended Baptist bible school. No, I only consider Jesus as mortal. I am definitely not of religious persuasion. My spirituality resides in nature as I find this to be the truest aspect of God (metaphor).

So, for the purposes of theological accuracy I would refrain from claiming to have been "saved in my teen years" because you actually weren't. You more than likely have a demon instead.

 

[LightSun]

So, for the purposes of theological accuracy I would refrain from claiming to have been "saved in my teen years" because you actually weren't. You more than likely have a demon instead.

Your ignorance and lack of tolerance do astound me. In my description of the saved phenomena i debated about going to the pew. I must be sure. Suddenly I made my pivotal choice and surrendered to the feeling. I can recall the feeling exclaiming, "That this must be what heaven feels like."

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Your ignorance and lack of tolerance do astound me. In my description of the saved phenomena i debated about going to the pew. I must be sure. Suddenly I made my pivotal choice and surrendered to the feeling. I can recall the feeling exclaiming, "That this must be what heaven feels like."

Though I am ignorant about many things, I'm also under no obligation to tolerate demons. Besides, what you described is called "prelest", which was long forgotten in the Western Church.

No worries, I'm in prelest myself (puffed up with pride: the worst of the demons), although I pray, to a lesser degree as I stumble up the ladder through the strength of Him who I call my Lord the Christ Jesus, Son of God.

 

[Coriolis]

Though I am ignorant about many things, I'm also under no obligation to tolerate demons. Besides, what you described is called "prelest", which was long forgotten in the Western Church.

No worries, I'm in prelest myself (puffed up with pride: the worst of the demons), although I pray, to a lesser degree as I stumble up the ladder through the strength of Him who I call my Lord the Christ Jesus, Son of God.

Demons? Prelest? Meh. It's all a vocabulary lesson at this point. Perhaps like trash and treasure, one man's demon is another man's muse. I have read often enough that there is a fine line between genius and madness. I suppose for you to say anything else to [MENTION=7680]lightsun[/MENTION] would open you to criticism of being internally inconsistent, so there is that. For someone who doesn't believe in the Bible, or the divinity of Jesus, or perhaps not even in God at all, though, what you are describing has no more significance than the Harry Potter novels. If it works for you and helps you in life, though, I'm not going to be the one to tell you to change your views.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Demons? Prelest? Meh. It's all a vocabulary lesson at this point. Perhaps like trash and treasure, one man's demon is another man's muse. I have read often enough that there is a fine line between genius and madness. I suppose for you to say anything else to @<a href="https://www.typologycentral.com/forums/members/7680.html" target="_blank">lightsun</a> would open you to criticism of being internally inconsistent, so there is that. For someone who doesn't believe in the Bible, or the divinity of Jesus, or perhaps not even in God at all, though, what you are describing has no more significance than the Harry Potter novels. If it works for you and helps you in life, though, I'm not going to be the one to tell you to change your views.

This thread has been a vocabulary lesson since its start unless capital-J Justification is in your everyday lexicon.

I confess I am wrong and continue to do so (throughout this thread), getting called out for any of my inconsistencies is a gift.

Stay on the topic of Justification and Regeneration, and if this particular "Harry Potter Novel" isn't interesting, you could just...butt out. Low-key sniping at me with what you and lightsun perceive to be "Christianity killshots" is pointless. I would suggest a Graveyarding instead.

And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.- St. Matthew 16:18

 

[Coriolis]

This thread has been a vocabulary lesson since its start unless capital-J Justification is in your everyday lexicon.

I confess I am wrong and continue to do so (throughout this thread), getting called out for any of my inconsistencies is a gift.

Stay on the topic of Justification and Regeneration, and if this particular "Harry Potter Novel" isn't interesting, you could just...butt out. Low-key sniping at me with what you and lightsun perceive to be "Christianity killshots" is pointless. I would suggest a Graveyarding instead.

Taking issue with the premise of a thread and questioning content presented within it is not sniping. It is your mischaracterization of our attempts to engage with you on the topic that is counterproductive. If you do not wish to subject your perspective to potential disagreement, I would suggest keeping it to yourself instead. Comments that you might consider off-topic here are too interwoven with those clearly on-topic to support removal or thread split. If you do not wish to pursue the present exchange further, then don't.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Taking issue with the premise of a thread and questioning content presented within it is not sniping. It is your mischaracterization of our attempts to engage with you on the topic that is counterproductive. If you do not wish to subject your perspective to potential disagreement, I would suggest keeping it to yourself instead. Comments that you might consider off-topic here are too interwoven with those clearly on-topic to support removal or thread split. If you do not wish to pursue the present exchange further, then don't.

I'll take your word for it then. TBH, I know you are Baha'i. I also know that the Baha'i take liberties to interpret the Bible to suit their "Progressive Revelation" doctrine. Its interpretation of the Bible is no different than the spirit of Sola Scriptura, so to your first post in this thread:

When the church put itself higher than the Bible?

Some years ago there was a popular saying: "What would Jesus do?" The Church/churches over time have exhibited all too human behavior that seems hard put to meet this test.

To answer your question directly (instead of defensively like I initially did), The Bible is (one of) the product(s) of The Church. The Church also produced Holy Tradition. "The Holy Bible" in its current iteration wasn't in existence until the fourth century. When "the scriptures" are referenced throughout the NT, they aren't talking about the NT (because that would be meta), but of the Septuagint (which was part of the Church canon until the Latin Vulgate which is why the Roman Catholics have fewer OT books than the Eastern Orthodox, iirc). The Reformers, however, further scalped the OT, so that's why a lot of what Christ quoted in the Gospels can't be found in the Reformed OT, but it is found in the Apostolic OT. That's not to say the Church is ever without fault.

The only other time we interacted was when you thought it was a scandal that the Bible was compiled by the Church:

Not a theory, and not gerrymandering. I suppose one might consider it an early example of censorship, or perhaps of cherry picking. History is written by the victor, even the history of people's relationship with God.

I played along with it to see how far you would go and further questioned you to which I was left with no answer:

What were who censoring, and from what was who cherry picking? To which war was a victor declared? These are very interesting perspectives. I wonder if all religions are like this, and if so how would these claims effect that of "Progressive Revelation?"

Instead of assuming the worst in people, you could just imagine the Church councils as a sort of "peer-review" process in which incorrect/unorthodox teachings (IE: heresies) were rooted out (with excommunication, and with the Holy Spirit). For example, Islam incorporates Nestorianism and Iconoclasm which are heresies. The Church teaches that while heresies do crop up from time to time, God allows them to be internally inconsistent so as to easily identify what is or isn't orthodoxy.

(No worries, I also assume the worst in people like I did with you. Forgive me for this. It's one of my many faults.)

 

[Mole]

Jesus believed in the universality of time, but we now know there is no universal time, see The Order of Time by Carlo Ronelli. But still we speak reflexively of the Universe, Universal Human Rights, and a movie company called Universal, and for God's sake Catholic means universal. This is a naive way of thinking, like thinking the Sun goes round the Earth, or that, like Jesus, believing that physical and mental illness is caused by demons, and we cure illness by casting out demons.

Reality is far more interesting than these naive fantasies.