re: Interesting how "Evangelicals" are separating themselves from "Protestants".

quote:

---

Because repeatedly states he is literal.

---

He repeatedly states that He is a door, a shepherd, a vine, light, water, bread, etc.

The context is what determines what He means by His statements, and His comment that the people only wanted their fill of food after recovering from the miraculous feeding sets the context for what He meant when He said to eat of Him. Again, it's the same formula as with the woman at the well.

quote:

---

How do you tell anyone? I mean in the case of Mormons its pretty obvious everything from the start of it was false as they aren't Christian and moreover a cult. (I.e. use a better example)

---

I agree with you 100% about Mormons, however they truly believe it is right and true, and their burning in the bosom is a confirming experience that further proves it to them.

It's why we need objective truth to ground us.

quote:

---

Again your interpretation. Different than mine, but still an interpretation.

---

Sure it's my interpretation, but it is grounded in the context of the rest of the Scriptures, including its immediate context. The RCC essentially plucks it out of its context in order to formulate an entire dogma of transubstantiation that doesn't exist when the text is kept in its context.

quote:

---

Well God's word is objective by definition. The only question is whether or not I'm understanding it correctly. I'm using God's infallible word to interpret itself, and others use something else, like their own religious organization, to interpret it.

---

Have you ever stopped to think that Catholics can believe in the symbolic presentation of the Eucharist and the literal interpretation? That it isnt an either/or statement.

quote:

---

My beliefs are grounded in the truth of God's word.

---

Your subjective perception of what you believe to be God’s word.

quote:

---

Your subjective perception of what you believe to be God’s word.

---

I agree with you.

Foo's theological beliefs rely on a subjective and personal interpretation of God's Word that not only was unknown before the 1500s, but also does not withstand thorough analytical scrutiny IMHO.

quote:

---

Because in most cases yall dont bother to read them.

---

Fyi, I read your link. I have found this entire thread fascinating

quote:

---

I have studied the passage. Your analysis of the passage makes no sense at all.

---

I’m struggling to believe you. I can understand you disagreeing with me, but the interpretation I provided makes sense of both the passage itself as well as the many times Jesus said to believe in Him for eternal life.

quote:

---

Faith Alone/Bible Alone are totally absent in Jesus's answer to the direct question - How can I be Saved? That's extremely meaningful to me. The Holy Spirit is telling me that Faith Alone/Bible Alone aren't what Jesus would say in response to the question "How can I be Saved?"

---

Jesus perceived the man’s heart, as He did often, and He answered accordingly.

The man asks what he must do to be saved. In Matthew, it is recorded as him saying what good deed or good thing must he do. Jesus perceived that this man was looking for a works-righteousness according to the law, where he could be saved by doing something rather than by believing God’s promises, and Jesus answers accordingly.

Jesus responds by reminding the man that He is God, since no one is truly good but God, and the rich man called Jesus “good”. Then He proceeded to list off the second table of the 10 commandments (the man’s duty towards his neighbor). The man wrongfully claimed to have kept these since he was a child, though Jesus in the sermon on the mount taught that even lust or hatred in the heart results in breaking the commandments.

Knowing that the man’s biggest hindrance is his idolatry, Jesus tells him that he must sell all his possessions and follow Jesus as God—the only one who is good. This is too much for him because he had so many riches that he put his trust in that he couldn’t give them up even for eternal life. That is idolatry, breaking the first commandment.

In Luke’s account, Jesus uses this as a teaching moment to explain to His disciples how difficult it is for wealthy people to get into Heaven, because their wealth is their god. The disciples are perplexed by this because the rich had the means to offer great sacrifices and they were seen as being favored by God among others. Jesus assures them that salvation is possible with God.

If you think Jesus is teaching works righteousness here due to a literal interpretation (you think Jesus was giving a straight answer unrelated to the man’s particular sin), then you should question why Jesus mentions nothing about faith at all. Even if you believe works play a part in salvation, you also believe that faith in Christ does, as well, and yet Jesus didn’t say anything about believing in Him as the Messiah. In addition, if Jesus is telling us how to have eternal life here as you see it, then not only are we supposed to follow the 10 commandments for life, but we have to sell everything we have for the sake of Jesus. Have you sold all your possessions, and if not, why not?

quote:

---

Faith Alone doesn't pass hard analytical scrutiny. The only way to make it work is to ignore significant parts of the Bible and to use very incoherent logic to explain away other parts of the Bible.

---

Not at all. Faith alone makes sense of passages like John 3:16 where Jesus says that salvation is by faith. Works flowing from faith reconciles faith and works. It isn’t complicated, and even your weird what-if experiment you were doing with me can be explained, since faith is a gracious work of God. You seem to be struggling with the concept since you see faith as another work of sorts.

quote:

---

On top of that, to make Faith Alone work, you've got to find short quotes in various places in the NT and then pour a huge amount of inference into your interpretation of the quote. And of course, these interpretations of these quotes were all unknown in Christendom before the year 1525 AD or so.

---

No inference needed. I explained the context to you. I even asked if anyone thinks I’m butchering the texts, to call me out and I’ll explain further why I’m reading the quotes within context.

You are making false assertions when you, yourself, have made no attempt to explain the Scriptures, but have only said I’m wrong. At least provide a justification for why you think I’m wrong.

quote:

---

Add to that the fact that it was Martin Luther who added the word "alone" in his translation of the Bible into German. Luther coined the phrase "faith alone" and then went ahead and wrote an entirely new answer to the question "How can I be Saved?, even though Jesus answered the question in the Bible passage to which I referred.

---

I don’t know why you keep referencing Luther here. I don’t use his translation. Faith alone comes from several passages in the Bible teaching that salvation comes by faith and not by works. If Luther never translated the Bible into German, this understanding would still exist.

And the Reformers quoted the patristics often on this belief. You make it sound like it was unheard of. It wasn’t.

quote:

---

Your Faith Alone analysis is hammering a square peg into a round hole. Sure, you'll get that peg into the hole, but, you'll have to distort some things to get there.

---

If you think I’m distorting anything, feel free to explain how. So far I’m the only one doing detailed exegesis of texts in this discussion.

quote:

---

All the many different interpretations throughout history, but Foo on Tigerdroppings has the only correct interpretation.

---

This is merely my interpretation, or one I just made up. It is shared by many smarter and more wise than myself who see the same truths in the Bible based on much study.

Again, if you disagree with the interpretations I’m providing, feel free to show why I’m wrong.