re: Trump: "Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle."

quote:

---

Some prayers are acts of worship. Some are not.

---

Within the religious context, they are always acts of worship.

quote:

---

The very word itself "prayer" has the word "pray" as its root. The definition of the word "pray" is to ask for something, right?

---

To ask (supplication) is one usage of the word, but it really has at its core intercession or mediation to God in the context of religious acts.

I looked at every usage of the word "pray" or "prayer" in the Bible. It's also used to demonstrate a person praying to God or some idol, or to pray to God for another person. While many prayers in the Bible are for other people or on behalf of others, they are always prayed to God or some idol.

Notably, the only times when prayer is offered to anyone/anything other than God, it is in the context of idolatry, such as Isaiah 44:17: "And the rest of it he makes into a god, his idol, and falls down to it and worships it. He prays to it and says, “Deliver me, for you are my god!”

In Daniel 9, Daniel was praying to the Lord and God sent Gabriel the angel to him. I mention this because even in this instance where an angel visits someone in response to prayer, the prayer was made to God alone and God answered by sending an angel. The prayer wasn't made to the angel or to anyone else. Similarly, God sent Gabriel to Zechariah in Luke 1 in answer to his prayers to God. Even after his meeting with the angel, in Luke 2 Zechariah responded to being able to speak again by praising God alone, not the angel or praying to him. Holy angels always defer worship to God alone.

And obviously the Lord's Prayer that Jesus gave us as a formula for prayer is addressing prayer to God our Father, not to anyone else. All of Jesus' prayers were to the Father. All our examples in the Bible are prayer to God alone, with the only exceptions being examples of idolatry.

quote:

---

And, anyway, IF as you say "prayer is an act of worship", then prayer is completely unnecessary and utterly without any influence whatsoever when it comes to Salvation because as you have said many times, "Faith Alone/Bible Alone" and "Your works are like dirty rags".

An "act" is the same as a "work". So, if prayer is an act of worship, as you say, it's a waste of time because it cannot help with Salvation. As you say, after all, Salvation depends on NO "work" whatsoever.

---

I agree that our prayers are worthless in terms of meriting salvation because we are not saved by our works, even by prayer. We are saved by the work of Jesus Christ alone, applied to us by His Spirit alone, received by the gift of faith alone, as an act of God's merciful grace alone. Prayer doesn't merit salvation, so in that regard only is it "worthless".

I have not said that prayer is a meritorious act for salvation, though. I don't believe worship, itself, saves anyone, whether that be prayer, singing God's praises, hearing the Word preached, or by giving our tithes and offerings. I don't understand why you took the conversation in this direction since I made no statement about prayer being salvific.

quote:

---

Works and "works/acts" of worship, as you say, are "filthy rags" and do nothing for Salvation. No point in hoping that any "work" or "act" can help with your Salvation. So, why bother?

---

We can certainly cry out to God in prayer to save us, and if we belong to Him, He will eventually respond by saving us. Not because we are owed it or because our prayer merits salvation, but because God has ordained we be saved and cry out to Him in prayer.

quote:

---

I'm just trying to follow your logic here.

---

Considering I said nothing about salvation when talking about prayer, I'm not sure I'm following your line of thinking.

Wow. Someone was raised southern Baptist and taught hate full on behind the shield of "well Jesus died for all my sins past present and future"

quote:

---

He won't send me to Hell for sin because He already paid the price of all my sins, past, present, and future.

---

You very much believe in Eternal Security, and that means, no matter how much you sin now and in the future, you are still Saved by Faith Alone/Bible Alone and you are going to Heaven no matter what sins you commit and how many you commit. Isn't that true?

Also, I'm glad that you admit the obvious - that is - an "act" is the same as a "work" and therefore Prayer, which you say is an "act" of worship is a completely pointless "work" or "act" because it gains you no Salvation at all. I'm glad we agree on that portion of your Theological logic.

quote:

---

You are Saved by Faith Alone/Bible Alone

---

Foolanecraig doesn’t realize Paul’s “works” are on context of following the Torah, cutting off dick skin, not eating shellfish, not touching dead bodies and such. “Works” in common language is acts of goodness and kindness in help of others. Foo will totally reject the brother of Jesus for a guy who never met Jesus except in a dream.

Here’s what James had to say on the subject. Here he is arguing against Foo’s argument that he is saved by faith alone:

quote:

---

14What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what goodb is that? 17So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

---

I don’t think Paul and James are contradictory on this subject. Paul’s works are filling Torah. James works are kindness and not being an a-hole.

quote:

---

Foolanecraig doesn’t realize Paul’s “works” are on context of following the Torah, cutting off dick skin, not eating shellfish, not touching dead bodies and such. “Works” in common language is acts of goodness and kindness in help of others. Foo will totally reject the brother of Jesus for a guy who never met Jesus except in a dream.

---

Paul's "works" are "works of the law", which is summarized in the 10 commandments. Paul also wrote Ephesians 2:8-9, which says: "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

Here Paul contrasts salvation by grace through faith in Christ with works (that which we do), so that we may not boast or brag about saving ourselves. All our boasting is in Christ because He is the one who saves.

quote:

---

Here’s what James had to say on the subject. Here he is arguing against Foo’s argument that he is saved by faith alone:

---

You miss as badly as Roman Catholics do on this.

James isn't saying that saving faith in Jesus Christ is insufficient for salvation. He is talking about a dead (non-saving) faith that is based on knowledge rather than trust. That's why he mentions the "faith" of the demons, who aren't trusting in Christ but know that God exists (v. 19). James actually says that works prove faith (v. 18). It's precisely what Jesus was talking about when He said that you will know a tree by the fruit it produces (Mat. 12:33; Luke 6:44).

quote:

---

I don’t think Paul and James are contradictory on this subject. Paul’s works are filling Torah. James works are kindness and not being an a-hole.

---

They do not contradict each other, but not because of what you said. They don't contradict because neither is teaching salvation by works; Paul says that salvation comes by faith, and James says that saving faith produces good works. Both are true.

I believe the Bible teaches that salvation is applied by the Holy Spirit that changes the hearts of sinners and regenerates (makes alive) the spiritually dead. That same Spirit preserves the person and sanctifies (sets apart from the world through incremental holiness and adherence to God's law, conforming the person to the image of Jesus Christ, who is holy) the person until they die and are glorified in heaven. Romans 8:29-30 teaches this "golden chain of salvation" clearly.

quote:

---

That's my point, Foo. According to your theology, a Saved Person who is among the Elect is going to Heaven no matter how sinful he is on earth. That Gift can't be taken away, once he follows Faith Alone/Bible Alone, he is going to Heaven.

---

While it's true that the Bible teaches eternal security, it also teaches that one who is eternally secure will not be antinomian but will be conformed to Christ's image more and more through the work of the Spirit.

My position (the biblical one) acknowledges that the same Spirit that saves, sanctifies. While Christians will always sin, a Christian who has no problem with sin should have no expectation that he is actually saved, because someone who is truly regenerated will have the Spirit at work in him, convicting of sin and driving that person to confess his sin to God, repent of that sin, and endeavor after new righteousness, even if he continues to fall short.

quote:

---

Your theology teaches that he might suffer on earth because of his sins OR he might be on one of the lower levels of Heaven because of his sins, but, according to the doctrine of Eternal Security, he is going to Heaven, regardless of whether he raped or murdered - and this sinner is not required to confess his sins before God, once he is Saved, because Once Saved, Always Saved.

---

I don't believe in lower levels of Heaven (there is just Heaven), but in greater and lesser rewards in that one Heaven. That's a small point, though.

My real disagreement is over how you describe the biblical view of eternal security as if salvation is completely divorced from sanctification and that a declaration of justification has nothing to do with gradual conformity to Christ's holiness through the mortification of sin over time.

I believe that the Scripture teaches that a person who is truly saved will show evidence of that work of God in him through good works and repentance of sin. I do not believe in an antinomian view that teaches that justification/salvation has nothing to do with sanctification and that a person can have Christ as Savior but not as Lord. I believe that Christ is both Lord and Savior, and that to have one is to have the other, and to reject one is to reject both, ultimately.

quote:

---

This is not what my Theology teaches. My theology teaches that if you are an unrepentant sinner having never confessed and reconciled with God, you are not going to Heaven.

---

That's what the Scriptures teach and it's precisely what I believe.

quote:

---

Your doctrine of Eternal Security/ Once Saved Always Saved makes no sense to me, and, I understand it fully, because I've studied it.

---

No, I don't think you understand it because you have not explained it in this post. I don't believe what you have proposed in your explanation. You may be arguing against an Arminian and/or antinomian view of eternal security, but eternal security (what I prefer to call preservation of the saints) only makes logical sense within the biblical paradigm of Calvinistic soteriology, whereby totally depraved sinners are elected, atoned, regenerated, and preserved until the end due to the monergistic work of God in salvation. If salvation were synergistic, then eternal security wouldn't make logical sense.

quote:

---

Let’s reject modern knowledge in favor of the Christian theological interpretation for centuries! Let’s go back to the earth being the flat disk center of the universe with the sun traversing the firmament holding back the waters of heaven! Because those ancient theologians know the truth!

---

You are aware that Copernicus and Galileo were devout Catholics, right?

quote:

---

You are aware that Copernicus and Galileo were devout Catholics, right?

---

You can read the mind of dead guys? Did you convince the necromancer “witch” of Endor to summon the spirit of Galileo so you could ask him if he was a devout Catholic?

Is it possible that the penalty for not being Catholic and professing a reality that conflicted with church teaches that would have gotten Galileo burned at the stake might have influenced what he professed after they threatened him?

Did you know there were Nazi scientists, teachers, firefighters, accountants, factory workers, doctors, etc who didn’t believe in extermination of the Jews? But if they weren’t officially Nazis, they wouldn’t be able to survive in Nazi Germany?

Did you know in 1492 in Spain there were a lot of Jews that had to become “devout Catholics” overnight? Else they’d be burned at the stake. Is that free will? Was that a real choice for them? Be devout Catholics or be murdered. Not much of a choice if you ask me.

Your argument doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, sorry. Anyone living in southern Europe during the time period was at risk if they didn’t profess to be a “devout Catholic”. People have been realizing religions were just fabricated nonsense for thousands of years though they took a great personal risk in saying such.

Both of those men wrote about their faith. I don't have to "summon their spirit". Galileo had well-documented disagreements with the Church. Even that didn't change his faith in God.

quote:

---

Your argument doesn’t hold up to scrutiny,

---

Your argument is that religious don't believe in science. The fact is religious people are the fathers of the scientific method. Modern medicine was invented by Christians, hospitals were started by the Catholic Church, I could go on. Your argument is the one that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.