I made this posting before. However, there is a difference this time around. If you click on the book’s image, the link will take you to the book on Amazon.com. In other words, if you are interested in the book, you can buy it, easily and effortlessly. And if you buy it through this site, I will get a bit of a commission. That commission will either help pay for the site or help pay for my new SR22, which ever comes first. The SR22 is only $250K, standard.
The books I present are ones I believe will help you to grow as a Christian and will immunize you against the pimps and pimpettes. They will help you to understand who you are in Christ, who God is, and what it means to be a Christian.
I’ll tell you now that none of the recommended books are by such pimpologists as Benny Hinn, Marilyn Hickey or Fast Eddie Long. I suspect that for many of you, they are by writers you never heard of. But that’s fine. In fact, that is probably very good.
If you are interested in truly understanding what Christianity is and how it should look in your life, if you are tired of being told “This is the Year of Breakthrough”, or you just can’t take being loosed one more time, or if you’re tired of dancing in the aisles for a couple of hours only to have to go back to the same problems with no better understanding of how to deal with them, then I recommend you begin a program of prayerful reading that includes something weightier than Fred Prices’ “How Faith Works” published in 1976 and still in use by the Word Faith phonies today.
Developing as a Christian
If you want to actually develop as a Christian, I would suggest some books of substance. These books would include, but certainly would not be limited to, the following.
“Charity and Its Fruits” by Jonathan Edwards. This is an entirely sentimentality free exposition of 1 Corinthians 13. Edwards hammers the reader over and over again to get into him the habit of judging himself by the word of God and properly understanding what the Bible demands of us.
“Biblical Christianity” An easy-to-read and abridged version of the classic Institutes of Religion by John Calvin. This is a very brief distillation of the eighty chapter theological classic. I suspect this abridged version will do much to encourage you to eventually tackle the full version. By the way, this work bears no resemblance to the various works accomplished by Marilyn Hickey.
“Interpretation of the Scriptures” by Arthur W. Pink. In this work, Mr. Pink emphasizes the importance of right interpretation of the Scriptures. He steps the reader through the process - and it is a process - and aids the reader in avoiding the shipwreck of the faith that many of the pimps cause in the church. (1 Tim 1:19)
“A Survey of Bible Doctrine” by Charles C. Ryrie. As the title implies, this is not an in-depth treatment of the various doctrines of Christianity. However, it is a very good start for the Christian committed to God’s word. The book provides you with an easy-to-understand overview of the various doctrines of the Bible. It includes, by the way, a section on the importance of doctrine.
“The Holy Spirit” is a comprehensive study of the work and person of the Holy Spirit. Dr. Walvoord does a thorough job of letting Scripture speak on the issues surrounding the person and His work. If you read this one, you must have your Bible open. Dr Walvoord takes you for a ride through the depths of the Bible. You’ll see parts of the Bible you didn’t even know were there.
“How Should We Then Live?” by Francis A. Schaeffer. The book is a personal analysis of the key moments in history which have formed our present culture, and the thinking of men who brought those moments to pass. Schaeffer traces the causes and effects of human thought and actions as they are played out in life and society. He examines the reasons for modern society’s sorry state of affairs and presents the only viable alternative: living by the Christian ethic, acceptance of God’s revelation, and total affirmation of the Bible’s morals, values, and meaning.
“He That Is Spiritual” by L. S. Chafer. Chafer’s book defines true Christian living and unfolds the teaching concerning spirituality - what it is, and how it is secured. He cuts through all of the Word Faith pimps’ teachings on anointing and other terms they use to bamboozle you. By the way, this book was written long before Cashflow Dollar, Dexter Jakes, and Copeland ever came on the scene.
“True Evangelism” by L. S. Chafer. Written in 1911, this book provides the reader with the basics, as shown in Scripture, of evangelism. It doesn’t purport to present a method. Instead, it makes clear to the reader the responsibility we have to present the Gospel and the responsibility God has to act on the individual’s heart.
“Know Why You Believe” by Paul E. Little. One of the reasons the Watchtower and Tract Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses), the Mormons, Profit Jordan, and the Big Dogs can draw so many off from the denominations, is the fact that most of us don’t know much about Christianity and don’t know why we believe what we do know. Mr. Little hits the big items and working from Scripture, helps the layman (that’s you and me) understand what makes Christianity what it is.
“History of the Bible in English” by F. F. Bruce. This little books helps you and me to understand how we got the Bible most of us take to church every Sunday. Bruce traces the development of the English bible from its existence in Old English to modern translations. This link points you to a rather expensive edition ($30). However, do a search and it should take you to a cheaper, much cheaper one. Unfortunately, that edition doesn’t have an image for me to link to.
“Balancing the Christian Life” by Charles C. Ryrie. An outstanding overview of the essential doctrines for living the successful Christian life as God defines success. It includes such matters as true spirituality, using your gifts, confession and forgiveness, the process of sanctification, and how to know you are filled with the Spirit.
“Rightly Dividing the Word” by Clarence Larkin. The text looks funny and the charts are often stiff and complicated. But Mr. Larkin does an outstanding job of instructing and encouraging the committed Christian to study and rightly divide the word of truth.
Selling books now? You’re as bad as Hank Hannagraph…
PL
You will know I have gone over to the dark side the instant I tell you to buy a book I wrote because it will completely change your life forever.
When I became a Christian about 7 years ago the very first book I read was a book by TD Jakes entitled “Anointing Fall on Me”. Years after reading it the anointing still hadn’t fallen on me. I got rid of that book (and books like that) to replace them with books with titles that I knew would be edifying and not books with titles that are tantalizing. A good library should have books that will propel you to understand what to expect from God and what He expects from you, understanding His word and equipping you to be a true witness for His kingdom.
No junk about your anointing mess, as a matter of fact if you see any book with the word “anointing” in the title i.e. , Walk in your Anointing, God’s Purpose for the Anointing, Prosperity and your Anointing, WATCH OUT!!! :-).
Speaking of Hank Hanegraaff, after you read some of the books Melvin recommended it should ease you into reading Hank’s book Counterfeit Revival. That book goes behind the scenes to uncover the spiritual deception and contradictions going on in the WOF movement. In other words Counterfeit Revival gives you a good illustration on how these “hucksters” pimp the poor sheep (whoa! two catch words used in one sentence :-)).
Beware of Hank Hanegraaff, he might have some truth at times. But he also teaches false doctrines.
(MN: Agreed)
Beware of John Calvin and anyone who’s been influenced by his doctrines. That includes preachers, writers, and commentators.
The Holy Bible, Kings James Version is the only book I’d recommend for reading.
But what if the person doesn’t speak English? Should they still read the KJV? What about the poor Swedes in Sweden? What should they read? What about the rest of the world that doesn’t speak English? And what about all the people who didn’t have the KJV because no one had created it?
Help me out here because I’m thinking that everybody was using a bogus bible until the KJV came out in the early sixteen hundreds.
What translation of the Old Testament did Paul use when he preached to the Greeks? And what translation of the Old Testament did the early church fathers use if they didn’t speak or read koine greek or Hebrew?
Why do you say the KJV is the only one to be recommended for reading?
Melvin, I strongly recommend “The Gospel according to Jesus” by John MacArthur, great book.
I see you are a reformed christian and heavy into the whole reformed movement. You have some interesting arguments and often some valid points.
Where are your books by Cleophus LaRue, James Harris, James Cone, Gardner Taylor, Gayroud Wilmore, Vashti McKinzie, Sam Proctor, John Malcus Ellison, Byron K, Jones, Martin Luther King, Norman Gottwald, Bruce Malina, John Hayes and Carl Holiday, Martin Marty and a host of other people who can inform you much about the Christain faith. What you are putting forth is no different than Eddie Long, Creflo Dollar, and those preachers you call pimps. We must remember that they people who hold dear the reform theology are huge proponents of slavery, war, oppression, and other means and measures of systematically ending the lives of people who fail to look, think and act like them.
Think about what I have said before you respond because I am sure that your first idea would be to respond to me and tell me how wrong I am or how far off I stand on these issues.
FYI…I was a reformed believer until I broke free from those chains and began to think for myself.
Actually, I’m not really heavy into much of any movements. The books I have recommended focus on the basics of Christianity. They hold the Bible to be the inspired word of God, Jesus to be the only begotten son of God, and the Holy Spirit to be a person, coequal to the Father and the Son, not just a force or an it.
The writers you mentioned, almost without fail, tend to present at best a social gospel and at their worst a denial of some of the foundational truths of Christianity. That includes Dr. King, who, though he accomplished some very good things, denied the authority of Scripture and took Mahatma Ghandi as an example.
Most of the folks you referenced could probably tell me a lot about socio-psychological issues, but from what I have seen of them, few would look at Jesus Christ as the Son of God, who was born of a virgin, who was crucified, died, and rose on the third day.
If they deny any portion of these fundamentals, then they really have nothing to share with me with respect to Christianity.
I don’t know you, and I certainly don’t know what happened in your life, but you really seem to have taken an extreme turn from the truth (and I’m not limiting “the truth” to some Reformed arena.
Was Christianity born out of oppression or spiritual freedom? In other words, is this a religion of rebellion or Gnosticism? When this question is answered (not according to a Western Brand of Christianity, but from its true foundations) then and only then can we truly engage our faith and the tenants of its richness. Failing to see that this “movement” was birth in oppression is to shun the truth.
One thing that’s fascinating about our faith is that it is full of diversity (Those pimps are not included in this…We are on the same page with that one). I believe that all the disciples thought about the faith differently. However, from your response, I get the idea that you believe that true Christianity can only be understood from the perspective of Reformed Theologians and Southern Christians, both who were strong supporters of slavery and the slave trade in America. Many of these same believers with the “truth” still carry confederate flags. Many of these people, if not all ignore the plight of those oppressed by the government and other authorities of power. How does a person justify these in-light of what Jesus taught? One of Jesus’ most staunch enemies were people who used their religious positions to distort how people thought and how they abused their authority to oppress and suppress people. I think slavery and other forms of systematic evils fall into this arena. What do you think?
I noticed that you discussed the issues the authors and pastors (all of them are Christians) I have mentioned fail to believe in Jesus the way that you do. For the records, they all are in agreement with your assessment of the pimps in the pulpit. Their understanding of Jesus was developed over the years of intense study and dedication to learning about the bible that we claim has been written under divine inspiration of the Holy Ghost. People who don’t have the opportunity to study the bible full time often have to take a market place theology and believe it at its word. Too much theology without disclosure often leads people down the wrong path. I do my best to disclose where I stand on an issue because I want my Yes to be Yes and my No to be No because this leaves no room for a misunderstanding
Let me ask you this then, what about the politics around the selection of the books we have today in the bible? Why wasn’t the Maccabean Revolt included? Surely the incidents around these revolts could explain the mentality of John the Baptist, Jesus and other prominent Jews during that time period. It would really clear up a lot of confusion today in theological matters.
By the way, I didn’t notice a bible on your list of books to read. With over 400 translations available, which one should people use?
I just noticed something. You said:
I’m not clear on what you mean by this. Please expand.
Just so that I understand: What exactly do you mean by “reform movement”?
Reformed theology is false regardless of one’s beliefs in slavery, war, etc.
GOOD POINT.
Incognegro,
When I hear the term “reformed theology”, I think of the false teachings of John Calvin and Martin Luther. Are you referring that?
You’re deep into historical issues. I’m not. God’s not leading me to focus on that when too many souls (in and outside of church) are on their way to hell.
Yes, I am talking about Calvin and the bunch. Some of what Calvin and Luther say can be used, but what most people have done is to deify them and consider them to have the breath of life when the reality is that they had an ax to grind just like every other believer.
I’m a historian by trade and currently a seminary student. So I am into the history, but I’m also into discussing the gospel from a historical and socio-political perspective. I think they actually go hand in hand. Jesus always quoted from their historical records to deal with the wickedness of the scribes, teachers of the law and herodians of his day. I believe that Christians today must do the same.
Actually, when Jesus quoted a source, He quoted the Law and the Prophets. If he quoted other sources I would appreciate you pointing them out. And please make sure that there is a clear indication that He is quoting and the source. It would be easy enough to say “When Jesus gave the Golden Rule, he was actually quoting the Talmud, blah, blah, blah.”
Just out of curiosity, given your desire to discuss the Gospel out of a “socio-political perspective” what seminary are you associated with? Most of the authors you promoted the other day appear to be quite liberal, denying the fundamentals of the faith. I’m trying to determine where you are coming from and thus not make any assumptions.
Just so that I can chime in, I recommend the New American Standard Bible… The four hundred years or so “between testaments” was a period rich in History, but not heavy in theological content. Debate on what is canonical has been ended for centuries. Do I detect some “Da Vinci Code” creeping in??? Surely not, from someone who writes with such intelligence…Calvin had a man killed, and Luther was a staunch anti-semite, so I feel ya on those points…Also, just my opinion, but the Gospel transcends history and sociology; it apllies every bit to 2006, as it did then. Don’t forget the Supernatural aspect of the Word of God.
P.S. I believe all the books of the bible to be congruent, as well as inspired. (2 Tim 3:16) what evidence do you have that the disciple “thought about the faith differently”?
Observer and Incog,
You both come on here and blow a lot of smoke about the reformed faith(which you both show to know nothing of) and talk about how false it is. But what about the reformed faith is incorrect. Ad hominems don’t work when trying to prove a point.
Incog, it seems like you have a bone to pick. You say we deify Luther and Calvin. That’s an ad hom and you have no evidence of such nonsense. We defend the scriptures, not the man. It was men like Luther and Calvin(regardless of there mishaps) that spoke the truth when the RC had jacked everything up.
Let’s see. David was a murderer and an adulterer. I guess that rules out the Psalms. Solomon was a polygamist, I guess that rules out Proverbs. Peter, Paul, the list goes on. I guess we should remove these portions of Scripture because they had greivous sins.
I’m going to take a shot in the dark here and guess that since you are in seminary you have been fed some new stuff and you came on here to try it out. Let’s argue from scripture, not that other foolishness.
ps: you’re both sinners, why should we listen to you?
Assuming you don’t know either Observer or Incognegro personally, you have no right to call them “sinners”.
If you’ve governed yourself according to Calvin and Luther’s theology, we know who the real sinner is: YOU
If you’re a Baptist, you’re just as hell bound as the Muslims who deny the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Sure he/she does. We are all sinners. Or rather, we all sin.
I keep forgetting to put my name in the box. The anom guy is me. And “monitor”, I govern myself according to scripture. Like Mel said, we are all sinners. I would never deny that. My point was that they disregard certain people for their sins, why shouldn’t I do the same for them.
As I said in my first post, I agree with the Melvin about his view on Pimps in the Pulpit. So, where do I go from here?
First, I’m finishing up seminary at Virginia Union University at the Samuel DeWitt Proctor School of Theology. If I were in Bible College, I would only get a re-enforcement of what I took into school. If I went to Regent or Liberty, I would think another way, but did not. I’m tired of watching people struggle in life because they are told that they will get their reward in heaven and just to live through hell on earth now. I take my study of the word very serious and I admit what I bring to the text (my own presuppositions). In other words, I realize that bring my own understanding to the text even before I read it. Other people do also, but they are not honest enough with themselves when they read the text. Some people I entered seminary with fall into this category and I encounter people like this on a regular basis. I have had some of the finest professors in history, theology, and care who are serious about their study and work hard at helping to liberate people. Jesus in Luke 4 states that his calling is to Liberate people, not Reform them.
Second, people often ignore the culture in the text and simply only want “scripture.” Well, how can a person actually exegete a text without having an understanding of the culture in which the text was written. How can a person understand Revelation without knowing that John was on the island because his views did not co-incide with the views of Caesar as God? Any person with a grain of sense would recognize that an apocalyptic text was developed out of oppression and not sitting under a shade tree drinking cool beverages. It is developed during war time. This type of failure, leads to isogesis and that leads to “Pimps in the Pulpit.” The self-containing of theology and selfishness of its meaning is what lead to the corruption in the RC, but what has happened after Luther and his Thesis? Luther didn’t even want the book of James in the bible because the faith only doctrine only goes so far and when you or anyone doesn’t have works to compliment that faith, we are no different than the person in the temple praying saying, I’m glad I’m not like that publican.
Third, which scripture would you like to discuss, Anonymous? Your anger and condemnation might indicate that you cannot discuss theology without hostility entering the picture. You are upset because I challenged the reformed theology? Well, everyone who enters seminary comes in with a base of reformed theology because this has been what was historically taught in the church. This theology was embraced by slave owners and this same theology is what has us in war right now as our men and women in service to this country is spread out across the world protecting American interests. You wanted me to clarify and not give an ad hom to my statements. Let’s deal with predestination for a second. Predestination in the new world (1600 AD) took the form of hierarchies. Everyone has a place in this world. Those who were on top were destined to be there as were those on the bottom. When the exploitation of Native American Indians occurred, they were exploited in the name of Jesus Christ and the Queen, this has been identified by some as “predestination.” During the years of the African slave trade, Africans were distortedly given the title of slave because they were predestined for this role in their lives. Using “scripture” to support this false belief, many Reformed Christians (including preachers) used this philosophy to support their need for authority, power and greed (all the things they were denied in Europe). This was later incorporated into the colonialist mind state in nations dominated by Europeans as doing this in the name of Jesus. Here is the short example of the distortion of what Calvin actually believed. Calvin was a brilliant man, but his followers have destroyed the truth of what he really believed. Just like many have distorted what Jesus really believed. If you go back and take a close look at my statement, I did not say that we could learn nothing from Calvin or Luther. Your response proved my point about individuals taking their own agenda to the text and reading what they want to see in it.
I don’t have a bone to pick. Instead, I wanted to have some type of healthy conversation about the various theologies, but instead I run into a theological ambush because I bring a different perspective to the table.
For those who want to argue scripture, I would recommend that you start not with any English version simply because the original text was written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Therefore, all discussions about the inerrancy of an English translation are mute. So argue scripture with someone who has a desire and ignorance level to engage. I’m not that person.
By the way, David didn’t write all the Psalms, Solomon didn’t write all the Proverbs, and many people you are quick to defend about writing some of the sacred text we use didn’t write them. Melvin, if you really want to know the truth about those people in the books I recommended, I suggest you read what they have to say and not simply take what someone else said about them.
Remember, when you are most right, that’s when you are most wrong.
FYI….WE ARE ALL SINNERS AND YOU CAN LEARN SOMETHING FROM ANYONE!
I’m curious, how do you figure you were ambushed? It’s not like you didn’t know where the readers (pro and con) stand. Are they supposed to just sit there and not respond to your statements?
Congrats, we know you go to seminary. Great for you. You must be in your first year. I think most people know that the original text were in Hebrew and Greek. We all know why John was on the island of Patmos. You are not the only one in the world who has gone to school you know.
What does Luke 4 have to do with anything? Christ came to redeem, not to be a social martyr like the people you admire.
Let’s argue predestination. Let it be from Scripture, not how man abused it. Ultimately, slavery was God’s will, just like the Israelites. Though man will be held responsible, just like Pharoah. But show me from scripture how our salvation is not predestined from God. You have socio-political agenda, and that’s great, but it does rectify man’s emnity with God. You wanna platform go take up a cause.
Look man, most of us on here has probably been to college, and the knowledge of the things you bring up has some earthly value. But it does not reconcile us.
I never said David wrote all the Psalms, nor did I say Solomon wrote all the Proverbs.
Let me ask you this. What is scripture about? You seem to think it can only be understood unless we understand oppression.
Also, your name was not the only name I addressed.
You see folks, the problem here is that we could easily argue from scripture, but Incog refuses. Don’t they teach you that scripture interprets scripture at that school? Don’t they teach hermeneutics?
Incognegro/Seminary Student:
You’ve been studying various theologies during your course of studies. If you’re not rooted correctly before seminary school, that can be damaging.
You keep mentioning Calvin. So let me ask you: Do you believe in John Calvin’s theology of TULIP? Yes or no.
Honey, I can feel you on Martin Luther. He rejected what James said when developing his Sola Fide FALSE doctrine. When you reject the fullness of God’s word, you’re rejecting him in a sense.
You can’t find a scripture that actually says saved by “faith alone”. But God did say in James 2:24, man is not JUSTIFIED by faith ALONE. (Justification and salvation are related.)
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and NOT by faith only. (KJV)
Luther obviously taught something that was opposite of what GOD actually said!
In James 2:14-26, God said 3 times faith without works is DEAD. (vs. 17, 20, 26) Luther and other false teachers tend to ignore these scriptures. They also try to pit Paul against James. Since all scripture is inspired by God, you can’t do that. You can’t ignore some scriptures in order to teach what you want to believe. God’s word must be rightly divided. Amen.
Monitor, no disrespect, but you don’t seem to show that you understand fully what the reformers meant by Faith Alone.
It was never meant to mean a faith that is alone. True saving faith is never alone. Faith alone means that you trust soley in the imputed righteousness of Christ saving work. Even James gives the differences of alive faith and a dead faith. If you don’t trust soley in the imputed righteousness of Christ, then are you trusting in your works. James said I will show you my faith by my works. Paul and James weren’t dealing with the same matter. I hope this helps you understand the meaning of Faith Alone.
Rev_AK
I’m just going by how the gospels are presented and the different focus that each has on the person of Jesus.
that’s it…Thanks for the help in this matter.
It’s ironic this blog demonizes views opposed to reformed theology but fails to look at the social and political situations of the protestant reformation and its adherents. All theology takes place in a social space; none of it is created in a vacuum. The Bible did not drop down from the sky to refomed churches. You must study other scholarship to properly understand the Bible and the faith. I know that may offend some people, but isn’t that the reason for your book list? If you study the Roman empire, then you will be better able to understand the Gospel. If you study the political climate in Germany at the time, then you will better understand Luther’s 95 theses. The Protestant church’s beginnings were not only over religious issues but social and political ones Mr. Jones aka anonymous. In 2006 it’s tragically naive to hold the theories of Ryrie, Pink, etc are the only way to interpret the scriptures. You can recognize the social issues of others but never seem to consider that the books listed also have agendas, influences outside of Christianity, and social causes to advance. Mr. Jones, Christianity did not begin, will not end with, and cannot be totally defined by reformed theology or any other human viewpoint. It would help if you actually studied Church history, the translations of the bible into various languages, and please Mr. Jones read the writings of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others. Check out how they differ on doctrinal issues. You probably think that they all thought alike. Look at the history of the churches that followed the different doctrines, how they treated people, their political philosophies, etc. Then maybe you will better equipped to have an intelligent conversation on Christianity instead of bashing other views and sounding like a puppet.
(MN: While I don’t have a set of letters behind my name, you would still do well not to assume you have any great insight into my personality, what I may or may not know of church history, and where my naivete may lie.
You seem to be persuing the discussion exactly as I would expect you to given your initial statements. Here let’s cut to the chase and see if we should even seriously consider anything you may have to say on the subject of Christianity.
1. Do you believe Jesus Christ was born of a virgin (a woman who had never had sex with any man before His birth)?
2. Is the Bible (the autographs) the inspired words of God?
3. Is Jesus Christ fully God and fully man?
Please try to provide a fairly short answer to each. ”Yes” or “no” would do just fine. )
While I don’t have a set of letters behind my name, you would still do well not to assume you have any great insight into my personality, what I may or may not know of church history, and where my naivete may lie.
You seem to be persuing the discussion exactly as I would expect you to given your initial statements. Here let’s cut to the chase and see if we should even seriously consider anything you may have to say on the subject of Christianity.
1. Do you believe Jesus Christ was born of a virgin (a woman who had never had sex with any man before His birth)?
2. Is the Bible (the autographs) the inspired words of God?
3. Is Jesus Christ fully God and fully man?
Please try to provide a fairly short answer to each. “Yes” or “no” would do just fine. )
Thanks for making this simple. I believe in the resurrection of the 1 true Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ- the Incarnated Son of God! Do you? It’s the only real test of faith. Read the Bible!
Hey MDub, time out!
You said, “It’s the only real test of faith.” Please prayerfully read James 2:14-26. God used James to address the issue of born again Christians claiming to have “faith”.
If you’ve been indoctrinated by Calvinist, Baptists, and AME, you may not understand James.
Thanks.
That’s a fallacy. Once again, you don’t understand the meaning of Faith Alone. It’s implied that it is true saving faith. A faith that works.
Are you justified by faith alone?
Or are you justified by faith plus works?
What does the scripture say?
“Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?” James 2:22
The word “perfect” means “complete”. One’s faith is not complete without works.
“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” James 2:24
A man is justified by BOTH faith and works. Works are the evidence of his faith.
Monitor, do you mind if I call you Semi-Pelagian? So then you don’t trust soley in the work of Christ to justify you before God. Or maybe you still don’t understand. Paul says that we are justified by faith(Rom 5:1). Justified before whom? Of course, God. We have peace with Him through faith in Christ(1:1). Both Paul and James appeal to Abraham. Paul says that he(Abraham) was justified by faith, and if it was by works, the he has something to boast about, but not before God(Rom. 4:2). Scripture says, Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. It would no longer be grace if we weren’t, it be works that justify us, but they do not.
James says, that faith without works is “dead”. That’s a key word. Dead. If it’s dead faith then it cannot be true saving faith. An alive faith is able to save your soul. It’s clear here that James was speaking of a faith that worked. He says, I will show you my faith by my works(Jam. 2:18). But who is he showing? God or man. Clearly he is not speaking of God, but of man. So James is not speaking of a faith that justifies us before God but before man, allowing our fruits to be judged. Man can only see the outside, so he has no ability to see the heart.
So James here is not contradicting Paul, as you have him doing. Rather he is affirming what Paul meant. Alive faith, as opposed to dead faith. James attacks all forms of antinomianism that seek to have Jesus as Savior without embracing Him as Lord.
Even you works are not good, they are tainted by sins, so how can faith + works justify you before God? Our works are only acceptable to God because of the mercy of Christ(Rom. 7:13-20;Gal. 5:17). Our faith is active, “working through love”(Gal. 5:6), seeking to do all the “good works, which God prepared beforehand” for us(Eph. 2:10). Justification is by faith alone(Before God), but justifying faith can never be alone(before man).
I hope I have cleared the air here, and if I haven’t, there are more skilled people out there that can. But please stop misrepresenting what is meant by Sola Fide.
Sincere:
I’m not the one who needs clarity. It’s you. Who were you indoctrinated by? By which denomination? Don’t lie, and say you weren’t……… Whomever it was, they missed the mark when interpreting justification. The Baptist doctrine on justification, etc. is inaccurate.
There’s an initial justification which comes at the moment a non-believer believes the gospel and repents. This justification is available through the grace of God. At that moment, their FAITH is counted as righteousness. It was the work of Christ that made this provision. Our initial justification does NOT require works. It’s our ongoing or future justification that requires works. **I know you can’t relate to this because God hasn’t called you to teach. By the way, GOD is the only one we need to be “justified before” (not man).
In James 2:14-26, James is discussing the believer’s “faith”. But he’s also addressing the state of justification that occurs AFTER they’ve come into the faith. (You can’t be saved without being justified.) That’s why James opened his dialogue with the question, “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath FAITH, and have not WORKS? can faith SAVE him?” Essentially, James is asking: If a believer makes a confession but he doesn’t have works, can his faith SAVE him? In James 2:14, the word “save” has the same Greek translation of “saved” in Ephesians 2:8.
Abraham was NOT justified solely by his faith. He was also justified by his WORKS. That’s what God revealed in James 2:21-24. Keep quiet and re-read the text:
“Was not Abraham our father JUSTIFIED by WORKS, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? (verse 21)
Rehab the harlot was used as another example of one who was JUSTIFIED by works. “Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by WORKS, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?” (verse 25)
In verse 22, God summarized Abraham’s faith in a way that confirmed a connection with works:
“Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by WORKS was faith made perfect?”
Again, perfect means “complete”. So Abraham’s faith was not complete without “works”. Neither is our faith complete without works! If a believer’s faith does not have “works”, it is DEAD. (James 2:17, 20, 26) If it’s dead, it’s not alive and non-existent.
When the bible is interpreted by one who’s been called to teach, the truth of His word is revealed. The bible does not say we’re justified by “faith alone”. But it does actually say we are NOT “justified by faith ONLY”. (verse 24) Your conclusion contradicts what the scripture says in black and white.
“Ye see then how that by WORKS a man is JUSTIFIED, and NOT by faith only.” (James 2:24) Therefore, a man is justified by BOTH faith and works. That’s what God said, and that’s what He meant. Please don’t try to teach me anything else.
NOTE: The book of James was written to address a problem. Christians were professing faith, but not living the life that exemplified having faith. God used James to set the record straight. Believers are NOT continuously justified regardless of how they live their lives. If they sin, they must repent. (Acts 8:22; 17:30; 26:20; 2 Peter 3:9)
At the end of this age, they will be judged by their works. (Romans 2:6-10; Matthew 25:31-40) It is the DOERS not just the hearers of God’s law that are JUSTIFIED. (Romans 2:13) Those whose names are still written in the Book of Life will be judged by their “works”. (Revelations 20:12)
STOP trying to pit scripture against scripture in order to promote what YOU want to believe. NO; I’m not interested in hearing from none of your colleagues or associates.
P.S. (I’m not a Semi-Pelagian!)
Actually, you are Semi-Pelagian. And Roman Catholic. That’s exactly what they believe. You call yourself a teacher but don’t know these things.
I grew up methodist actually, so I come from the holiness wesleyan background. I’m not baptist either. My denomination is the United Reformed Churches of North America.
Actually, I haven’t pit James against Paul(we could go back and forth all day here), but it’s you. According to Paul we are justified by faith and not by works.
Here is your error. James and Paul both appealed to Abraham. But they don’t appeal to the same event. James appeals to Gen. 22, while Paul appeals to Gen. 15. In the sight of God Abraham is justified in Gen. 15, long before he offers Isaac on the altar. God knew Abraham’s faith to be genuine. Abraham is justified to us, to human eyes, in Gen. 22 when he shows his faith through his obedience. Jesus used the same verb in Luke 7:35 when he declared “wisdom is justified by all her children”(shown to be real wisdom by its results). Here, to “justify” does not mean to be reconciled to God but to demonstrate the truth of a prior claim. The same way true wisdom is demonstrated by its fruit, Abraham’s claim to faith is justified by his outward obedience. Abraham’s nor your works can add to the merit of Christ.
James 2:22; faith was completed: Our outworking of faith is seen in works. True faith always produces fruit. Reformers never separate faith and works. You do. This is why you have Roman Catholic viewpoints. You confuse justification with sanctification. You need to study more. I don’t mean that as an insult, you just do.
You see the problem here is, where you trust in your works, that shows that you don’t trust fully in the merit of Christ.
Again, Christians are justified before God by faith(Rom. 3:26; 4:1-5;Gal. 2:16), and by faith they live their lives(2 Cor. 5:7) and sustain their hope(Heb. 10:35-12:3).
Romans 5:1–Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
You see, this is why I say you don’t understand the meaning of justification, nor sanctification. Through Christ we have also obtained acces by faith into his grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God(Rom. 5:2). We are justified by his blood(Rom. 5:9). It is by grace we are saved through faith and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God, not a result of your works Monitor, so that no one(this includes you) may boast(Eph. 2:8,9).
You see, if you believe that you are saved by faith and works, you have something to boast about before God. If you are justified by faith alone in Christ alone, because of grace alone, to the Glory of God Alone, you have no room for boasting.
You see, we do not make our faith some subjective thing, where you make a profession and walk some aisle. That’s not what saves you. It is God’s working through the Holy Spirit that quickens your dead soul and causes you to believe. Where there is true repentance, where there is a contrite heart that God has given you, because you had a stony heart before. God makes you alive. God calls you. God changes you, and you believe and are justified. By believing in God, Abraham was counted as righteous. Both Paul and James said this.
If you are Roman Catholic admit it. You are Semi-Pelagian by definition, I’m not tryin to come at you, but that is what you are.
So let me ask you. What works do you have? If you keep this semi-pelagian attitude, what will you say before God? Will you boast, you’ll have something to boast about, but I know that’s not what God wants. He wants the glory of God all by himself.
Monitor, I may be wrong, but I believe that this is the second time that you have made reference to Baptists not preaching sound doctrine (I tried to find the first post but could not). Please explain why you are saying this when Baptist Churches are independent and each Baptist church is not govern by one set of rules; unlike the Calvinists, Lutherans, AMEs, or the United Methodist, who still have some of the Catholic structures and beliefs when it comes to running their denomination.
Futhermore, does a denomination get you into heaven or is it their walk with Christ?
side note:
There is no calvinist denomination, rather they are either Presbyterian, or Reformed. There are Reformed Baptists (difference in church gov’t and baptism, padeo or credo) who hold to the London Baptist Confession of 1689. I think it’s 1689, Mel correct me if I’m wrong.
another side note:
What does Reformed Mean?
We could very easily be called Reformed “Western Catholics”. Historically, the Reformed Tradition is a Continental European branch of the Western (or Roman) half of the Christian Church. We adhere to the traditional Ecumenical Creeds of the Christian Faith as do the Roman and Eastern Orthodox branches of the Church.
We, however, differ significantly from the Roman church headed by the Pope of Rome in several ways. We also have several differences with the broad evangelical beliefs held in many American churches. Our beliefs are stated in the Three Forms of Unity, but a simple comparison below will outline the main differences.
Scripture and Tradition
We believe that Holy Scripture is completely infallible and inerrant, the only rule of faith and practice that directs our lives. - Belgic Confession, Article 7
We believe that the tradition of the Church is important to serve as a guide to Biblical understanding and interpretation. This is contrary to the Roman church that believes that tradition and Scripture are equal in authority as well as broad evangelical belief that has no respect for the tradition of the Church and is similarly awash with new and strange, frequently conflicting, doctrines.
We believe that in order to preserve what has been entrusted to us, it is beneficial to hold to confessional statements. These are summaries of Scriptural teaching as understood by the Western and Protestant traditions. - 1 Timothy 6:20-21; Jude 3-4
The Three Forms of Unity (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and Canons of the Synod of Dordt) are anchors to the past that help prevent deviant doctrinal development into errors such as Arminianism, Dispensationalism, The Immaculate Conception of Mary, Open Theism and Papal Infallibility.
Church Government
We are presbyterial in hierarchal polity and our local congregational government consists of three offices - the minister of the Word, the ruling elder, and the deacon. This is opposed to the hierarchal polity of Episcopacy (bishops) and Independency (no broader assemblies) as well as the local structure of Episcopacy and Baptists (ministers and deacons). ? Belgic Confession Article 30
Scripture does not command that regional churches are to be ruled by a single man, whether bishop or supra-local ruler. Instead we see, as in the case of the council in Jerusalem, that adjudicating responsibilities above the local congregation lay in broader assemblies consisting of multiple office-bearers. - Acts 15:1-31
Our broader assemblies (classis & synod) have responsibility for adjudicating mutual doctrinal and polity concerns within the various churches of our federation and provide a forum for appealing a lower assembly?s decision. We believe this structure to be the most Biblical and one that meets the needs of Christ?s Body in ministering, teaching, and ruling.
Salvation
The Father, in the counsels of eternity, chose a people out of the mass of humanity for His Son to redeem unto eternal life. We believe that the number of elect is already determined and that Jesus died in the place of these only to receive salvation. The elect is a number known only to God and is a part of the secret things that belong to Him. ? Belgic Confession, Article 16
We believe that salvation is the work of God from beginning to end. Our faith in Jesus Christ is a work of the Holy Spirit and not something that man generates on his own. Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of this work. He is both the first fruits of the resurrection and the one who will resurrect believers at the Last Day. ? Ephesians 2:1-10; Hebrews 12:2; 1 Corinthians 15:20-23
We believe that all of God’s saints will persevere in the Christian faith through the work of the Holy Spirit by being united to Christ?s Body, the Church. God’s elect will persevere precisely because of their faithful clinging to Christ all of their lives and through their use of the means of grace which are the preaching of God?s Word, Holy Baptism, and Holy Communion. This is contrary to the broad evangelical doctrine of “Eternal Security” or a “once saved always saved” view of the Christian life. This doctrine can and does breed a false security in “decisions” made for Christ and a go-it-alone individualism instead of lifetime faithful obedience to Christ and communion with His Body. ? Belgic Confession, Articles 24, 28, 33
We do not believe in the doctrine of purgatory that is taught by the Roman church. Scripture nowhere engenders this intermediate state for the purpose of “purifying” or punishing us for sins committed in this life in order to enter heaven. The Apostle Paul teaches us that to die is to be with Christ in heaven. Christ has paid the full penalty of all His People’s sins by His death on the cross of Calvary. There is no longer any payment of sins that need to be made. If you abide in Christ, then the punishment Christ endured is reckoned as your punishment.
Sacraments
We believe that Jesus Christ has instituted only two sacraments or ordinances for His Church. These are Holy Baptism and Holy Communion. Marriage, Holy Orders, Extreme Unction, and Penance are not sacraments. ? Belgic Confession, Article 33
We believe that the Sacrament of Holy Baptism is neither regenerative (Roman Catholics) or merely a sign (Baptist). We believe that it is a covenantal sign that truly imparts the grace of God to the subject. Baptism does not save the individual, washing away original sin as the Roman church teaches, but neither is the Spirit of God inactive in its use as Baptist theology would hold. Baptism transforms an adult or child from being a subject of Satan’s Kingdom by nature into a subject of Christ’s Kingdom by covenant. The Spirit moves in the recipient of Holy Baptism during his entire lifetime applying the grace of salvation. ? Belgic Confession, Article 34
We believe that the Sacrament of Holy Communion was given to the Body of Christ for both the nourishment of our faith in Christ and the nourishment of our fellowship both as a Body and as individuals with our Lord. We believe that in eating the bread and wine we truly eat the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is a great mystery and is maligned by the doctrine of transubstantiation of the Roman church. This doctrine teaches that the elements are transformed literally into the body and blood of Christ and as such are to be worshipped as Divine. The Roman church also teaches that the sacrifice of the Mass atones for the sins of both the living and the dead. It, thereby, denies the all-sufficient sacrificial atonement of Christ’s body and blood on the cross of Calvary. This mystery is also maligned by the Baptist doctrine that teaches that Holy Communion is merely a memorial and that the grace of God is not given to His People in partaking of the Supper. Christ clearly teaches us that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood we have no life in us. ? Belgic Confession, Article 35
(sorry it was so long Mel)
(MN: No prolem. I am a very gracious tyrant.)
Just skimming through this “reformed” stuff, I see some ERRORS. Fortunately for you, I don’t have time to address them.
Here’s just a few examples of many statements not backed by scripture: “We believe that it is a covenantal sign that truly imparts the grace of God to the subject……Baptism transforms an adult or child from being a subject of Satan’s Kingdom……The Spirit moves in the recipient of Holy Baptism during his entire lifetime applying the grace of salvation. ?”
I only had time to skim through one paragraph. I see I’m not missing any unknown and divinely inspired truths!
Well I understand that. Many don’t agree with it (particularly baptist). But it’s clear that you have no concept of continuity or discontinuity. Nor do you comprehend what covenant theology is. Where you see things as individualistic, I see covenantal communities.
We rest our beliefs of infant baptisms on the grounds that there is a parallel between O.T. circumcision and N.T. baptisms as signs and seals of the covenant of grace (Gen. 17:11;Rom. 4:11;Col. 2:11,12) and on the claim that family solidarity in the covenant community (the church) was not affected by the transition from the old to the new form of God’s covenant brought about by Christ. Infant children of believers are covenant chilren, just as Jewish male infants had previously been circumcised. If the children or any male in Abraham’s household were not given this sign, they were cut off, and had broken God’s covenant (Gen. 17:14). Family solidarity is seen in the N.T. Paul in 1 Cor. 7:14 notes that even the children of but one Christian parent are relationally and covenantally set apart. Peter echoes the same in Acts 2:39. Even you, though you are Semi-Pelagian would bring your child up as if they were Christians.
Here is what we don’t say. That this baptism in any way saves the child. (MN: I’m glad you mentioned this.) This is a misconception, taken on both sides, and is a greivous error. But it is also and error when an adult believes he is saved by rite because he was baptized (a la Church of Christ).
Nobody said that what I posted was divinely inspired. You didn’t have to read it in the first place. I’m glad that you did though. But what exactly don’t you agree with? You read my post with many presuppositions, and claim error when you don’t even know what error is. Error is believing that you can work your way into heaven. Read Titus 3:3-8. I know I’ve given you a lot to read, but I think that it will benefit you.
I guess MDub doesn’t believe in the virgin birth, the inspiration of the scriptures, nor the hypostatic union. I thought that it was supposed to be simple.
Rev’s right. Where were you people when we were talking about the puppies? Better late than never I guess.
Dear MDub:
FYI: Melvin and many of his viewers are Calvinists, Baptists, and Eternal Securists.
If you show them scriptural proof, they can’t see what the scriptures are actually saying. The whole counsel of God proves they’re WRONG. When faced with those scriptures, they find excuses not to believe what the scriptures actually teach. So it ends up being a back and forth waste of time arguing with them.
The Jehovah Witnesses are good at pulling out scriptures to justify their beliefs. The reformers and Eternal Securist have done the same thing. They base their beliefs on scriptures they have misinterpreted.
Anonymous is not Melvin, it’s me, Sincere.
Again, we have grassroots attempt to make sense of Scripture. I can argue from scripture without using such names as Calvin, or Luther or Z-wig. People who have some beef with the reformed faith always like to take shots at these cats, as if we glorify them. Woe is me Masa MDub cuz I’z don’t knowz howz to inturpret scriptuo cuz Masa Lutha and Masa Calvinz gosta do it fo me. Shucks!!!! I’z reckon I’z dont knowz none of dem histry books, shoot, I’z dont evenz knowz howz to read.
You don’t have to agree with everybody reformed, heck, I don’t agree with everybody that’s reformed. I’m a infralapsarian, others are supralapsarians. I never said you had to be reformed to understand scripture. I prefer it for me personally, because that is what I believe to be the truth. And if I’m wrong, show me from scripture where I am wrong and we can discuss. Don’t say, “Ooooohhh, Calvin, and Luther, did this, and they disagreed with so and so, Ooooohhh!!!” That’s not how you do it. I assume you go to the same seminary as Incog. Let’s reason from scripture. You ought to have know that I wouldn’t have had it any other way. I’m reformed.
SOLA SCRIPTURA BABY!!!
This is actually funny. Someone actually had the nerve to say that slavery was the will of God. I think you guys won. Congrats on your exegetical skills and your interpretation of scripture.
No I don’t believe in Calvin’s TULIP theory.
To Melvin: I never said I had insight into your mentality, but what I am suggesting is that there are other theologians and believers out there who have as much to add to the faith as does the reformers in times past. here are the answers you are intending to get at……
I believe in the resurrection of Jesus who is the Incarnate Son of the living God.
You know what’s interesting about this entire event is that the worse behavior has come out of some people. Take Sincere/Anonymous for instance.
His remarks to MDub is mind blowing. From what he is saying, his Bible is more important than his relationship with God. I haven’t seen him/her/it mention God not one time.
But I will take my que from Monitor about the truth in scriptures and how the truth will evade you simply because you can’t handle the truth.
Well, unless you are willing to say that things happen that are out of God’s control, then I don’t see that it is at all unreasonable. Is this the same thing as saying that God thinks slavery is a wonderful institution? Certianly not. Be a part of God’s will and being a thing that God thinks is wonderful are not the same. Do you think God thought destroying the various towns and cities to make room for the Israelites was wonderful? Or the flood and the resulting death of so many people; do you think it was something God thought was wonderful? I doubt it. But again, if anything happens that is outside of God’s control, then He is not God. He is simply a very powerful being.
By the way, how do you know Jesus was resurrected and is the Son of the living God? How do you know the books that said otherwise weren’t kicked out of the Bible because of insistent, but misguided church leaders? Remember, you still haven’t answered the question about Scripture - is it (the autographs) the inspired word of God?
No. It’s a form of communication used to help individuals survive on a planet and in a world that is seeking to destroy the most precious creation God has created (Humanity). I think it is inspired, but for survivial purposes only.
Incognegro,
You talk alot, but I want some clarity on your doctrinal beliefs. I have to beware of any seminary student or graduate. Many of you have been taught that FALSE eternal security doctrine.
Please give me some specific answers: 1) Do you believe in John Calvin’s TULIP theory? 2) Do you believe in eternal security? 3) What type of churches have you been indoctrinated by?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Incog does not hold to the TULIP, he has already stated that.
What about it is wrong. What about Total Depravity(I prefer Total Inability) is wrong?
What about Unconditional Election is wrong? Are you claiming to have some deserved reason for being saved?
What about Limited Atonement(I prefer Particular Atonement) is wrong? Are you a universalist? If Christ died for the whole world, that would mean that everyone would be saved?
What about Irresistable Grace is wrong? Are you powerful enough to resist the Holy Spirit? Surely you don’t believe that.
What about Perseverence of the Saints is wrong? Romans 8:30 means nothing to you then.
The answers to your questions can not be adequately addressed in less than 10 pages of type. Who has that much time to spare arguing with you “blind guides”? Not me.
Furthermore, I know Melvin don’t want us tying up that much web page space.
In summary, I’ll say every scripture used to justify Calvinism theology has been misinterpreted. Your interpretation is not in harmony with the whole counsel of God. You are in ERROR when you interpret scripture in a way that causes a conflict with other scriptures.
Your selection of Romans 8:30 to justify Perseverance….only proves one thing: You don’t know how to rightly divide and rightly interpret the word of God.
God’s promises and election are conditional not unconditional. Those He chose were chosen to be “conformed” to the image of His Son Jesus Christ. (Romans 8:29) That means we are to become like His Son. We are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. (Romans 12:2) **We play a part in that transformation by obeying God’s word.
God expects a change to take place in our lives. It’s up to us to make the decision to yield to God’s will. It’s our “free will” that enables us to yield to sin.
God knew man was not “totally depraved”. That’s why He used Paul in Romans 6 to warn born again Christians about yielding to sin. (vs. 13) If they were “totally depraved” and without a “free will”, that would not have been an issue to discuss!
If man was “totally depraved”, God would not have used Joshua to tell the people to “choose you this day whom ye will serve”. (Joshua 24:15) If they were unable to make decisions to do good or evil, this statement would not have been necessary.
Calvinism theology was inspired by man NOT God. End of subject.
P.S. (Wake up Rev_AK and Minister Steven F. I know you know better!)
Monitor,
I have made my Calvin statements in another posting. I agree with the scriptures you used here. My thing is this: I see a big difference in arguing about the mechanisms of salvation (can you lose it, can you chose it,etc) and arguing about the Essentials of the faith. As I said to Incognegro, just because we are fallible, we make mistakes, doesn’t take away from the fact that Jesus Christ is perfect. Our points of view are irrelevant. I have chosen to keep my focus on this website about attacking pimps and their false doctrine, I think all the theological debates can become a self-fufilling prophecy that christians are divided and therefore there is a flaw in our faith. That is the reason I responded to Incoognegro in the first place…I had a hunch that some liberal professor began questioning the Cannon and other things and shook his faith a little. As for my view on Calvinism, I went in circles for three days with Melvin and Sincere (had a lot of fun) and I didn’t budge them an inch, and neither did they change my views. It is a stalemate. It has been debated for centuries, and I’m tired of it….There are “bigger fish to fry”