Yeah. The strength of it depends on the theology preached. Bad theology kills churches.

I think that's true as well. idk, I hope that Christianity sees a second look at the "Faith alone will save you" doctrine. Because it doesn't work, and it's not entirely accurate. And I think that's what drove so many away in the 80s and 90s.

Almost every mainstream comedian ripped on it for years.

Really? Interesting. I’ll have to look into that.

100%. Even earlier than the 80s I'd say. Look at people like Charles Templeton and the Burned Over district.

Well, James chapter 2 basically annihilates the doctrine of being saved by faith alone.

Like blows it out of the water.

Plus, a bunch of televangelists ruined it. Joel olsteen has bad theology.

yo, re: attractiveness shit, Roald Dahl has you covered

“If a person has ugly thoughts, it begins to show on the face. And when that person has ugly thoughts every day, every week, every year, the face gets uglier and uglier until you can hardly bear to look at it.

A person who has good thoughts cannot ever be ugly. You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth, but if you have good thoughts it will shine out of your face like sunbeams and you will always look lovely.”

Roald Dahl was a wise man with bad luck.

And Dyslexia.

Well kind of. Faith is dead without works. Having faith sparks the desire to do deeds. The works themself don’t save, but works are necessary to maintain faith. People are saved by faith, but works keep the faith alive.

I think that faith isn't enough. The bible is replete with messages that repentance is necessary to overcome sin. Christ made that repentance possible through the atonement. Faith may get you started to take steps, but it's not the destination, it's the starting line.

The problem with Christianity is that so much of it has been awash in laziness. I don't think we need the psychotic zeal of some denominations. But that happy balance, of trying to overcome our weaknesses, making amends when we goof, and then trying again.

Ironically, which is the root of protestant denominations is the idea that we have to actually do stuff.

I said about the same thing. Faith is what saves you, but works keeps the faith alive. It is a process.

So would you consider Repentance a form of 'works'?

Some denominations are lazier. That’s true. The larger a church gets, the harder it is to get more involved.

I’m going to a Presbyterian PCa Church now. Pretty good so far.

Nice, I'm going to a PCA as well.

Repentance is definitely a form of works.

If not one of the biggest forms of works.

I wouldn’t consider repentance to be a form of works. Repentance requires faith

ah okay, I guess I've always a more "ceremonial" view of works. Like public prayers, charity work, that sort of stuff.

@Latigo Smith cool

Like, evidential actions.

Repentence by definition requires a change of heart, a change of actions. You can't just faith your way through it.

The word repentence comes from penance, to pay the price for sin. To feel bad about what you've done and do better.

Old testament was the more ceremonial form of repentance, because Christ hadn't come and performed the atonement yet. The old testament is literally translated "The old covenant". The old promise to god. The New Testament is the new Covenant. Christ doesn't expect anymore wearing of Sackcloth and ashes. Or ritualistic ceremonies.

Proverbs says 13 He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.

To forsake is to turn away from and never do again (at least as best you can).

Yeah. But I don’t really think repentance counts as a work, at least in achieving salvation

How so?

Repentence isn't the only work we need to do, but it definitely isn't *not* a work.

Unless your definition of a work is purely service to others.

Which is also important.

I've heard that before.

I’ll have to get back to you on that. What constitutes as a work is important for understanding the nature of how salvation is achieved.

I don't think it's a debate. For the most part we see eye to eye on this one.

It's more like a minor difference in terminology at this point.