Commandments should not be followed ...

[BRB]

If salvation happens one in time, for all time, how can we “grow into” it?

:

Part of the Protestant - Catholic disputes over salvation spring from the fact that most Protestants experience salvation as adults at a distinct ‘point-in-time’.

Most Catholics on the otherhand are probably cradle Christians … w/o any memory of their infant Baptism following a profession of faith.

Thus, for Protestants … their conversions were ‘experienced’, very real life-events. They clearly know that works played no role in their conversions. This is more c/w the gentile adult experience of becoming Christians that occurred within the Churchs of Corinth, Rome, etc. Paul came to Christ as adult, in very dramatic way.

This is why Paul really speaks to adults who are converted.

For cradle Catholics … it may be more of a Hebrew ‘chosen’ birthright event. Perhaps this is why Catholics seem to place more emphasis on works [with regards to salvation] than Protestants.

Protestants universally view works as ‘rewards’ …desireable, and expected of one, but unrelated to their OSAS status in Christ.

 

[moondweller]

Moondweller, what do you mean by “rule of life before God?”

God Bless,
Michael

Under what principle (rule) is the believer called to live his life on earth before God? The principle (rule) of law or the principle (rule) of grace?

 

[Teflon93]

In context, Tef., who are “ye?” To whom was He giving that “new” commandment.

To all Christians, whom at that time numbered the disciples, and whom in turn went out to Gentile and Jew. Whom did he direct us to hate?

It did?Mark 12:29 "Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the lord your God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” There is no other commandment greater than these."It certainly didn’t lack love, did it?

Of course not. But if you define your neighbor as the person in the pew of the separatist community next to you, you’ve rather missed the point, haven’t you?

Of course, you missed the point when you said earlier that whether you love is not a factor in your salvation, whereas Jesus in Matthew 25 clearly indicates it is, and whereas the epistles maintain that it is.

Since love was certainly required in the Law, Tef., how is Christ’s commandment to love one another then a “new” commandment?

It is new in the sense that as St Paul notes we did not know that not to love one another was a sin until Christ told us it was. When Christ went to the woman at the well, he was demonstrating this love. When Christ defended the adultress, he was demonstrating this love. When Christ provided the wine at Cana, and the loaves and fishes, and most certainly, when Christ provides the Eucharist, it is love. Christ loved all of those whom those who held to the Law without love despised. This is what scandalized them. How could one associate with a tax collector? Why, that would be equivalent to a Fundamentalist associating with somebody who likes to go dancing, or who enjoys a beer. You cannot love those you shun. Shunning people doesn’t make you pure.

That’s true. According to the Scriptures FAITH is required. Of course, in compliance with Christ’s “new” commandment, the Apostles do exhort the saved to love one another. Paul even urged the church at Thessalonica to excel in that love of the brethren still more (1 Thess. 4:9-10).

So hating those yet unsaved is okay? We owe them nothing? We may steal from them, lie about them, even slay them?

And how do you know the saved? How would you have treated Saul, before he became Paul?

But salvation itself was never dependent on our love, but God’s toward us:1 John 4:10 "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son {to be} the propitiation for our sins."John goes on to say1 John 4:19 "We love, because He first loved us."In respect to salvation, Paul sums it up:Gal 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the {life} which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.The question is, are you saved by loving your brother?

It’s not either/or, but both/and. Your theology of subtraction is an impediment.

The Church teaches that no one would be saved without God’s grace and Christ’s sacrifice. The Church also teaches that our salvation depends as well upon what we do with the grace we have been given in this life.

If what we do doesn’t matter, then why can’t I bring my bottle of wine to your worship service? Since Christ turned water into wine, I certainly cannot be accused of sinning by having a glass while listening to your pastor’s sermon, can I?

 

[moondweller]

You keep saying that the Catholic Church teaches “works based salvation”. Teflon quoted the relevant passages from the official Church teaching. What I am wondering is, how can you read those, and still persist in your conviction that the Church teaches otherwise?

I answered it in post # 401.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

If one truly has faith, he is obligated to work. There can be no faith in Christ Jesus which is absent the love of all, if only for His sake.

When we know Christ, we enjoy working to bring the Gospel to all nations.

He tells us that we are the light of the world. And he tells us not to hide that light under a bushel. How will our light shine, by the good that we do, that others may see the good that we do and give glory to God. Without this work, we are disobeying God’s command to bring His Gospel to all nations.

What Md is saying is that, once we are “saved”, we can sit back and do nothing of what Jesus and St. Paul command us to. Then how will anyone know of Christ? How was the word of God spread to all nations?

And why, oh why, did the martyrs die? They were already “saved”, therefore, why did they not just claim no knowledge of Jesus or His Gospel? Why did they not reject Him Who saved them? Surely you are not suggesting that they enjoyed the torture…which was extreme…and death? Yet, if there was no chance for them to “lose” what was “saved”, why did they accept martyrdom? St. Peter could have enjoyed quite a few more years rather than consent to being hung upside down on a cross.

No, they knew that it would be a horrendous sin to deny Christ now that they had been given the grace to know Him. They didn’t want to lose what had set them free from their sins. And they were aware that they could. They chose death rather than to sin. And now they are reaping their rewards.

May the Wisdom of Christ Jesus and St. Paul convict all that do not understand or accept that our faith without works is empty and meaningless. For even the demons have faith that Jesus is Christ…they know it for certain. Yet they will never enter the Kingdom of God.

Thank You, Lord Jesus, for the Sacrament of Reconciliation, without which I would still be sinning because I would be without grace.
Cherie

 

[Teflon93]

That would be a gift according to his kindness. Not a "meritorious reward.

We are rewarded for our obedience, which is merited based upon God’s justice and mercy. God has told us what we must do to gain eternal life, if we do it, it is merited. God doesn’t lie, nor is he unjust. You are hung up on merit because you don’t see a problem with disobedience to God. Disobedience is the fruit of the Reformation.

"That would be a “wage,” not an allowance. An “allowance” is simply given, not worked for.But to whom does He say it to? Paul was his servant, in fact, a bond-servant. But a servant who testified being saved by grace through faith.

We do not legally owe our children a wage. An allowance is given based on some small service, whether a positive one (chores, mowing the yard) or a negative one (refraining from misbehavior).

You overemphasize “testimony”. This is common for Fundamentalists, who seem to believe that their mere words matter more to God than Blessed Mother Theresa’s lifetime of service to the poorest and most depised among us.

It is the Word, not the words, which avail.

No one earns eternal life; it is a gift of God. But it is not an arbitrary gift, nor is it a gift without obligations. This is a truth you recognize, but will not admit to. Indeed, Fundamentalism has more requirements of everyday life than Judaism did under the Pharisees; you simply rebrand them as “fruits of the Spirit”.

Catholics are under no such yoke, and live no such white-knuckle existence.

 

[Teflon93]

Not according to Paul.Rom 7:9 “I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment (the 10th), which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Therefore did that which is good become {a cause} {of} death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.”

Doesn’t sound like the Decalogue “protected” Paul from evil at all.

You need to read St Paul more closely. “Therefore, did that which is good (i.e., the Law) become death for me? May it never be!”

Had St Paul not known he was sinning, there could be no repentance. The Law is the yardstick of sin. Without it, man believes his concupiscence to be natural, rather than a damnable affront to God.

It didn’t have that power. Nor did Paul teach such a concept about the Decalogue.

But he did. His whole point of expounding upon the glories of the Law was that without it, Man wouldn’t know what sins were, and thus could never hope to stop sinning. The problem with the Law was that disobedient men were now KNOWLINGLY sinning, since they had been told what to do and not do. This could only make their offense worse by adding the sin of disobedience to the others.

But rather:Gal 3:19 Why the Law then? It was added (alongside the Abrahamic covenant of promise) because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, UNTIL the seed would come to whom the promise had been made (“the seed” meaning Christ).So Paul teaches that the Law, specifically the Decalogue, was only temporary. Remember, Paul was writing to local assemblies in the region of Galatia, some of which rejected his gospel of grace and opted instead for a “different gospel,” one of law, which was contrary to the gospel of grace previously preached to them (Gal. 1:6-9).

As we have seen in Galatians 5, which you repeatedly and (in my opinion) dishonestly ignore, St Paul reinforces the ongoing validity of the Ten Commandments, as Christ did. This is the moral law, which preceded Man and endures into the New Covenant, of which Christ summarized to the tune of “love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.”

Love’s still your stumbling block, my friend.

Paul does not teach that the Decalogue was “a light offered to the conscience of every man to make God’s call and ways known to him and to protect him from evil,” but as it clearly exposed the sinfulness of those under it (the Jews), through many transgressions of it, it in turn became their tutor to lead them to CHRIST in order to be JUSTIFIED BY FAITH (Gal. 3:24). Justification, then, being based on an altogether different principle than law - that being FAITH and GRACE.That may be your tradition but it’s not Biblical. The Law is perfect (Ps. 19:7). Through its perfection it exposes man’s utter sinfulness, man’s glaring imperfection, through sin and transgressions.Actually, it became a tutor to those under it (Jews), and its overall job was to lead them to Christ to be justified by FAITH. Something the “tutor” itself had no power to do but was to lead them to the One who did when He arrived. After the death of Christ its “job” was finished.

And you have yet to answer the question:

If it’s finished, which Commandments are Christians free to disobey?

Which do you disobey, Moondweller?

That’s why those who want to be justified by law have “fallen from grace,” they’re “severed from Christ.” They want to be justified by that which could only condemn, and whose purpose was actually to lead those who were under it to the only One who had the power to save and justify them through FAITH alone.Only in that it was to lead them to Christ to be justified BY FAITH (Gal. 3:24).Not true. Christ did not begin his Mediatorship of the New Covenant (not a new “Law”) until AFTER His death. He became a Mediator of a new and better covenant (through death), based on better promises. Someone far greater than Moses had come, and with greater power.The problem is that there is no “law of the gospel.” The covenant of Law was made with the Jews at Mt. Sinai. And the greatest Jew of all time, born under that Law, anticipated by that Law, fulfilled that Law, perfectly. None other could. He then, through His sacrificial death (God’s Lamb) for the sin of the whole world, became the Mediator of a NEW covenant, based on promise, not law (see Rom. 4:14,16; Gal. 3:14,22).IOW, transgressing one of the big ten is a “mortal sin” for Catholics. So what Christ accomplished, for Catholics, Moses can destroy. Tef, have you ever worked on Saturday? You know what I’m going to say next. But the good news is that Someone greater than Moses has come, and He is a Mediator (through death) of a better covenant. Whereas those letters engraved on stone became a ministry of death and condemnation to those under it (2 Cor. 3:6-11), the resurrected Christ became a “a life giving spirit” to all those “in Him” (1 Cor. 15:45). The contrast between law and grace is vast, indeed. Like east and west they cannot meet.

Such a mess of incoherence here.

You’ve clearly forgotten the context of the Epistle, which as Mikeledes continues to PATIENTLY explain to you was Christians—WHOM WERE ALREADY JUSTIFIED IN THE FAITH----were returning to Judaism.

What St Paul was telling them was not to start running around murdering people, or stealing from them, or lying to them—all of which confounds Christ’s commands as well—he was telling them that circumcision and dietary laws and ritual purity wouldn’t save them.

Of course it wouldn’t—they would simply continue to sin, having turned away from the sacraments of the Church.

The problem for your, ahem, soteriology is that St Paul shouldn’t have had to write this epistle at all, since those to whom he had written had clearly been previously justified in the faith.

OSAS being a 19th century innovation, perhaps St Paul just didn’t get the memo till it was too late.

 

[moondweller]

To all Christians, whom at that time numbered the disciples, and whom in turn went out to Gentile and Jew.

Thank you! So it was a “new” commandment directed to a specific people, wasn’t it? And that specific people were those who believed in Him unto salvation, called in the Epistles, “the brethren.” It was a commandment on how to treat the brethren.

Whom did he direct us to hate?

He didn’t, but your question is not relevant.

Of course, you missed the point when you said earlier that whether you love is not a factor in your salvation, whereas Jesus in Matthew 25 clearly indicates it is, and whereas the epistles maintain that it is.

I never said love is not a factor “in” salvation, but that it is not a factor “for” salvation. One little word can make a huge difference, can’t it?

It is new in the sense that as St Paul notes we did not know that not to love one another was a sin until Christ told us it was.

You’re rationalizing.

So hating those yet unsaved is okay? We owe them nothing? We may steal from them, lie about them, even slay them?

This absurd statement is not even relevant to the discussion.

And how do you know the saved?

His “new” commandment is to love the brethren as He loved us (He does not state an opposite). The commandment is not to know the saved, but to love those who confess Christ with me.

How would you have treated Saul, before he became Paul?

As a violent persecutor of the church, I would have avoided him.

It’s not either/or, but both/and. Your theology of subtraction is an impediment.

Impediment to what? Works? Certainly not to grace.

 

[Philthy]

The clash of the titans continues! Lets pick up from my last post regarding the “permanancy” of salvation being the central point of disagreement from which the other disagreements in this thread find their source and see it invisibly work its way into the topic at hand. Pax here puts forth the claim that the nature of salvation/juistification is that it has an “initial” phase and, implicitly, a subsequent phase
"Pax:

Actually, the only thing that can be shown in scripture is the Catholic position which agrees with your view in how we “first come” to belief and justification.

*MD cannot tolerate such a claim. Salvation must be permanent in his view and any concept of a salvation that gets “lost” or interrupted must be immediately and vigorously refuted. That is why he aggressively responds to Pax with… *

quote=moondweller, post:354, topic:117638"]
So now you insert the words "first come." Implying that it is taught that one must often come to belief in order to often be justified. Is there a specific number of times in the Catholic view? Or does it vary with every individual?**Salvation:**Eph. 2:8-9, “For by grace through faith you have been saved…”
Not: “For by grace you have been saved the first time but by works all times thereafter.” Not there, Pax.

While MD correctly points out that no mention is made here regarding “the first time” or any subsequent time, does his argument in any way refute the concept as invalid? No, it doesnt. MD, however views the statement that “you have been saved” to be a PERMANENT condition. Is this a conclusion from the text or a PRECONCEIVED idea which is read into the verse? There is, in fact, no text-specific reason to believe the claim of permanancy. In the same manner that he points out that no “first time” exists in the text, he sort of refutes his own stance. No where does the verse say that the salvation achieved “by faith” is a permanent one. As I said before, however, many other verses speak to the conditionals regarding salvation: “He who perseveres to the end WILL BE saved” is a classic example among many.
A very good analogy to think of regarding salvation is to liken it to the cure of a deadly, infectious disease. In our “pre-saved” state we have a deadly, infectious disease (unsaved). The doctor (God) prescribes an antibiotic (Christ’s atoning work on the Cross) which kills the infectious organism and tells us we must avoid unhealthy risk factors such as lack of sleep, poor diet etc.(sin) We trust the doctor (faith) and take the antibiotic, get better and return for a recheck in 2 weeks. The doctors assistant (St Paul) proclaims “you have been cured(saved) by taking the antibiotic”! Now, does that mean that we have been cured PERMANENTLY in the sense that we CANNOT be reinfected through an unhealthy lifestyle (sin)? No it does not. The cure was indeed a past, completed event, but it does not imply permanancy in any way.
MD:

And Paul clearly separates salvation from works when he says: "…not as a result of works

." He doesn’t say, “…not as a result of works the first time.” Why would he? There is no second or third or fourth time. Not even implied in the text. *
*Does St Paul really separate salvation from works? Perhaps if you limited yourself to a few verses of his and selectively ignored many others you might come to that conclusion. But if you read all he has to say - together with the rest of Scripture - it is clear that the “permanancy” concept has some major flaws. It was, afterall St Paul himself who said that no “liars, adulterers, thieves, etc would inherit the Kingdom of God.” That seems like a pretty explicit conditional to me. He also said that even if we have enough faith to move mountains but dont have love (charity/charitable works) then we have nothing. How, exactly does that fit into the “permancy” concept? *

 

[Teflon93]

Thank you! So it was a “new” commandment directed to a specific people, wasn’t it? And that specific people were those who believed in Him unto salvation, called in the Epistles, “the brethren.” It was a commandment on how to treat the brethren.

It was much broader than that—read the passages I quoted you again, and tell me whom they authorize the Christian to hate.

He didn’t, but your question is not relevant.

It is only if one treats your response with any validity. For if we must only love “the brethren”, may we not hate those not numbered among us? It would be no sin to murder the damned, would it?

I never said love is not a factor “in” salvation, but that it is not a factor “for” salvation. One little word can make a huge difference, can’t it?

When that word is “love”, surely. Above, you’re simply rationalizing in a completely bogus way, perhaps because your position has been proven wrong and you don’t have the fortitude or humility to admit it.

Next you’ll tell us “it depends on what the meaning of “is” is.”

You’re rationalizing.This absurd statement is not even relevant to the discussion.

Really? Why not try looking up at the subject line while I wait for you to modify your response. Hint—perhaps “relevant” means something completely different than we all believe it means.

His “new” commandment is to love the brethren as He loved us (He does not state an opposite). The commandment is not to know the saved, but to love those who confess Christ with me.

Funny, but he says nothing about “confessing Christ”. Moreover, your forefathers having preferred disobedience to apostolic succession, if Christ did not call upon ALL Christians to do this you’re simply flat out of luck, being unable to trace your succession except through fictitious and lurid pamphlets.

As a violent persecutor of the church, I would have avoided him.

How courageous! Unfortunately, early Christians weren’t given the option of avoidance, which is why they wound up being martyred for the faith. “Confessing Christ” meant something back then—often, an excruciating death for the entertainment of their persecutors.

The point, presuming you’ll follow, is that you can never know who is saved and who is not. We see plenty of Fundamentalists testify to the “never really saved in the first place” phenomenon, which may be further translated “we thought they were saved but we were wrong.”

Thus, were you to have mistreated Saul, you would have been mistreating one of the greatest of “the brethren”.

Note also that St Paul wasn’t even present (and wasn’t even a Christian) when Christ gave his “new” commandments, and yet upheld and advocated for them.

Impediment to what? Works? Certainly not to grace.

It is an impediment to both. Perhaps Scofield eliminated Matthew 25 from your Bible.

You might want to pick up an unabridged copy.

 

[sandusky]

Pax here puts forth the claim that the nature of salvation/juistification is that it has an “initial” phase and, implicitly, a subsequent phase

Both phases are explicit.

The initial phase is described by Paul in this way:**Romans 8:29-30

29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified;**And the subsequent phase, Paul describes in this way:**and these whom He justified, HE ALSO glorified.**It is wrong to say that the one justified will be, or might be glorified if he merits enough merit, because, from eternity, in God’s mind, and by God’s grace, he already is glorified according to Paul (cf Eph 1:4); theologians call this “tension,” already/not yet.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

The covenant of Law was made with the Jews at Mt. Sinai. And the greatest Jew of all time, born under that Law, anticipated by that Law, fulfilled that Law, perfectly. None other could. He then, through His sacrificial death (God’s Lamb) for the sin of the whole world, became the Mediator of a NEW covenant, based on promise, not law (see Rom. 4:14,16; Gal. 3:14,22)…

You seem to fail to understand the the New Covenant you keep referring to was given to the JEW first:

This is the very same “New Covenant” that is stated in Hebrews 8.

Jeremaih 31:31-34 “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord; But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord : for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will remember their sin no more.”

And was reaffirmed as also belonging to the Gentiles.

Hebrews 8:6-13 “But now hath He hath obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish.”

The New Covenant was promised in the Old Testament, before Christ. Therefore, when God says he will “put them (his laws) in their minds and write them on their hearts”, he is stating that we will learn to keep them more faithfully, he didn’t say he was going to do away with any of them.

By your account you seem to believe that “Fulfill” means to “Do away with”. Which it does not, It more faithfully means to magnify, for Christ himself expounded on these and passed these teachings on to his Disciples. Even Paul quotes the commandments in his writing when he teaches the Doctrine of Love.

He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and there is no light in him.

 

[Philthy]

Thank you! Those who want to be “justified by law” were never saved, never “justified as a gift through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:24). Fallen from grace means they rejected the gospel of divine grace through Christ Jesus that was delivered to them by Paul and instead embraced LAW, thereby severing themselves from Christ.

Now who’s showing the “sure sign of desparation” in their arguments?
“You have been severed from Christ” is a comment directed towards people who were never “in” Christ? That is truly desparate, MD. You seem to be confusing the term “severed” with the term “separated”. To be severed is fundamentally different than merely being separated. To be severed means to be “cut off” from something to which you once belonged.
The reality of this fact as it applies to the believers who “began in the Spirit” who had been sanctified in Christ is perfectly clear and was skillfully and succinctly addressed by mikeledes.
Only someone with the preconceived notion of the permanancy of salvation could distort such a clear affirmation that our actions can cause our salvation (being in Christ) to be lost.

 

[pneuma07]

Hebrews 6:
*as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5 and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come,
6 and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
7 For the land which hath drunk the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them for whose sake it is also tilled, receiveth blessing from God:
8 but if it beareth thorns and thistles, it is rejected and nigh unto a curse; whose end is to be burned. *

*9 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation *( και εχομενα σωτηριας, related to, having to do with salvation) *, though we thus speak:
10 for God is not unrighteous to forget your work and the love which ye showed toward his name, in that ye ministered unto the saints, and still do minister.
11 And we desire that each one of you may show the same diligence unto the fulness of hope even to the end:
12 that ye be not sluggish, but imitators of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises. *

It was mentioned during one of the sermons at my (Baptist) church that you have to be careful when reading certain sections of the Bible (Hebrews was specified), because without a good (Protestant) commentary, you might get confused about the security of your salvation.:ehh:

Dear ellammcg,

           reading the quoted passage,  the pastor's  fear  that you might get confused about the security of your salvation without a good commentary  is not surprising.  (BTW,  I hope his   sermon  of the following Sunday was not on the perspicuity of the Bible  :shrug: ).

Indeed there are many commentaries which, with different interpretations, try to show the compatibility of Hebrews 6 with the doctrine of the security/permanence of salvation.
Some , as usual, try to show the first paragraph does not deal with “true believers”.
Some do see true believers there, but try to consider their falling away as a mere academic exercise Paul wants to show.
Some say that falling away and “end is being burned” do not refere to loosing one’s salvation at all. And so on.

What is in spite of any of these interpretations remarkable, IMHO, is the second paragraph too.
You don’t have there a plain : “But you don’t worry my beloved ones, for your salvation is absolutely sure.” He tells them he is persuaded, confident, NOT sure, that the one described above is not going to be their destiny.

Whence this persuasion ? Their work and love. What are they called to persevere in ? Diligence.

I hope this can help.

 

[Philthy]

In context, Tef., who are “ye?” To whom was He giving that “new” commandment.It did?

Which context - are YOU referring to, the chapter of John or the entire NT? In the broader context of the entire Gospel of Jesus Christ the call to love is to all: God, neighbor, strangers, homeless, enemies included. Afterall, if you merely love those who love you, how is that any better than the Pagans?
Who do you think is undeserving of your love - the love that you have through the grace of God? Is not preaching the Gospel to the unbeliever a form of love? It is indeed a form of love - perhaps the greatest. If this is so, how could any lesser love be denied them?

 

[Philthy]

It is certainly possible that Abraham fell from grace. Personally, it seems to me that he did when he gave into Sarah, and took her maiden to bear a child.

Not only that, but God doesnt claim to know completely the nature of Abraham’s faith (love of God) until Genesis 22, as he was about to sacrifice Isaac. “NOW I know” said the angel of the Lord…“BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU HAVE DONE” will you be blessed.

 

[Odell]

You know they teach you in school to egnore those who pick on you. I had no idea that they teach Protestants to egnore Catholics when they ask scriptural questions.


If you are going to apply your rule of life without Love than your no different than the demans who believe and tremble

YES OR NO?

If you are going to aply your rule of life without the love of the Father, withhout love, without knowing God you abide in death moondweller

answer the question

Christ came to fullfil the Law not to abolish it.

YES OR NO did Christ come to fullfill or abolish the Law?

:coffeeread: :coffeeread: :coffeeread: :coffeeread: :coffeeread: :coffeeread: :coffeeread:

 

[moondweller]

We are rewarded for our obedience, which is merited based upon God’s justice and mercy. God has told us what we must do to gain eternal life, if we do it, it is merited.

That would be logically true if that were the gospel. But it’s not.

You are hung up on merit because you don’t see a problem with disobedience to God. Disobedience is the fruit of the Reformation.

Can you show me where the word merit is used in the N.T.?

servant who testified being saved by grace through faith.
We do not legally owe our children a wage. An allowance is given based on some small service, whether a positive one (chores, mowing the yard) or a negative one (refraining from misbehavior).

Noooo, that’s a WAGE. If you are paying your child to do chores then he/she is receiving a wage from you. If he/she does not do those chores then the wage is rightfully withheld. It he/she is given an “allowance” it means you give him/her a certain amount of the family income. He/she is being allowed a certain amount of money every day, week, month, whatever un-meritoriously. That’s a TRUE allowance. Your definition of “allowance,” is perverted and wrongfully withheld if based on merit. Many parents make that error.

No one earns eternal life; it is a gift of God. But it is not an arbitrary gift, nor is it a gift without obligations.

Your definition of gift is also perverted. Unless freely given it not a gift.

 

[moondweller]

Not only that, but God doesnt claim to know completely the nature of Abraham’s faith (love of God) until Genesis 22, as he was about to sacrifice Isaac. “NOW I know” said the angel of the Lord…“BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU HAVE DONE” will you be blessed.

AGAIN you’re postulating that God is not perfect - He lacks knowledge. That’s not the God of the Bible.

 

[guanophore]

In that passage Paul is not saying to work FOR your salvation but to work outward unto maturity one’s salvation within.

I agree with you. :bigyikes:

Your interpretation does not fit Pauline soteriology which is "by grace through faith…a gift of God, not as a result of works.

No, it really does fit in with Paul. Apostolic Teaching is that the ability to “work out” our salvation is also based on grace, through faith, and it is a gift. This is the definition of sacred works.

"What makes you think Paul was referring to being disqualified from salvation?

Apostolic Teaching.

What does it mean to those of you that have departed from the Sacred Traditions?

When Paul directly teaches on salvation he never refers to it as a race on our part. But instead, “by grace, through faith, gifted, not as a result of works” (Eph. 2:8-9)I’ll stick to it, but not the “race” part. Salvation is gifted upon faith in Christ, and the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29).

This is your self imposed assumption, and I understand what you are saying, however, it is not consistent with Apostolic Teaching.

I agree, however, that the gifts and calling of God remain, even if people refuse to accept them.