Commandments should not be followed ...

[guanophore]

I am curious about something (and I hope this isn’t off topic). If OSAS is, in fact, as obvious as some would have us believe (reading the Word in it’s entirety), then there should be, since the very beginning of the church age, reams of paper written about that doctrine. Is that so? I am not being contentious, I actually don’t know. I have only been able to find information about the belief in eternal security attributed to Calvin (who I do know was very attached to the notion of extreme predestination).

Calvanists and their theological descendants do cherry pick through the fathers to try to support their views.

Some think that the Roman Catholic Church apostasized, and lost the “gospel of grace”;

Some think that the “true” gospel was preserved in spite of Catholics, and was resurrected at the Reformation.

 

[moondweller]

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:

Odell, I am sorry for ignoring you. There’s a lot of messaging going on here. Thank you for your patience and I hope you’re not all wired from all that caffeine.

(1) Why would you think grace as a rule of life excludes love? Has no one ever been totally gracious toward you, which in return caused within you a warmth and devotion to that person?

(2) Yes, Christ came to fulfill the Law. He Himself, in fact, was its planned obsolescence (Heb. 10:4).

Hey Odell, between you and me ::hug1:

 

[Odell]

Unless freely given it not a gift.

no one said it was not freely given but it has to be freely accepted

it apears you do not know what a gift is

 

[guanophore]

It states nothing there about “mortal sin” connected to either of its descriptions of what it calls the “old law” and the “new law” (although Scripture speaks only of the first Covenant vs. the new Covenant).

I think this represents a kind of “divide and conquer” mentality that is not consistent with Apostolic methods of exegeises. On the contrary, we are taught to look at the whole picture, and how all the revelation fits together. This passage is not about mortal sin. What you are saying is the same thing that you say about scripture “nothing mentioned here about…” as if all the parts need to be found in the same place, at the same time.

Do you deny that mortal sin exists?

If you believe it exists, what do YOU think it is?

So could a Catholic here find out from some REAL authority if violation (transgression) of either your “old” and “new” LAWS is considered "mortal sin?’

I don’t understand this question. Are you saying the scriptures are not authoritative, when they speak of mortal sins?

And when the OP says ALL the commandments should be followed, does he mean FOR salvation?

The Apostolic Teaching is clear on this point.

If LAW (as is being taught) still remains the Christian’s rule of life before God (“under law”), then truly salvation is according to works.

No, moon, you are the only one teaching that here. This is not Catholic, and is not part of the Apostolic Teaching. Christians believe that we are saved by grace, through faith, and not by the law. However, I agree with you, if one were to believe they should follow the Law as a rule of life before God, then it would truly be salvation by “works”. Paul is clear on this point.

And not only is divine grace through Christ’s sacrificial work of no eternal benefit, but the Christian now has not only one judge over him, but two: Moses and Christ.

"…for you are not under law (the principle of), but under grace (the principle of), says Paul.

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

I can only imagine that you deny that the believer can keep the commandments by grace through faith because you really lack the faith in God to will and to work His good will in the heart of the believer.

 

[guanophore]

You stand corrected, Moondweller, again.

No, Teflon, I think not. I think that moondweller must persist in his false understanding of Catholic theology. If he were to accept correction, he would have to become Catholic, and he can’t allow that to happen!

 

[Odell]

Odell, I am sorry for ignoring you. There’s a lot of messaging going on here. Thank you for your patience and I hope you’re not all wired from all that caffeine.

(1) Why would you think grace as a rule of life excludes love? Has no one ever been totally gracious toward you, which in return caused within you a warmth and devotion to that person?

Hey Odell, between you and me ::hug1:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

to question #1 absolutly

but can you still answer me about the demons

If your rule of life excluded love what makes you any different than the demons who believe?

(2) Yes, Christ came to fulfill the Law. He Himself, in fact, was its planned obsolescence (Heb. 10:4).

now we both have different defenitions of fulfilled the Law.

On the one hand, the apostle says that Christians are not bound to a law on several occasions (see Romans 7:4, Galatians 2:19, and others). On the other hand, he also writes that the law is not cancelled but upheld.

**Romans 3:31 he writes, “do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.” **

The harmony between these two verses lies in his teachings that by loving, we keep the law.

**“Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law” (Romans 13:8), **

If Jesus fulfilled as you believe than how do Christians fulfill the Law by loveing one another?

Ill take answers from both sides

he commands, and again “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Galatians 5:14).

Here he quotes Jesus, who gave us the two commandments that we must follow to love God, and to love our neighbor (Matthew 22:36-40), teaching that these two commandments encompass all that the Law and prophets had taught before. Paul explains the same thing in

**Romans 13:9-10: “The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,’ and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” **

James agrees with Paul, writing, “If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing well” (2:8). If love is in keeping the commandments, this is why James writes that “faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead” (2:17). One who loves will express that Love in works, and so a faith without works is a faith without Love, and a faith without Love is dead.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Thats just silly, moon. You can’t fall from somewhere you haven’t climbed. People who never believed are part of those who crucified Christ. People who have believed, then fallen from grace are those that “crucify the Son of God afresh”.

Everyone is fallen from grace through the sin of Adam and Eve. These people to whom Christ is writing in Galations were believers

Gal 3:1-4
" O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? 2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? 4 Did you experience so many things in vain?"

They received the Spirit by hearing with faith. They began in the Spirit (another reference to “initial justification”. They had expereintial knowledge of the crucified Christ who was preached to them.

A person cannot be severed from something that they are not attached to in the first place!

 

[guanophore]

Clearly the reformers, and notably Luther, understood the RC to be teaching salvation by “works,” otherwise, why did they make the charge and argue so strongly against salvation by works?

Oh, I agree! I don’t think Luther understood Catholicism either.

 In reading the 6th Session of Trent on justification, I come away with a clear understanding that Trent taught a salvation gained on the basis of ***"meriting merit,"*** or ***"meriting grace,"*** as reflected in your catechism.

Maybe you can explain this some more. I think we are all in agreement that salvation is based upon the merits of Christ, do we not? We “merit” these by placing our faith in Him. Perhaps the language is not so helpful in today’s day and age, where there is such confusion between faith and works.

From the CCC:2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.(Notice the distinction between initial and subsequent grace.)

IMO, to merit grace is an oxymoron (cf Rom 11:6).

Why? Since we know that, without faith, it is impossible to please HIm, we know that any good works we do are done in faith, and He is pleased. I think Heb. 11 explains well how people of faith “merited” by their actions.

 

[guanophore]

IOW, transgressing one of the big ten is a “mortal sin” for Catholics. So what Christ accomplished, for Catholics, Moses can destroy.

No, moon, you are not being consistent with your own perception of the Law. God’s moral precepts predated the giving of the 10 to Moses. God’s moral precepts are transcendant, and are not “of Moses”. The power of the Law to condemn has nothing to do with Moses. What destroys the saving grace of God in a person is sin, not “Moses”. When one chooses sin, one has fallen from grace. Since we cannot be saved without grace, we are cut off.

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.

I agree tht the contrast between law and grace is vast indeed, but The Apostles "uphold the Law, in that the ministriy of death and condemnation was never changed. The commandment still awakens sin in people. All evangelicals start with this truth when evangelizing. We all sin, and fall short of the glory of God, is that not true?

If not for the Law, we do not know what sin is, and that is part of the ministry of the Law.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

That would be logically true if that were the gospel. But it’s not.Can you show me where the word merit is used in the N.T.?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.Your definition of gift is also perverted. Unless freely given it not a gift.

The wages of sin is death. If all we had to do to keep from earning those wages is professing that Jesus Christ is Lord, Heaven would be filled with demons.
Where in the Bible does it say that those words apply to some but not to those who confess to Jesus being Lord and Saviour of the world? Even the demons confess as much.

The only way for Jesus to know that you have accepted Him as your personal Lord and Saviour is by your deeds. If there are no deeds to be seen by Him, He said that He would turn you out, for He would not know you.

Hope you accept the Truth, which is written in the WHOLE Bible, not just a couple of versus taken out of context. Thank You, Jesus, for Your Catholic Church.

Cherie
Cherie

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

No, moon, you are not being consistent with your own perception of the Law. God’s moral precepts predated the giving of the 10 to Moses. God’s moral precepts are transcendant, and are not “of Moses”. The power of the Law to condemn has nothing to do with Moses. What destroys the saving grace of God in a person is sin, not “Moses”. When one chooses sin, one has fallen from grace. Since we cannot be saved without grace, we are cut off.

I agree tht the contrast between law and grace is vast indeed, but The Apostles "uphold the Law, in that the ministriy of death and condemnation was never changed. The commandment still awakens sin in people. All evangelicals start with this truth when evangelizing. We all sin, and fall short of the glory of God, is that not true?

If not for the Law, we do not know what sin is, and that is part of the ministry of the Law.

Why do you think this is so hard to understand and accept? To me it seems much more in accordance with the Bible in its entirety. I don’t have have to go through the Bible and decide what is relevant and what is not…I just accept the whole thing as relevant. Why would one want to put that burden on themselves?

Just curious,
Cherie

 

[Pax]

I wrote:

You could not be more wrong, and Abraham is the perfect example to prove our point.

Instance #1
In Genesis 15:6 Abraham believed God concerning his descendants being as numerous as the stars, and his belief was reckoned to him as righteousness.

Instance #2
Hebrews 11:8 makes reference to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-4, and says, “By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.” We know this is a reference to saving faith because in Hebrews 11:1-2 it says, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old received divine approval.” Divine approval is given for a person’s faith only when it is a saving faith.

Instance #3
James 2:21-23 makes reference to Abraham having faith when he was to sacrifice his son Isaac upon the altar and James says that the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness; and he was called the friend of God.”

Your attempted refutation of instance #3 is ludicrous. James mentions that Abraham was justified when offered Isaac upon the altar. The passage reads as follows:

James 2:21-24
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. **You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. **

–The passage clearly shows that Abraham was justified by his works in his obedience to God in offering Isaac upon the altar.

–The passage clearly says that Abraham’s faith had works associated with it and that his faith was completed by works.

–The passage clearly states that this episode fulfills his faith and thus his faith is reckoned as righteousness.

–The passage clearly states that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. The man used as an example was Abraham. Abraham was justified by his works in sacrificing Isaac.

All of this is thus hammered home one more time by James when he uses the example of Rahab, thus showing that she also was justified by her works done in faith. Now we can be even more certain of this because in Hebrews 11:38 Rahab is once again mentioned as one of those that “acted” in faith and received divine approval.

Hebrews 11 begins with the following:

“NOW FAITH is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old received divine approval. By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.”(Heb 11:1-3)

The passage then goes on to mention the faith of all of many of the holy patriarchs of the OT including Abraham and of course Rahab. This is righteousness and justification and every example includes faith and the works that completed it.

Abraham was clearly justified on three separate occasions.

You responded:

And this is the ONLY place it is stated.Nowhere before Gen. 15:6 does it state anything about Abraham being justified by God. Don’t read into Scripture something that is not there.Yes, and that is a DIRECT QUOTE from Gen. 15:6. As I said, not even James can cite another instance.But he does not say BY offering up Isaac. The only reference James makes regarding Abraham’s justification is Gen. 15:6 - and that’s exactly what he quotes. He can cite no other occurrence, neither before nor after it.

So concrete is this FACT that Paul forms his N.T. doctrine of justification by faith alone in Romans four (referring to the man who does not work but believes…) - citing that same Gen. 15:6 passage. James’ discussion is polemical, not doctrinal. You must interpret him within the whole context.

In respect to Abraham’s justification both James and Paul can go no further than Gen. 15:6. That’s where it all happened, not before, not after. It’s simply a Biblical FACT. Men refute it only because they have an agenda.

Now we are going to examine your response.

First of all I have read nothing into the scriptures. I simply gave you all of the scriptural references from Genesis, James, and Hebrews that make it abundantly clear that Abraham was, indeed, justified on three occasions. Read my post again and you will see that I have not read anything into the text, and that my points are well supported by the clear statements from the scriptures.

In my next post I will explore the specific points that you raised in opposition to the Catholic understanding of Abraham having been justified on three separate occasions.

 

[moondweller]

I wrote:

You responded:

Now we are going to examine your response.

First of all I have read nothing into the scriptures. I simply gave you all of the scriptural references from Genesis, James, and Hebrews that make it abundantly clear that Abraham was, indeed, justified on three occasions. Read my post again and you will see that I have not read anything into the text, and that my points are well supported by the clear statements from the scriptures.

In my next post I will explore the specific points that you raised in opposition to the Catholic understanding of Abraham having been justified on three separate occasions.

Then you must show me where Gen. 15:6 is repeated in each case. Or at least the equivalent of it. Otherwise you’re reading into the text something that is not there. Like guanophore thinking Abraham lost the righteousness he was reckoned by God when he lied about Sarah and had a child with Hagar.

 

[Pax]

As I said, not even James can cite another instance.But he does not say BY offering up Isaac. The only reference James makes regarding Abraham’s justification is Gen. 15:6 - and that’s exactly what he quotes. He can cite no other occurrence, neither before nor after it.

So concrete is this FACT that Paul forms his N.T. doctrine of justification by faith alone in Romans four (referring to the man who does not work but believes…) - citing that same Gen. 15:6 passage. James’ discussion is polemical, not doctrinal. You must interpret him within the whole context.

In respect to Abraham’s justification both James and Paul can go no further than Gen. 15:6. That’s where it all happened, not before, not after. It’s simply a Biblical FACT. Men refute it only because they have an agenda.

Once again we need to start with the words of the apostle James. He says:

James 2:20-26
“Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.”

I am going to do my best to be charitable, but I must say that you have made a huge blunder in understanding the simple language of the text. You have attempted to make a production out of the word “by” which is not in the text versus the word “when” which is in the text. James asks a rhetorical question saying “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?”

Even a child reading this text will know that the apostle is telling us that Abraham was justified by works at the point in time “when” he offered his son Isaac upon the altar. The word “by” is not necessary to make the Catholic case and the word “when” does nothing for yours. In fact, either word is fatal to your case and here’s why:

1. Your claim is that only faith justifies. James says otherwise. Moreover, he begins his rhetorical question by indicating that Abraham was justified by works. That is the thrust of his argument throughout Chapter 2 of the epistle. It, therefore, wouldn’t matter if it is a “when” or a “by” in reference to the offering of Isaac. The “when” or the “by” still refers to works which is fatal to your argument.
2. Another reason your contention concerning the word “when” is flawed involves the way you attempted to connect it to Gen 15:6. Please note that James makes a complete thought that Abraham was justified in his work of offering Isaac. It is only after making this complete thought that James goes on to say, “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,” Now think about this: Abraham believed God and he was on the verge of sacrificing Isaac. In this we clearly see the faith and works of Abraham. His faith and trust in God was active along with his works and his faith was completed by his work of willingly offering his son upon the altar.

Once James clearly makes those points he then quotes the verse that Paul points to concerning justification. This is deliberate on his part and is designed to clarify misunderstandings that did and could emerge concerning Paul’s teaching. James says, "and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” This verse is chosen by James to indicate that the righteousness that he is talking about is the same righteousness that Paul is talking about. He uses, however, a different instance in Abraham’s life than Paul does and this is crucial. If James was talking about the promise concerning descendents as the only justifying event then he would have used that example as Paul did, but he had an obvious purpose for making the connection using a different instance in Abraham’s life.

1. James is not talking about Abraham already being righteous in the instance of Gen 15:6 by using the word “when.” You made the fatal mistake of assuming by way of your doctrine that he must have meant that very thing, but he clearly did not. Point #2 helps to show why, but it is not the only indicator.

The text of James is inspired and the inspired word tramples that assumption by making reference to Rahab. James uses the word “when” in reference to Rahab just as he uses the word “when” in reference to Abraham. The passage on Rahab says:

James 2:25
“And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?”

James uses a rhetorical question in both instances. James says both were justified by works. James uses the word “when” in both Abraham and Rahabs examples. In both cases, the works and the justification are directly tied to the particular events in question. Neither applies to different events in their lives.

 

[Pax]

Then you must show me where Gen. 15:6 is repeated in each case. Or at least the equivalent of it. Otherwise you’re reading into the text something that is not there. Like guanophore thinking Abraham lost the righteousness he was reckoned by God when he lied about Sarah and had a child with Hagar.

I have already used the scriptures in James, Hebrews, and Genesis to show what scripture says about all of the events. Likewise, all of Hebrews chapter 11 is about faith and works and the inseparable nature of the two. So far you have not refuted that one either.

 

[Philthy]

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

Once again, Im sticking with Scripture regardless of any inconvenience it may cause your preconceived notions. It says what it says, which is what I said it said. Just for the record, do you disagree with my claim regarding Gen 22? If so, would you please offer an alternative interpretation? It is not enough to simply claim “that can’t be true because I believe something else which that interpretation would violate”

 

[Teflon93]

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

John 6:

53: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54: Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55: For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57: As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58: This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

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

The New Testament being written originally in Greek, not English, the answer is, “No.”

Perhaps you should reflect on what Jesus said in Matthew 5, in which the concept of reward is discussed:

“44”: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

“45”: That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

“46”: For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

That stumbling block again!

But perhaps you can show me where “valid testimony” appears, or even “substitutionary atonement”.

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.

Nooooo, that’s an allowance. A wage is recompense offered in a contractual arrangement for services rendered. But keep woolgathering.

The point remains the same—if you don’t do the service (positive or negative), you don’t merit the allowance. It is withheld.

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

Your Pharisaic legalism rises to the fore again.

A gift is simply something given. Often, it is as simple as honoring an amount of time passed, such as on a birthday, or an anniversary. Even in this case, you must do something to merit a gift—survive until your birthday, remain married until your anniversary.

“Freely given” and “merited” are not in opposition. I freely give to charities which are deserving. Perhaps you don’t, and that is an obstacle to your comprehension.

 

[mikeledes]

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

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

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?

This is a moot point. The Law of Christ applies to those who are in Christ for only they have the love of God poured into their hearts through the Holy Spirit. However, the Bible also says:

James 2:12

12So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.

Galatians 6:7-8

**7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. **

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

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?

Is the believer ever called to live his life on earth before God on the principle of law?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[moondweller]

I have already used the scriptures in James, Hebrews, and Genesis to show what scripture says about all of the events. Likewise, all of Hebrews chapter 11 is about faith and works and the inseparable nature of the two. So far you have not refuted that one either.

Where in Heb. 11 does it even mention Abraham’s justification?