M
moondweller
Guest
“…for you are not under law but under grace”Is the believer ever called to live his life on earth before God on the principle of law?
God Bless,
Michael
“…for you are not under law but under grace”Is the believer ever called to live his life on earth before God on the principle of law?
God Bless,
Michael
He wasn’t properly catechized; right?Oh, I agree! I don’t think Luther understood Catholicism either.
I don’t need to explain anything; your words illustrate Trent perfectly: salvation is gained on the basis of meriting merit, or meriting grace; therefore, my opinion will always be that yours is a system of works, and that’s further illustrated by the fact that one can lose justification based upon his bad performance—works.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.
Why what guanophore?Why?
Any reward is a gift according to God’s kindness, for He is not obligated to give a reward.That would be a gift according to his kindness. Not a “meritorious reward.”
Salvation is simply something given—what great appreciation you lack.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.
Teflon93 said:“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.
Can a person have faith and not be justified?Where in Heb. 11 does it even mention Abraham’s justification?
Indeed, how would one propose to force God to do anything?Any reward is a gift according to God’s kindness, for He is not obligated to give a reward.
God Bless,
Michael
LOLAs Christ said in Luke 6:46 - And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
I doubt he would have accepted “Because we’re waiting for Saul to convert and interpret your doctrine for us” as a reply.
I’m sure they found St Paul far easier to understand than the Risen Christ’s 40 days with them, much less his prior ministry.LOL
I bet Peter, James, John and all the other Apostles, deacons, and all the other disciples were shocked to learn that they were teaching a “works based gospel” for the first 20 years “this side of the cross” until Paul got around to “organizing and presenting grace systematically”.![]()
Thank you!The New Testament being written originally in Greek, not English, the answer is, “No.”
If you tell your child that you will pay them so much a week IF they do certain chores, and they agree, that’s a verbal contract, and that dear fellow is a WAGE. An allowance is simply given. He is allowed so much money per period, period.Nooooo, that’s an allowance. A wage is recompense offered in a contractual arrangement for services rendered. But keep woolgathering.
Then what is withheld is the WAGE.Rom 4:4-5 “Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due (get the principle?). But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,”The point remains the same—if you don’t do the service (positive or negative), you don’t merit the allowance. It is withheld.
If anyone is Pharisaic it wouldn’t be me.Your Pharisaic legalism rises to the fore again.
You’re rationalizing and even perverting the definition of “gift.”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.
When it comes to salvation they are. None of us are deserving, that’s why its by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. And that’s why law and grace cannot co-exist.“Freely given” and “merited” are not in opposition.
That’s quite Pharisaic (judgmental) of you to say.I freely give to charities which are deserving. Perhaps you don’t, and that is an obstacle to your comprehension.
When I asked you how the Old Testament saints were saved, you responded:“…for you are not under law but under grace”
I’m assuming that it was by grace through faith. So were these who were justified by grace through faith also under the principle of law? If justification by grace through faith releases us from law as “the rule of life before God”, then how was it the “rule of life before God” for Old Testament believers?Through faith. But those under the Mosaic Law were obligated to abide in it. It was their rule of life before God. No righteous Jew of faith shunned the Law (Rom. 9:30-32).
Depends on the object and content of one’s faith. One can have faith that God exists, but that faith is not the faith by which God justifies. It is mentioned in Hebrews that Abraham did certain things by faith, but only in Gen. 15:6 does it say:Gen 15:6 “Then he (Abram) believed in the Lord; and He (the Lord) reckoned it (his faith in Him) to him as righteousness.”Can a person have faith and not be justified?
God Bless,
Michael
Those who were under the covenant of the Mosaic Covenant (all of Israel) were under law. But we are saved through the blood of a “new covenant.”"…for you are not under law but under grace."When I asked you how the Old Testament saints were saved, you responded:
I’m assuming that it was by grace through faith. So were these who were justified by grace through faith also under the principle of law? If justification by grace through faith releases us from law as “the rule of life before God”, then how was it the “rule of life before God” for Old Testament believers?
God Bless,
Michael
Yes, the Law lacked love. The Law cannot “love” anyone. The Law is the expression of God’s righteous standard. It’s purpose is not to love, but to show sin to be sin. What the Law does is make clear our inablity to love - our lack of love for God and each other - our shortcomings.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?
This is a very good question, I think. But first, let me point out that love being required by the Law does not mean the Law “contains” love.Since love was certainly required in the Law, Tef., how is Christ’s commandment to love one another then a “new” commandment?
There is that qualifier again “the saved”. Not anyone else, just us!(Love is not required for salvation) 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).
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.
Well, let’s see. Are you saved if your sins are covered by Christ?The question is, are you saved by loving your brother?
In contrast to the Judaizers (with whom he makes the comparison below, and who received their religious instruction from rabbinic tradition—most Jews did not study the actual Scriptures; instead they used human interpretations of Scripture as their religious authority and guide. Many of their traditions not only were not taught in Scripture but also contradicted it; cf Mark 7:13), Paul received the gospel he preached directly from Christ—one-on-one: **Galatians 1:11-12I’m sure they found St Paul far easier to understand than the Risen Christ’s 40 days with them, much less his prior ministry.
Was St Paul present in Christ’s classroom with the other apostles?
Can you answer me about the demons?Those who were under the covenant of the Mosaic Covenant (all of Israel) were under law. But we are saved through the blood of a “new covenant.”"…for you are not under law but under grace."
now we both have different defenitions of fulfilled the Law.(2) Yes, Christ came to fulfill the Law. He Himself, in fact, was its planned obsolescence (Heb. 10:4).
Thank you!If you tell your child that you will pay them so much a week IF they do certain chores, and they agree, that’s a verbal contract, and that dear fellow is a WAGE. An allowance is simply given. He is allowed so much money per period, period.Then what is withheld is the WAGE.Rom 4:4-5 "Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due (get the principle?). But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,"If anyone is Pharisaic it wouldn’t be me.You’re rationalizing and even perverting the definition of "gift."When it comes to salvation they are. None of us are deserving, that’s why its by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. And that’s why law and grace cannot co-exist.That’s quite Pharisaic (judgmental) of you to say.![]()
In Hebrews 11:1-2, the inspired author defines what he means by faith:Depends on the object and content of one’s faith. One can have faith that God exists, but that faith is not the faith by which God justifies. It is mentioned in Hebrews that Abraham did certain things by faith, but only in Gen. 15:6 does it say:Gen 15:6 “Then he (Abram) believed in the Lord; and He (the Lord) reckoned it (his faith in Him) to him as righteousness.”
And by whose blood were the Old Testament saints saved?Those who were under the covenant of the Mosaic Covenant (all of Israel) were under law. But we are saved through the blood of a “new covenant.”"…for you are not under law but under grace."
This is a common misunderstanding. We can earn things for ourselves and others, but only by grace, through faith.Sounds like a reasonable clarification.
But, I now see how a Protestant reading this could easily think Catholics are being encouraged to ‘earn’ these things for themselves [and others] by ‘works’.