Commandments should not be followed ...

[Teflon93]

Thank you!

And where may I find the words “substitutionary atonement” in the New Testament?

I answered your question, answer mine.

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.

Not where child labor laws pertain. Under the Uniform Commercial Code which governs contracting in the United States, there can be no such contracts between parents and children, much less verbal contracts.

An allowance is simply given. He is allowed so much money per period, period.Then what is withheld is the WAGE.

Hello, Pharisees. Goodbye, common sense.

Webster’s Unabridged:

Allowance

Al*low"ance, n. [OF. alouance.]

1. Approval; approbation. [Obs.] --Crabbe.
2. The act of allowing, granting, conceding, or admitting; authorization; permission; sanction; tolerance.

Without the king’s will or the state’s allowance. --Shak.

1. Acknowledgment.

The censure of the which one must in your allowance o’erweigh a whole theater of others. --Shak.

1. License; indulgence. [Obs.] --Locke.
2. That which is allowed; a share or portion allotted or granted; a sum granted as a reimbursement, a bounty, or as appropriate for any purpose; a stated quantity, as of food or drink; hence, a limited quantity of meat and drink, when provisions fall short.

I can give the boy a handsome allowance. --Thackeray.

1. Abatement; deduction; the taking into account of mitigating circumstances; as, to make allowance for the inexperience of youth.

After making the largest allowance for fraud. --Macaulay.

1. (com.) A customary deduction from the gross weight of goods, different in different countries, such as tare and tret.

Wage

Wage, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Waged; p. pr. & vb. n. Waging.] [OE. wagen, OF. wagier, gagier, to pledge, promise, F. gager to wager, lay, bet, fr. LL. wadium a pledge; of Teutonic origin; cf. Goth. wadi a pledge, gawadj[=o]n to pledge, akin to E. wed, G. wette a wager. See Wed, and cf. Gage.]

1. To pledge; to hazard on the event of a contest; to stake; to bet, to lay; to wager; as, to wage a dollar. --Hakluyt.

My life I never but as a pawn To wage against thy enemies. --Shak.

1. To expose one’s self to, as a risk; to incur, as a danger; to venture; to hazard. “Too weak to wage an instant trial with the king.” --Shak.

To wake and wage a danger profitless. --Shak.

1. To engage in, as a contest, as if by previous gage or pledge; to carry on, as a war.

[He pondered] which of all his sons was fit To reign and wage immortal war with wit. --Dryden.

The two are waging war, and the one triumphs by the destruction of the other. --I. Taylor.

1. To adventure, or lay out, for hire or reward; to hire out. [Obs.] “Thou . . . must wage thy works for wealth.” --Spenser.
2. To put upon wages; to hire; to employ; to pay wages to. [Obs.]

Abundance of treasure which he had in store, wherewith he might wage soldiers. --Holinshed.

I would have them waged for their labor. --Latimer.

1. (O. Eng. Law) To give security for the performance of. --Burrill.

When you’re done straining gnats, Moondweller, come back to the discussion.

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,”

Yes, and what do you make of the Matthew passage I referenced and you ignored? Theology by subtraction again on your part.

You need to account for ALL of Scripture, Moondweller. The Bible’s a lot bigger than your narrow selection of “St Paul’s Greatest Hits”.

If anyone is Pharisaic it wouldn’t be me.You’re rationalizing and even perverting the definition of “gift.”

Oh, for God’s sake, look the word up before spouting off. Once again, your English vocabulary proves as stunted as your Scriptural knowledge:

Gift

Gift, n. [OE. gift, yift, yeft, AS. gift, fr. gifan to give; akin to D. & G. gift, Icel. gift, gipt, Goth. gifts (in comp.). See Give, v. t.]

1. **Anything given; anything voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation; a present; an offering. **
   Shall I receive by gift, what of my own, . . . I can command ? --Milton.
2. The act, right, or power of giving or bestowing; as, the office is in the gift of the President.
3. A bribe; anything given to corrupt.

Neither take a gift, for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise. --Deut. xvi. 19.

1. Some quality or endowment given to man by God; a pre"e]minent and special talent or aptitude; power; faculty; as, the gift of wit; a gift for speaking.
2. (Law) A voluntary transfer of real or personal property, without any consideration. It can be perfected only by deed, or in case of personal property, by an actual delivery of possession. --Bouvier. Burrill.

Use your head for once.

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.

Pharisaic:

Pharisaic

Phari*sa"ic\ (f[a^]r**s=a]"*k), Pharisaical \Phari*sa"ic*al\ (-**kal), a. [L. Pharisaicus, Gr. Farisai:kos: cf. F. pharisa["i]que. See Pharisee.]

1. Of or pertaining to the Pharisees; resembling the Pharisees. “The Pharisaic sect among the Jews.” --Cudworth.
2. Hence: **Addicted to external forms *and ceremonies; making a show of religion without the spirit of it; ceremonial; formal; hypocritical; self-righteous. “Excess of outward and pharisaical holiness.” --Bacon. “Pharisaical ostentation.” --Macaulay. – Phari*sa"ic*al*ly, adv. -- Pharisa"icalness, n.

Perhaps part of your problem is you employ terms without knowing what they mean.*

 

[guanophore]

I answered it in post # 401.

Well, ok, I will look again

“… 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.”

Unlike many passages of scripture meanings upon which we cannot agree, it looks like we do agree that the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. I think we agree also that the ministry of the Law is to show sin. Where we may not agree is that Catholics don’t believe that ministry of the Law was nullified “on this side of the cross”.

We believe that the moral principles of God by which mankind is expected to live were the same from the beginning of creation until now.

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.

When we have attained our heavenly reward, we will no longer need an earthly standard for sin.

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).

(The Decalogue) 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.

Moon, the verses you are quoting ARE Sacred Tradition - written promulgated, canonized and taught by the Catholic Church since the day of Pentecost!

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.

Well, only for those who had joined Christ in His death. For those who have not, they are still under tutoring.

Evangelicals admit that the ministry of the Law is still valid, when they review the four spiritual laws with a candidate.

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).

How can people “fall” from a place they have never been? If they were not “in grace”, how can they fall out of it?

Not true. Christ did not begin his Mediatorship of the New Covenant (not a new “Law”) until AFTER His death.

Why do you think he misled so many people, telling them that their faith had saved them, prior to His death? Why did he mislead the Apostles by telling them that they had been made clean through the Word that He spoke to them?

The problem is that there is that there is no “law of the gospel.”

Perhaps we are just having a semantics problem?

Gospel = good news=Christ saves by grace through faith = the saved are under the law of Christ = the law of Christ = love.

law of gospel = law of love.

Hw 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.

I addressed this error in another post. I am still confused. You are still insisting that Catholicism is based on “law”. Can you please show, in the quotes from the Catechism above, where the Catholic Church teaches this? Otherwise, I think it is only in your imagination.

 

[guanophore]

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.

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus made clear that a person’s “neighbor” might also be considered an enemy, or an alient. Remember that Jesus was telling them to love their neighbor as themselves when one asked “who is my neighbor”. When He was done with the story, he turned the tables, and said “who was neighbor to the man”?

There is no one who is excluded from the commandment to love one another. Granted, one can only have affection and camaraderie with those with whom there is One FAtih, but Jesus did not tell us to refrain from loving those who on not “brethren”. This is the first time I have heard such a proposition, and I must say, I am shocked.

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

It is entirely relevant!

I never said love is not a factor “in” salvation, but that it is not a factor “for” salvation.

So can you finally admit that faith is not “alone”? It is always with love…and hope.

One little word can make a huge difference, can’t it? You’re rationalizing.This absurd statement is not even relevant to the discussion.

Yes, it is entirely relevant. Why can’t you answer it?

His “new” commandment is to love the brethren as He loved us (He does not state an opposite).

He did not restrict “one another” to the brethren, either. He did not contradict the Decalogue, which teaches that we are to do no wrong to a neighbor, and He showed that the neighbor is the one in need of our love.

The commandment is not to know the saved, but to love those who confess Christ with me.As a violent persecutor of the church, I would have avoided him.Impediment to what? Works? Certainly not to grace.

The subtractory approach is an impediment to the fullness of the gospel. Jesus taught them to go the extra mile with the pack of the enemy soldier too. Love your enemies, He said. Or, do you think that was an instruction only to the Jews, since He was “on the other side of the cross”?

 

[guanophore]

It is indeed! And by “slight of hand” changes grace into works.

Only in your mind, MD. Those who have received the Apostolic Teaching know that, without faith, it is impossible to please God. Therefore, any 'good deeds" done without faith, based on grace, merit nothing. Only those works done by “God, who is at work within you to will and to do His good pleasure” can merit anything. You have separated grace from the fruit it produces, and set the sacred works that God has prepared beforehand that we should walk in them from the grace that merits them.

1 Tim 6:18-19
“They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, 19 thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed.”

HOw does one “lay up for themselves a good foundation for the future”?

By doing good, by being rich in good deeds, liberal and generous. This is hw we “take hold of the life which is life indeed”.

 

[guanophore]

You could try by faith and God’s love toward us through the Person and sacrificial work of the incarnate Son. Too easy for you?

What you cannot seem to grasp, MD is that it is by faith and God’s love in us that we love one another. The ability to love others comes from the same grace by which we are justified. This is the work that was prepared beforehand for us to do.

 

[sandusky]

“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.

Your additional pontificating imbues the above statement with a deeper color.

By “meriting grace,” you believe that you become more and more “deserving” of the “freely given gift,” except of course, when your works slip into the subpar performance of “mortal sin;” however, after performing appropriate “works” of penintential satisfaction, you’re again “deserving” of the “freely given gift.”

Teflon93:

Gift

Gift, n. [OE. gift, yift, yeft, AS. gift, fr. gifan to give; akin to D. & G. gift, Icel. gift, gipt, Goth. gifts (in comp.). See Give, v. t.]

1. Anything given; anything voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation; a present; an offering.

Shall I receive by gift, what of my own, . . . I can command ? --Milton.

Shall you?

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

The subtractory approach is an impediment to the fullness of the gospel.

What is the subtractory approach?

 

[Odell]

So can you finally admit that faith is not “alone”? It is always with love…and hope.

I wouldnt count on him answering that question guanophore

Yes, it is entirely relevant. Why can’t you answer it?

He cant and he want

Im going to start a list of questions moondweller refuses to answer feel free to add to the list guanophore

#1
If your rule of life excluded love what makes you any different than the demons who believe?

#2
If Jesus fulfilled as you believe than how do Christians fulfill the Law by loveing one another?

#3
So can you finally admit that faith is not “alone”?

 

[guanophore]

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?

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.”

“My love had no intimate relations with that salvation”

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

Only those works done by “God, who is at work within you to will and to do His good pleasure” can merit anything. You have separated grace from the fruit it produces, and set the sacred works that God has prepared beforehand that we should walk in them from the grace that merits them.

Newspeak, ca. 1547.

 

[guanophore]

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

Do you imagine that anyone can be obedient to God without His grace and mercy? Do you imagine that Christ will not extend the merits He gained for us on the cross to those who love HIm, and keep His commandments?

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

Only if we were using a Latin translation. Translations made from the Gk. substitute “reward”.

12 Behold, I am coming soon, and I shall bring My wages and rewards with Me, to repay and render to each one just what his own actions and his own work merit.Rev 22:12 (Amplified)

Wages are not th
e same as rewards, or merits. Wages are due, rewards (merits) are gifts.

2 John 8-9
“Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you have worked for, but may win a full reward. 9 Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; **he who abides **in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son.”

Noooo, that’s a WAGE. If you are
Your definition of gift is also perverted. Unless freely given it not a gift.

Does that mean the failure to love our enemies is a perversion?

 

[guanophore]

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

Perhaps you could explain what this passage means?

The Apostles taught us that Abraham completed his faith by his works. By his works he demonstrated the faith by which he was justified. How is it that God said “now I know”?

 

[Teflon93]

What you cannot seem to grasp, MD is that it is by faith and God’s love in us that we love one another. The ability to love others comes from the same grace by which we are justified. This is the work that was prepared beforehand for us to do.

I am still stunned that the Fundamentalist somehow reads Scripture without any notion that we are commanded to love—to love God, and to love one another.

Now, this blind spot certainly makes sense when considering the history of Fundamentalism, which itself was a reaction to the liberalizing influences in the mainline Protestant communities in the late 18th and early 20th centuries, culminating in the attempt to purge communities of these influences from 1920 to 1925.

This 1922 sermon is enlightening on this paucity of charity and is a cri de couer:

There is nothing new about the situation. It has happened again and again in history, as, for example, when the stationary earth suddenly began to move and the universe that had been centered in this planet was centered in the sun around which the planets whirled. Whenever such a situation has arisen, there has been only one way out—the new knowledge and the old faith had to be blended in a new combination. Now, the people in this generation who are trying to do this are the liberals, and the Fundamentalists are out on a campaign to shut against them the doors of the Christian fellowship. Shall they be allowed to succeed?

It is interesting to note where the Fundamentalists are driving in their stakes to mark out the deadline of doctrine around the church, across which no one is to pass except on terms of agreement. They insist that we must all believe in the historicity of certain special miracles, preeminently the virgin birth of our Lord; that we must believe in a special theory of inspiration—that the original documents of the Scripture, which of course we no longer possess, were inerrantly dictated to men a good deal as a man might dictate to a stenographer; that we must believe in a special theory of the Atonement—that the blood of our Lord, shed in a substitutionary death, placates an alienated Deity and makes possible welcome for the returning sinner; and that we must believe in the second coming of our Lord upon the clouds of heaven to set up a millennium here, as the only way in which God can bring history to a worthy denouement. Such are some of the stakes which are being driven to mark a deadline of doctrine around the church.

If a man is a genuine liberal, his primary protest is not against holding these opinions, although he may well protest against their being considered the fundamentals of Christianity. This is a free country and anybody has a right to hold these opinions or any others if he is sincerely convinced of them. The question is—Has anybody a right to deny the Christian name to those who differ with him on such points and to shut against them the doors of the Christian fellowship? The Fundamentalists say that this must be done. In this country and on the foreign field they are trying to do it. They have actually endeavored to put on the statute books of a whole state binding laws against teaching modern biology. If they had their way, within the church, they would set up in Protestantism a doctrinal tribunal more rigid than the pope’s.

In such an hour, delicate and dangerous, when feelings are bound to run high, I plead this morning the cause of magnanimity and liberality and tolerance of spirit. I would, if I could reach their ears, say to the Fundamentalists about the liberals what Gamaliel said to the Jews, “Refrain from these men and let them alone; for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be everthrown; but if it is of God ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God.”

That we may be entirely candid and concrete and may not lose ourselves in any fog of generalities, let us this morning take two or three of these Fundamentalist items and see with reference to them what the situation is in the Christian churches. Too often we preachers have failed to talk frankly enough about the differences of opinion which exist among evangelical Christians, although everybody knows that they are there. Let us face this morning some of the differences of opinion with which somehow we must deal.

We may well begin with the vexed and mooted question of the virgin birth of our Lord. I know people in the Christian churches, ministers, missionaries, laymen, devoted lovers of the Lord and servants of the Gospel, who, alike as they are in their personal devotion to the Master, hold quite different points of view about a matter like the virgin birth. Here, for example, is one point of view that the virgin birth is to be accepted as historical fact; it actually happened; there was no other way for a personality like the Master to come into this world except by a special biological miracle. That is one point of view, and many are the gracious and beautiful souls who hold it. But side by side with them in the evangelical churches is a group of equally loyal and reverent people who would say that the virgin birth is not to be accepted as an historic fact. . . . So far from thinking that they have given up anything vital in the New Testament’s attitude toward Jesus, these Christians remember that the two men who contributed most to the Church’s thought of the divine meaning of the Christ were Paul and John, who never even distantly allude to the virgin birth.

Here in the Christian churches are these two groups of people and the question which the Fundamentalists raise is this—Shall one of them throw the other out? Has intolerance any contribution to make to this situation? Will it persuade anybody of anything? Is not the Christian Church large enough to hold within her hospitable fellowship people who differ on points like this and agree to differ until the fuller truth be manifested? The Fundamentalists say not. They say the liberals must go. Well, if the Fundamentalists should succeed, then out of the Christian Church would go some of the best Christian life and consecration of this generation—multitudes of men and women, devout and reverent Christians, who need the church and whom the church needs.

 

[guanophore]

(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?/ No one who receives Apostolic Teaching thinks that grace as a rule of life excludes love. this is why we say that faith is never “alone”. The rule of life according to grace never separates faith, hope, and love from one another.

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

Yet, for those who have not yet come to Christ, the law continues to provide the ministry of conviction for sins. And although we do not live under the rule of law, the Law still sheds light to our conscience about the immuntable moral principles of God. Remember that all that was written before was written for our instruction, and we are in need of instruction until we attain the fullness of election (glorification).

 

[Teflon93]

Perhaps you could explain what this passage means?

The Apostles taught us that Abraham completed his faith by his works. By his works he demonstrated the faith by which he was justified. How is it that God said “now I know”?

Moondweller is simply confounding predestination with predetermination, the second Fundamentalist stumbling block.

The point is not some gap in God’s omniscience, but that Abraham had to prove to himself that he really would go through with the slaying of Isaac at God’s command. It is one thing to speak the words, it is another to take the action. We saw this with St Peter, who claimed that he would never deny Christ, and yet when the time come he did. Was St Peter not already justified when he spoke? He was foremost of the disciples; if he was not, none of them were. Christ clearly knew he would sin in this way, and clearly knew that he would persevere in the end. St Peter still had to repent (and tearfully so) of his own free will in between.

Likewise, Abraham’s faith required obedient action to have merit.

It is not enough to have “a valid testimony”, but to obey God.

Abraham obeyed God. Would that we all would do as he did, since it is far easier to claim to have the faith of Abraham than to put it into action.

But don’t take my word for it—take Christ’s:

John 8:

“39”: They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

“40”: But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

 

[sandusky]

Teflon93:

The point is not some gap in God’s omniscience, but that Abraham had to prove to himself that he really would go through with the slaying of Isaac at God’s command. It is one thing to speak the words, it is another to take the action. We saw this with St Peter, who claimed that he would never deny Christ, and yet when the time come he did.

This is the argument that moondweller, and myself have made with respect to James’ use of the Gen 22 passage in his epistle, and thank you for your support of that position.

Not only did Abraham have to prove it to himself, but through God’s grace in having Moses record the incident, anyone who reads the passage, including Abraham’s future seed (cf Rom 4:23-24; 15:4), would be SHOWN, and SEE that Abraham had faith (cf Jas 2:18ff, “show, show, see, see”). James is not about being saved by faith + works, but recognizing in oneself and others, a faith that is working.

Teflon93:

It is not enough to have “a valid testimony”, but to obey God.

And I’m certain that moondweller has both a “valid testimony,” and a “faith that works,” his point in the thread being that works cannot save.

Of course, that’s my opinion of moondweller’s point, and I invite his correction should my assessment be in error.

 

[Teflon93]

Anyone who wants further evidence of Moondweller’s sophistry in the “merit” vs. “reward” language in the NT:

reward (n.)
c.1300, “a regarding, heeding, observation,” from O.N.Fr. reward, variant of O.Fr. reguard (see regard). Meaning “repayment for some service” is from c.1350. The verb is attested from c.1315, from O.N.Fr. rewarder, variant of O.Fr. regarder “regard, watch over,” from re-, intensive prefix, + garder “look, heed, watch” (see guard). Originally any form of requital.

merit (n.)
c.1300, from O.Fr. merite, from L. meritum “desert,** reward**, merit,” neut. of meritus, pp. of merere, meriri “to earn, deserve, acquire, gain,” from PIE base *(s)mer- “to allot, assign” (cf. Gk. meros “part, lot,” moira “share, fate,” moros “fate, destiny, doom,” Hittite mark “to divide” a sacrifice). The verb meaning “to be entitled to” is from 1526. L. meritare, freq. of mereri, meant “to earn (money), to serve as a soldier.” Merit-monger was in common use 16c.-17c. in a sense roughly of “do-gooder.” Meritocracy coined 1958 by Michael Young and used in title of his book, “The Rise of the Meritocracy.”

Still waiting for where I might find the phrase “substitutionary atonement” in the NT, Moondweller’s position apparently being that doctrinal phraseology must appear in Scripture or be invalid.

Or perhaps his position is simply that one may not apply standards employed in anti-Catholic arguments to Fundamentalism.

 

[ellammcg]

This 1922 sermon is enlightening on this paucity of charity and is a cri de couer:

**The question is—Has anybody a right to deny the Christian name to those who differ with him on such points and to shut against them the doors of the Christian fellowship? **

We may well begin with the vexed and mooted question of the virgin birth of our Lord. I know people in the Christian churches, ministers, missionaries, laymen, devoted lovers of the Lord and servants of the Gospel, who, alike as they are in their personal devotion to the Master, hold quite different points of view about a matter like the virgin birth. Here, for example, is one point of view that the virgin birth is to be accepted as historical fact; it actually happened; there was no other way for a personality like the Master to come into this world except by a special biological miracle. That is one point of view, and many are the gracious and beautiful souls who hold it. But side by side with them in the evangelical churches is a group of equally loyal and reverent people who would say that the virgin birth is not to be accepted as an historic fact. . . . So far from thinking that they have given up anything vital in the New Testament’s attitude toward Jesus, these Christians remember that the two men who contributed most to the Church’s thought of the divine meaning of the Christ were Paul and John, who never even distantly allude to the virgin birth.
​

I especially liked this quote from the aforementioned sermon:

“Come, and we will feed you opinions from a spoon. No thinking is allowed here except such as brings you to certain specified, predetermined conclusions. These prescribed opinions we will give you in advance of your thinking; now think, but only so as to reach these results.”

It certainly sums up current Fundamentalist/Baptist theology.​

 

[sandusky]

It certainly sums up current Fundamentalist/Baptist theology.

For heavens sake, you have the same dissensions in your church between those who hold the traditional view, the sedevacantist view, the SSPX and those who deem themselves more “contemporary,” or “progressive,” or, choose a word.

What’s the point of a post that like that? All men have the ability to sin, and be contentious?

Agreed.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

And I’m certain that moondweller has both a “valid testimony,” and a “faith that works,” his point in the thread being that works cannot save.

Who was he making the point for, in this argument? We can assume that most on this thread are “in faith.” if we claim to be christian, right.

A mature faith, matures until what point to be a saving faith?

Faith stops maturing at the end of our earthly life. Can assurance ever come before that point?