Commandments should not be followed ...

[guanophore]

Salvation is simply something given—what great appreciation you lack.

What shows appreciation for the give is to merit it - to be deemed deserving by ones response to it. A good modern day example can be seen in the movie Private Ryan, At the end, after the whole platoon had given their lives to save him, the captain says with his dying breath “earn this”. Can a person ever “earn” someone giving his life to save theirs? I think not. Yet, private Ryan understood that he needed to live a life worthy of the sacrifice that was made to spare it.

Eph 4:1-4
“I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to **lead a life worthy of the calling **to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

We did not 'earn" the calling, and it is not a wage. However, we can demonstrate our appreciation for it by “making every effort” to fulfill God’s intention for His sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

Paul received the gospel he preached directly from Christ—one-on-one:…

Did you suppose that someone doubted this obvious fact?

It’s amazing that even today, among some, Paul must continue to defend his apostleship.

What you meant to say, of course, is that even today Paul’s Apostleship must continue to be defended. Paul doesnt defend it, however, he’s in a much better place. But Im curious - who, exactly doubts the apostelship of Paul? Non-Christians?

 

[guanophore]

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

I think it slipped your mind, Tef, that anything that Jesus said about salvation “that side of the cross” was to, for, and about Jews only. He did not really have much to say about salvation to Gentiles.

The way I have had the Reformed explain it to me is "all scripture is written “for” you, but not all of it is “about” you. These principles Jesus spoke to the Jews prior to him entering into his role as the mediator of a new covenant.

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”.

Once one has ascertained that only Paul has an “organized doctrine of salvation”, then there is no need to include any other scriptures. Remember? It was not possible for anyone to understand salvation by grace, through faith, until after Paul wrote his epistles.

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

Now, now, charity in all things. Just because moon is not in your “camp” that does not mean you can start getting exasperated.

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

I do think this is the largest part of the problem. In fact, it is clear that moon and sandusky have superimposed upon the text the Reformed/Dispensational traditions that constitute a “different” gospel.

 

[Philthy]

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.”

Shall you?

Does salvific faith merit grace? Please begin with Yes or No.

 

[ellammcg]

For heavens sake, you have the same dissensions in your church between those who hold the traditional view, the sedevacantist view, the SSPX

I don’t even know what you are talking about. Those terms are foreign to me. We have none of those things in the church of which I am a member. I am a Baptist (you would also call us fundamentalists). I am not refering to all Protestant churches by any means and I am sorry if it was taken that way. I apoplogize if I offended.

 

[guanophore]

What is the subtractory approach?

I am referring to subtracting things that are meant to go together, like subtracting v. 10 from Eph. 2:8-10.

Or subtracting love and hope from faith, so as to try to make faith stand “alone”.

1 Cor 13:13
3 And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.

If one can only be saved by “faith alone”, why didn’t paul say that this was the greatest?

 

[Teflon93]

Contra Moondweller, grace and law not only can coexist, but absolutely did coexist in the person of Jesus Christ.

Let’s not write Christ out of the Bible entirely in favor of a 19th century misinterpretation of St Paul, now.

 

[guanophore]

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”?

Here is one that has come up in several threads:

Luke 1:5-7 “In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 Both of them were righteous before God, living blamelessly according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord.”

How did Elizabeth and Zachy become “righteous” before God? (that side of the cross)?

 

[Teflon93]

Here is one that has come up in several threads:

Luke 1:5-7 “In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 Both of them were righteous before God, living blamelessly according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord.”

How did Elizabeth and Zachy become “righteous” before God? (that side of the cross)?

Given that the definition is given by the final clause in the final sentence, I’m sure there must be some explanation.

Perhaps they’ll insert another 70 year gap between words in this sentence, as they did in their eschatology.

 

[guanophore]

James is not about being saved by faith + works, but recognizing in oneself and others, a faith that is working.

I don’t see a difference. It also seems clear that if one has “faith that is working” then faith is not “alone”.

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.

Neither can faith save, but only grace. However, the faith and the works are part and parcel of the saving grace. None of them are “alone”. Grace does not save either, unless it meets with faith.

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

And I am certain you shall have it!

 

[guanophore]

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.

No, they do. It is clear they understand that they are to love the “brethren” (those who believe like they do). That does not extend to Catholics, but especially not “love you enemies”. All the others are to be avoided, as moon has said he would avoid Saul.

 

[Philthy]

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.

Assuming your point regarding “now I know” and your interpretation of James(an assumption I dont entertain!), the problem remains that your point is USELESS. The doctrine of salvation by faith alone remains useless with the limited exception that it has the capacity to alter someone who believes that they can be saved by works ALONE. No one here is of that belief. For the rest of us, what do we do with such a claim? Somehow rest in the knowledge that we are saved apart from works that we are expected to do anyhow to confirm our faith as being genuinely salvific? Thats an illogical, useless message, IMHO. For example:
I respond to an alter call and accept Christ. I am taught the “Salvation is by faith alone” gospel. 2 weeks later I am tempted to commit adultery. I have been taught, and I believe that I am saved by faith alone - apart from avoiding this adulterous affair. The only problem is - and its a big problem - if I engage in the affair I will not know if I have genuine saving faith! And I would know this because you and MD taught me that James tells us that we are shown to be saved by our works (avoiding sin) and not by a faith which is alone, right? So guess what? I must do the very same thing that I would do if I believed that my actions afffected my salvation. Its a useless doctrine - in fact, worse than useless in that has the potential to fool those not in Gods grace into believing that they are. It was the same problem Paul faced from those who claimed that they should sin all the more so that Grace may abound.

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.

My guess is that you know neither but that you would like to believe both and are playing loose with the word “certain”.

 

[guanophore]

Perhaps, but Matthew 5:46 - 47 ought disabuse us of that notion, so long as Christianity correlates to “obeying Christ”.

Yes, but they must obey Christ “through Paul”, since Jesus did not teach about the “organized doctrines of salvation” prior to his death.

 

[Philthy]

A “saving faith” saves from the start—witness the thief on the Cross, and his lack of works.

Lack of works? Where do you come up with such stuff! How about his repentance and his bearing true witness to his own guilt and Christ’s innocence? In this thread in particular, that latter work is relevant: he observed the Commandment: “Thou shalt not bear false witness”

 

[guanophore]

A “saving faith” saves from the start—witness the thief on the Cross, and his lack of works.

Let’s see if we hang you on a cross, let Jesus promise you paradise, then go off and leave you to suffer the rest of the day, then let some soldiers come and break your laigs, and not blaspheme out of pain. If you think such suffering is not work, then you have no concept of what crucifixion is about.

The believer is given assurance by the Lord, and the NT writers that he can be sure of his salvation. If one doesn’t believe in assurance, it cannot be on the basis of its exclusion from God’s testimony.

Just as, if one thinks that one can be saved who does not persevere until the end, it cannot be on the exclusion of God’s testimony.

 

[Teflon93]

Assuming your point regarding “now I know” and your interpretation of James(an assumption I dont entertain!), the problem remains that your point is USELESS. The doctrine of salvation by faith alone remains useless with the limited exception that it has the capacity to alter someone who believes that they can be saved by works ALONE. No one here is of that belief. For the rest of us, what do we do with such a claim? Somehow rest in the knowledge that we are saved apart from works that we are expected to do anyhow to confirm our faith as being genuinely salvific? Thats an illogical, useless message, IMHO. For example:
I respond to an alter call and accept Christ. I am taught the “Salvation is by faith alone” gospel. 2 weeks later I am tempted to commit adultery. I have been taught, and I believe that I am saved by faith alone - apart from avoiding this adulterous affair. The only problem is - and its a big problem - if I engage in the affair I will not know if I have genuine saving faith! And I would know this because you and MD taught me that James tells us that we are shown to be saved by our works (avoiding sin) and not by a faith which is alone, right? So guess what? I must do the very same thing that I would do if I believed that my actions afffected my salvation. Its a useless doctrine - in fact, worse than useless in that has the potential to fool those not in Gods grace into believing that they are. It was the same problem Paul faced from those who claimed that they should sin all the more so that Grace may abound.

My guess is that you know neither but that you would like to believe both and are playing loose with the word “certain”.

It is worse than useless—it is a pernicious doctrine which has removed the sacraments Christ instituted within his Church from many millions of Christians.

For what happens to the very real people who sin following their dramatic conversion?

They are shunned by their fellows—for they “were never really saved in the first place.”

Moreover, they have no access to the sacrament of penance which would allow them to return to the fold and know that they had been forgiven.

Is it any wonder that many lose their faith altogether?

Added to this is the rather expansive notion of sin Fundamentalists have created. “Have a drink, go to hell” is completely unScriptural, and yet doing so is taken as a firm indication of one’s lack of salvation.

The commandment they believe we are not to follow is to love one another.

 

[Teflon93]

Yes, but they must obey Christ “through Paul”, since Jesus did not teach about the “organized doctrines of salvation” prior to his death.

What did he teach James, Peter, Jude, and the others during the 40 days?

Paul wasn’t there. Did he teach the other apostles macrame?

 

[Teflon93]

I can certainly see why Fundamentalists pooh-pooh the doctrinal content of, say, John:

1 John 1

5: This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
6: If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10: If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

 

[ellammcg]

Fundamentalists have created. “Have a drink, go to hell” is completely unScriptural, and yet doing so is taken as a firm indication of one’s lack of salvation.

The commandment they believe we are not to follow is to love one another.

My husband (privately) asked our pastor where in the Bible it says we are forbidden to drink alcohol (not get drunk-just have a drink). It was broadcast to the entire church that some “saved” person actually thought that the Bible didn’t forbid the drinking of alcohol! (Laughter and head shaking followed.) He next said “I can show you all over the Bible where it says so!” It took everything I had not to jump up and say, “well then-go ahead!”

 

[Teflon93]

And 1 John 4 rebukes Moondweller’s claim that how we love is not a factor in our salvation:

1: Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

2: Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
4: Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
5: They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
6: We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
**7: Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
8: He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. **9: In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
10: Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
**11: Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. **
**12: No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. **
**13: Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. **
14: And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
**15: Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. **
**16: And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. **
17: Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
18: There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
19: We love him, because he first loved us.
**20: If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
21: And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also. **

John makes clear that those who believe Christ to be the Son of God are clearly to be counted among those we are commanded to love.

So why again are Fundamentalists claiming that Catholics who so confess are not to be loved? Does it not sound like those who so maintain are precisely those John is speaking of in verse 20?