Commandments should not be followed ...

[moondweller]

Mikeledes:

Now wouldn’t you say that if by faith Abraham obeyed God and went out, not knowing where he was going, that he had placed his trust in God?

It is not stated that Abraham believed “in the Lord” until Gen. 15:6, and that connected to promise (true Christians believe “in Christ” connected to the promise of eternal life). And at that point in time the Lord reckoned it (Abraham’s faith “in” Him) to him as righteousness. Not before, not after. You can dance around it all you want, Mike, but you can’t change the Scriptures to conform them to your own belief system. That’s why God breathed them, gave them, and preserved them.

And by whose blood were the Old Testament saints saved?

Humm…Peter’s?

 

[moondweller]

Teflon93:

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

You won’t. You won’t even find the word “atonement” in the N.T. Except as a mistranslation in one verse in the Book of Romans in the KJV, Rom. 5:11, the Greek being katallagên, correctly translated reconciliation. But sin sacrifice is inherently substitutionary, Tef. You will never comprehend the sacrificial work of Christ if you deny this O.T. Biblical concept. This could very well be the root of your problem.

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.

You’re rationalizing again.

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

Nothing you stated by definition supports your stance. If you and your child agree to a certain amount of money rendered to him upon his completion of certain chores, then by all definition it’s a WAGE, not an allowance. You confound these two words like you do faith and works, grace and law. I think we have discovered here another root problem of yours. I should charge you for all this counseling.

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”.

Like all literature (and language), Tef., passages in the Scriptures have specific contexts. There are some good books out there on Biblical hermeneutics, if you want I will recommend one or two. You should find them very helpful.

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

And your judgmental character once again proves Pharisaic (excessively or hypocritically pious; self-righteous). Far from “loving,” Tef., which you claim is a condition for your future salvation.

 

[moondweller]

guanophore:

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 agree that the Law defined sins through its commandments, rendering those under it to be not only sinners by nature (having been born “in Adam”) but now transgressors of LAW as well. Sin was in the world before the giving of Law to Israel.

Where we part is where you stray from N.T. theology in defining what is the purpose of the Law. According to N.T. revelation it was to lead those under it to Christ that they be justified BY FAITH (Gal. 3:24).

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.

Yes, and you’re trying to be saved by those moral principles rather than by faith in Christ alone, by grace alone.

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

Yes, Catholics do consider salvation a reward, and, as a consequence, you neglect the true standard for divine righteousness: FAITH (Rom. 4:5; Rom. 1:17).

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

Not true! The Law, as a covenant with Israel, ended with Christ who fulfilled it. He inaugurated a new covenant in His blood.

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

Those who were seeking “to be justified by law” (Gal. 5:4) never entered that grace"…being justified as a gift by His grace (How? Through Law? NO!) through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus."They fell away from the message of grace Paul and his companions had first delivered to them. Seeking rather to be justified by Law they were severed from Christ and He, in respect to justification, was of no benefit to them.Gal 5:4 "You have been severed from Christ (Who is?), you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."Those words of Paul also served as a warning to those who were justified by faith in Christ not to mix the two opposing principles. Warnings in the N.T. Epistles always served two purposes.

Why do you think he misled so many people, telling them that their faith had saved them, prior to His death?

I’ll ask you, in respect to their infirmities (not salvation from the penalty of sin), why do you think He said to those He healed, “your FAITH" has saved you (from your infirmity)”? The Apostolic message concerning salvation is, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved…” Humm, so I wonder why Jesus stressed faith so much. Any idea?

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.

The grace by which a believer is justified is based on the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ. God justifies no one by His love, but according to His infinite justice which was perfectly met at the cross. That’s why Paul says:Rom 3:26 “…for the demonstration, {I say,} of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

 

[moondweller]

guanophore:

Yet, for those who have not yet come to Christ, the law continues to provide the ministry of conviction for sins.

No it doesn’t. The purpose of the Law was to lead those under it to Christ that they would be justified by FAITH. The Gentile was never under the Law, it was a covenant between God and Israel. The gospel message of salvation, with its declared forgiveness of sins, went out even to the Gentiles who had not the Law. The conviction of sins is the ministry of the Holy Spirit who came at Pentecost:John 16:8 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;"Being Scripture, believers can certainly learn from the Law about sin and transgressions, but the power of conviction of sins for the world belongs to the work of the Holy Spirit.

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.

No problem there!

Remember that all that was written before was written for our instruction

But not all that was written applies directly to us for salvation. The Law was written for the purpose of leading those under it to Christ that they would be justified BY FAITH.

 

[moondweller]

Teflon93:

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

You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about here.

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

Abraham was already justified by faith alone, long before he was willing to offer up Isaac. The question was regarding the angel of the Lord saying, “now I know…” in Gen. 22:12. A completely different subject.

 

[moondweller]

Sean Boyle:

We can assume that most on this thread are “in faith.” if we claim to be christian, right.

That would be a false assumption, indeed. Multitudes claimed “to be Christian,” when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A strategic political move. Multitudes claimed “to be christian” because it was the predominate religious culture of the land. They’d done the same if Islam was the predominate religion. Multitudes claim “to be Christian” today because they’re born into a family that embraces some form of “Christianity.” To claim to be “christian” merely means one adheres to some form of Christianity. But such a claim does not guarantee one to be of true “faith.”

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

One who is saved by faith in Christ alone matures in the same faith through which God saved (past tense) him. True faith does not at some arbitrary point in time become “saving faith.” It’s the object of that faith that defines it as “saving faith.”

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

Of course! Saving faith trusts completely in the work of Another. The gospel is not: “For by grace you will be saved if your faith matures….” But, "For by grace you HAVE BEEN saved through faith…"

 

[moondweller]

guanophore:

Do you think that lying and adultery are expressions of righteous behavior? Did these actions give glory to God?

Well of course, guanophore. So is drunkenness, gluttony and all forms of carousing. If your god is Bacchus.

I don’t think that could be justified in his case, since he only feels bound to show love to those that believe as he does. Doing anything good for the poor that are not in his household of God would probably be the same as throwing pearls before swine.

Keep spinning, Mr. G.

 

[moondweller]

Mekeledes:

Just a little clarification. Moondweller is not a Calvinist. he believes in free will. Considering what Calvinists have said about “free will” Protestants, it always fascinates me when the two groups present a united front against Catholics. And yet their differences in their understanding of salvation and faith alone is substantive.

Hardly. Take away that particular (in-house) debate and both camps believe in salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone. That’s why you’ll always encounter a united front between understanding Calvinists and non-Calvinists (Protestant) when defending the gospel. Sandusky and I are of kindred spirit, we know we’re both eternally saved by grace through faith alone. Everything else is superfluous in comparison to the unchangeable truth.

 

[moondweller]

guanophore:

I think this statement elucidates the crux of the logical error. God created mankind in a state of grace.

From where do you get such a notion? Certainly not from the Genesis record. In respect to the N.T. usage of the word “grace,” you’d be saying God created man in the state of having been already saved from something. Saved from what, guanophore? It is true that man (male and female) was created in a state of innocence, (sinlessness, “not ashamed”). But created in neither a “state of grace” or “righteousness.”

He was placed in the Garden under Law. And upon transgression of that Law he fell into a state of sin and guilt (along with all his posterity) from which he (and all his posterity) needed redemption. This was provided by divine grace through Christ (the “Last Adam”), even fulfilling the haunting words of Abraham when he said, “God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son” (Gen. 22:8)

He gave them law. Grace and law co-existed.

Only according to your non-Biblical theology.

Grace did not cease to exist when God gave Law to Moses,

The promise according to the unconditional Abrahamic covenant did not cease to exist with the covenant of the Law. But “grace” as a rule of life, did not come about until AFTER the death, burial and bodily resurrection of Christ.

and Law did not cease to exist when grace and Truth came through Jesus.

The truth is, that particular verse contradicts your whole theory by clearly contrasting Moses with Christ, law with grace. The Amplified Bible presents the full essence of this verse:John 1:17 "For while the Law was given through Moses, grace (unearned, undeserved favor and spiritual blessing) and truth came through Jesus Christ."Yet you insist on confounding them.

 

[Pax]

It is not stated that Abraham believed “in the Lord” until Gen. 15:6, and that connected to promise (true Christians believe “in Christ” connected to the promise of eternal life). And at that point in time the Lord reckoned it (Abraham’s faith “in” Him) to him as righteousness. Not before, not after. You can dance around it all you want, Mike, but you can’t change the Scriptures to conform them to your own belief system. That’s why God breathed them, gave them, and preserved them.Humm…Peter’s?

Abraham was justified on three occassions and that has been proven to you by way of scripture. You are repeating a claim that has been disproven, Repeating it will not make it so.

Your entire argument seems to rest on the fact that Abraham is only noted in the OT, on one occassion to be justifed. The problem is that the NT writers point to the other two occassions.

You won’t find a reference to “Moses Seat” in the OT, but Jesus mentions the term in the gospels. None of his listeners argued about it because they knew that Jesus spoke properly and truthfully. The same applies with the NT writers in referring to the other occassions of Abraham’s justification. It may not be mentioned in the OT, but it is still true and the NT inspired authors attest to it.

Just accept the scriptures.

 

[pneuma07]

I’d wish to propose some more readings:

After stating in 1 Corinthian he could be disqualified himself, Paul goes on:

1 Corinthians 10

I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea,
2 and all of them were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
3 All ate the same spiritual food,
4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, 2 and the rock was the Christ.
5 Yet God was not pleased with most of them, for they were struck down in the desert.
6
These things happened as examples for us, so that we might not desire evil things, as they did.
7
And do not become idolaters, as some of them did, as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to revel.”
8 Let us not indulge in immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell within a single day.
9 Let us not test Christ 4 as some of them did, and suffered death by serpents.
10 Do not grumble as some of them did, and suffered death by the destroyer.
11 These things happened to them as an example, and they have been written down as a warning to us, upon whom the end of the ages has come. 5
12 Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall. 6
13 No trial has come to you but what is human. God is faithful and will not let you be tried beyond your strength; but with the trial he will also provide a way out, so that you may be able to bear it.

 

[pneuma07]

**hebrews 10 **
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus,
20 by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21 and having a great priest over the house of God;

22 let us draw near with a true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience: and having our body washed with pure water,
23 let us hold fast the confession of our hope that it waver not; for he is faithful that promised:
24 and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works;
25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day drawing nigh.

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins,
27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries.

28 A man that hath set at nought Moses law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses:
29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

32 But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were enlightened, ye endured a great conflict of sufferings;
…
35 Cast not away therefore your boldness, which hath great recompense of reward.
36 For ye have need of patience (New International Version - UK) “You need to persevere” )
, that, having done the will of God, ye may receive the promise.

37 For yet a very little while, He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry.
38 But my righteous one shall live by faith: And if he shrink back, my soul hath no pleasure in him.
39 But we are not of them that shrink back unto perdition; but of them that have faith unto the saving of the soul.

I hope this an 1 Corinthians 10 will be considered useful scriptural food for thought on the issues which are objects of the present megathread. .

Let’s see again: For ye have need of patience , that, having done the will of God, ye may receive the promise.

And: whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall

 

[moondweller]

Abraham was justified on three occassions and that has been proven to you by way of scripture. You are repeating a claim that has been disproven, Repeating it will not make it so.

Your entire argument seems to rest on the fact that Abraham is only noted in the OT, on one occassion to be justifed. The problem is that the NT writers point to the other two occassions.

You won’t find a reference to “Moses Seat” in the OT, but Jesus mentions the term in the gospels. None of his listeners argued about it because they knew that Jesus spoke properly and truthfully. The same applies with the NT writers in referring to the other occassions of Abraham’s justification. It may not be mentioned in the OT, but it is still true and the NT inspired authors attest to it.

Just accept the scriptures.

If Jesus said Abraham was justified three times, I would believe Him. But you don’t have the authority of Jesus, my friend.

You’re right about accepting the Scriptures, and they record only ONE occasion where Abraham was justified. The other two are asserted by readers to fit their own theology.

Pax, in Rom. 4:5 Paul states that God justifies the ungodly. For your theory to be true James would be teaching that at the time of sacrificing Isaac, Abraham would have had to have been in an unjustified state and considered by God “ungodly.” Can you tell me what unjustified him and caused him to be considered “ungodly?” And where is all this recorded?

 

[Teflon93]

You won’t. You won’t even find the word “atonement” in the N.T. Except as a mistranslation in one verse in the Book of Romans in the KJV, Rom. 5:11, the Greek being katallagên, correctly translated reconciliation.

Note that Moondweller, who previously introduced this notion that doctrinal terminology must be in the Bible for the doctrine to be Scriptural (because “merit” isn’t in the NT—“reward” is), has now changed his mind. Depends on whether a Catholic or Fundamentalist ox is being gored, I suppose.

More incoherence from Moondweller, say I.

But sin sacrifice is inherently substitutionary, Tef. You will never comprehend the sacrificial work of Christ if you deny this O.T. Biblical concept.

I don’t deny the Old Testament—didn’t you just waste a lot of pixels telling us that that was on the far side of the Cross and not applicable to Christians?

This could very well be the root of your problem.You’re rationalizing again.Nothing you stated by definition supports your stance.

Moondweller’s word of the day, which he doesn’t understand, is “rationalizing.”

If you and your child agree to a certain amount of money rendered to him upon his completion of certain chores, then by all definition it’s a WAGE, not an allowance. You confound these two words like you do faith and works, grace and law.

I’ve printed the definitions and etymologies for these words. Keep straining those gnats—it’s what Pharisees do.

Perhaps your pride simply won’t allow you to admit you’re wrong. I’ll place my wager on that one, unless your inability to understand the term leads you to believe I’m hiring you.

I think we have discovered here another root problem of yours. I should charge you for all this counseling.

Yet again you fail to understand the meaning of “wage”—you haven’t been hired, having produced nothing of value, and you won’t be granted your allowance until you act like a big boy and admit your mistakes.

Like all literature (and language), Tef., passages in the Scriptures have specific contexts.

Says the man whose whole theology rests on single verses ripped from context and fed to him with massive injections of manmade interpretation in-between. Anyone can review the thread and see who posts full context and who ignores it, Moondweller.

There are some good books out there on Biblical hermeneutics, if you want I will recommend one or two.

You may wish to master basic reading comprehension first. Were sola scriptura true, such books would be unnecessary, wouldn’t they?

But then you might have to read for comprehension.

You should find them very helpful.And your judgmental character once again proves Pharisaic (excessively or hypocritically pious; self-righteous). Far from “loving,” Tef., which you claim is a condition for your future salvation.

I don’t claim it, Christ does.

You may want to adopt the hermeneutic that Christians ought do what Christ says, but then that would mean recognizing your own hypocrisy, Moondweller.

Or at least reading the Bible a chapter or book at a time, the way it was intended to be read.

You’re lucky we love you here, Moondweller—otherwise we’d let you persist in error all the way to perdition.

Bookmark this thread—you’re on your way to being set right and leaving those Pharisaic robes behind!

 

[moondweller]

You’re lucky we love you here, Moondweller—otherwise we’d let you persist in error all the way to perdition.

“We?” You have a nasty way of displaying this “love” of which you’re banking on for your reward (payment) of salvation, Tef. You must figure God doesn’t care all that much for quality or quantity.

 

[Wild_Bill]

I have a friend who says that the Sabbath should still be on saturday. That to have it on another day goes against God’s commandment. She says that the Catholic church wrongly changed it. She has other ideas that I have come to call “gutter trash.” I won’t go into all of that now.

One of her ideas is that Catholics will go to hell because of this change. Ugh!! Kind of reminds me of a mass mailed booklet that came out a few years ago called, “National Sunday law.” It basically attacked Catholics for this and some other things. disgusting.

Seek ye the truth. Jesus said," I am the truth, the way and the light". We all want eternal rewards in heaven. We all must continue to study the life of Jesus (the truth). He will show us the way. Once you are on the way, you will see the light. Once you have recieved the light, (you will know because the Holy Spirit will come upon you.) You will be full of grace. You are then expected to spread you light unto the rest of the world. In other words, spread the teachings of Jesue.

 

[Teflon93]

“We?” You have a nasty way of displaying this “love” of which you’re banking on for your reward (payment) of salvation, Tef. You must figure God doesn’t care all that much for quality or quantity.

You must not have read St Jude, Moondweller:

1: Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

2: Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
3: Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4: For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
5: I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
6: And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7: Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
8: Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
9: Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
10: But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
11: Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
12: These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
13: Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
14: And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15: To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
16: These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.
17: But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
18: How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
19: These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
20: But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
21: Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
**22: And of some have compassion, making a difference:
23: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
24: Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, **
25: To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

Or perhaps you equate love and charity with “allowing you to persist in error unto perdition.” We’ve seen definitions are a problem for you; perhaps the definition of love and charity provided by your manmade tradition is to blame.

Just at the Ten Commandments were established by God the Father in Exodus 20 for the purpose of revealing the truth of man’s fallen state to him, so too we must reveal the errors of the heretical tradition in which you’ve been immersed that you may know what it is to obey Christ.

You keep insisting that how we love one another is my standard for salvation, as though I dreamed it up. Would that that were so!

Christ commanded it. Your favorite apostle explained it, as has been quoted from you many times in this thread from Scripture:

1 Corinthians 13:

“1”: Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

“2”: And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

“3”: And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

“4”: Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

“5”: Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

“6”: Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

“7”: Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

“8”: Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

“9”: For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

“10”: But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

“11”: When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

“12”: For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

“13”: And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; **but the greatest of these is charity. **

If faith saves per your interpretation of St Paul, but charity (love) is greater than faith, does it not follow that St Paul believes that love saves?

You are called to love your brother, Moondweller—am I not your brother?

Christ said that whomever confess that he is the Son of God is. I do; indeed, at the very start of this thread I asked you repeatedly whether or not you believe Christ and God are one in being. I believe it; I just confessed it again at Mass this morning.

Do you?

If you do, am I not your brother? Are you not commanded to love me?

If I am not your brother, am I instead your enemy? Did Christ not command you to love me then as well, for what reward can their possibly be for loving those who love you, which even the heathen and publican do?

 

[Philthy]

You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about here.Abraham was already justified by faith alone, long before he was willing to offer up Isaac. The question was regarding the angel of the Lord saying, “now I know…” in Gen. 22:12. A completely different subject.

No, its not a different subject. If Abraham was completely and permanently justified based on faith alone in Genesis 15:6, then Gen 22:12 makes absolutely no sense. God explicitly says, “now I know” your faith “because” you have offered Isaac I will bless you. It would appear that Abraham’s faith was not complete and not known in its entirety until it was completed by his obedience. It is not a different subject.
And even if you retreat to your “Do you know what an anthropomorphism is, Phil?” that does not eliminate the problem for you. If its an anthropomorphism - which the text nowhere implies - the message is clear: we are to ACT as if our faith REQUIRES obedience. We are to JUDGE our faith by our CONTINUED obedience. We should not think of our faith as instantaneous, complete and permanent. Faith should not be conceived of as “alone”.

 

[Philthy]

In Christ,
MD

“The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good.” SJ

Interesting quote. Do you think its possible to exclude a man’s faith when you determine his “true measure” ? Or does faith mysteriously exist independent of a man’s treatment of one “who can do him absolutely no good”? If so, then what -exactly - are we measuring when we lood at how a man treats those who can do him no good?

“Whatever you do to the least of men you do to me”

 

[Pax]

If Jesus said Abraham was justified three times, I would believe Him. But you don’t have the authority of Jesus, my friend.

You’re right about accepting the Scriptures, and they record only ONE occasion where Abraham was justified. The other two are asserted by readers to fit their own theology.

Pax, in Rom. 4:5 Paul states that God justifies the ungodly. For your theory to be true James would be teaching that at the time of sacrificing Isaac, Abraham would have had to have been in an unjustified state and considered by God “ungodly.” Can you tell me what unjustified him and caused him to be considered “ungodly?” And where is all this recorded?

This is rather typical of your responses. I presented the scriptures, and you simply deny them without presenting any exegesis of the texts that were presented.

I have never made the claim that Abraham went into an unjustified state and considered ungodly. I am not presenting a theory. I presented what scripture says. You have yet to carefully refute the clear meaning of the scriptures as they were presented to you.

The burden is not on me…the burden is on you. Do what you have to do or simply concede the point.