Commandments should not be followed ...

[guanophore]

I have read almost all of the posts. I was referring to the merits conversation. If I have spoken in error, I do apologize. But it does indeed seem as though he is saying that there is nothing that we can or cannot do that would affect our being accepted by Jesus into Heaven. A once saved always saved mindset.

Yes, I agree.

Therefore, the sacrifice of the martyrs was worthless, because if they had already confessed Jesus once and were baptised, there was no reason for them not to deny him rather than die…they would still have gone to Heaven.
Guanophore, does that make sense? or am I still way off base?

Yes, If they were saved, according to moon, they would have gone to heaven regardless of what they did after they were saved, I agree.

If they gave their life for Christ, they would have more treasure/reward in heaven.

On the other hand, he might say that, if they denied Him, they were never really saved in the first place.

It makes sense.

 

[guanophore]

Luke 10:26-27 "And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” And he answered, "You shall love the Lord you God with all you heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and (love) your neighbor as yourself."It seems the Jewish lawyer, who was actually under the Law, understood the Law.

Being commanded to be loving is not, of itself, love. The commandment had no power in itself to effect what was commanded.

On the contrary, as you have testified, it had only the power to condemn.

How is it that you who desire to be under that Law fail to understand it? It would be wise, indeed, to first fully understand something before placing it over you to act as your judge.

It seems that you misunderstand the role of the Law in the Kingdom of God, moon. Catholics don’t want to be “under the Law”. Nor do we want the Law to be our judge.

Christians are under the Law of Christ (love & liberty), and Christ is our judge.

Yes, because it was perfect and good and demanded full obedience to the letter. It’s purpose was to define sin so as to make sin utterly sinful through many transgressions of it. Ultimately, to lead those under it to Christ to be justified, not by love, but “BY FAITH.”

The ministry of the Law in this respect has not changed, moon. It still serves this function. I agree that the purpose of it is to lead us to faith. However, Apostolic Teaching is not “faith alone”, but that faith, hope, and love abide. Love covers a multitude of sins. How?

Love is the fulfimment of the Law.

How is it you continue to deny this clearly defined purpose for the Law:Gal 3:23-24 “But before faith came, we (Jews) were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our (Jews) tutor {to lead us} to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.”

On the contrary, I am the one saying that the purpose has not changed!

Those who have not come to Christ in faith still need that tutor.

Notice, again, nothing is added to faith - faith in respect to salvation and justification is always alone, nothing added.

Well, we read it differently.

Look a little further in the letter:

Gal 5:17-21
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Why does Paul make this list of actions that prevent one from inheriting the kingdom? Where were these acts defined? It is my contention that the source of their clarification has not changed.

Totally nonsensical, guanophore!!! And I think you know it.

No, I think we just disagree. I don’t find anything in the Law itself that gives love. That is like saying that the stop sign at the end of my street has the power it it to make me stop the car!

You’re clearly rationalizing.And yet you place those Commandments over you as your judge as to whether or not you have sinned “mortally” and have loved sufficiently to merit salvation.

Clearly you are misunderstanding the role of the Law in Apostolic Teaching. Look back up to the passage from Galatians I quoted. Paul is listing behaviors that prevent people from inheriting the kingdom. Recognizing that these behaviors prevent one from inheriting the kingdom does not make the Law the “judge” over the Galatians. The entire letter is geared to prevent them from accepting circumcision, so that they will NOT come under the Law. However, whether they live by grace, or by Law, the standard of Conduct required by God does not change.

As to the second part of your accusation, it is not possible for us to merit salvation in the sense that you are applying the word here. You are trying to impose a modern translation of a word into an ancient context, and it does not work. There is nothing we can do, of ourselves, to earn salvation.

Who was He speaking to when He gave the “new” commandment? It certainly wasn’t all of Israel, nor the Gentiles. You seem have a great problem with Christ requiring those who are His in the world to love one another?

Jesus gave this commandment on a number of occasions to various audiences. No, I don’ t have a problem with Christians loving one another. I have a problem with Christians purporting that Christ did not also tell us to love our enemies.

That would be like you having a problem with your parents telling you to love your siblings.

Let me tell you, I have had problems all my life! In fact, I find at times my siblings are harder for me to love than the friends I chose for myself.

 Teflon would ask, "*Dad, does that mean we're to hate our neighbors?*" :shrug:

I notice you haven;t answered that one yet.

You also didn’t answer the question asking which of the commandments you are allowed to break.

Good works are separate from saving grace. Otherwise one cannot be saved “by grace.” Paul said" “I live by faith IN THE SON OF GOD who loved me and gave himself up for me.” It’s all about faith in HIS WORK, none of ours.

We see it differently, moon. The Apostles teach us that we are saved by grace, through faith, for works, and that all of these are inseparably connected. They also teach that faith is God’s work, but is something in which we participate. The Apostles teach us that God desires all to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth, yet not all are saved, because God’s grace, poured out in abundance for salvation, does not meet with faith in everyone. Man has a choice, and he can reject God’s grace if He wishes. If he accepts the grace, he has done the “work of God” by applying his faith.

You’re mystified because you cannot conceive of a salvation purely of grace (unmerited favor) through faith in Christ alone.

I suppose this is true. I never see faith alone, and I don’t see Christ alone either. Wherever Christ is, there is the Father and the HS, and His Body, the Church, inseparable from the Head. I see that faith, hope, and love abide, and I see that saving faith always produces the fruits of righteousness, and it is never alone.

I see that Christ has made us partakers of His divine nature, and that His purpose for us is to work within us to will and to do His good pleasure. This requires that we participate.

You have this need for God to recognize you as well.

I think this is true also. I think this is part of how He made us. We can see from the story of Cain and Abel:

Gen 4:7
7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it."

So now you’re claiming to be the savior of yourself and others? How far will you drift from the gospel just to defend your position?

You did not answer the question, moon. Before we get into what it means to partake of His grace, first answer the question. How are the multitudes of sins covered. How is the covering of sins related to having unfailing love for one another?

One thing at a time, please.

 

[Teflon93]

It makes sense.

It does not make sense in that the Fundamentalist communities are based on properly identifying who the saved are and are not. Indeed, Moondweller has imnplied they are only commanded to love their fellow Fundamentalists, the “true Christians” who are saved. We shall see whether his response to my question above is consistent with his earlier implication.

So if one cannot lose their salvation, and if one cannot sin post justification, and if we continue to see within Fundamentalist communities “Never Saved in the First Place” examples, then we must admit that the Fundamentalist has no idea who is saved and who is not. They have too poor a track record of believing firmly someone to be saved only to have their post-justification sins exposed.

We have some dear friends who were active in the PTL ministry in the 80s. Jim Bakker’s sex scandal had a devastating impact upon many a PTLer—they had followed Bakker for years and couldn’t believe he hadn’t really been saved.

And yet they trucked right on to the next megachurch, with the next Mercedes-driving, Italian suit-wearing pulpit-thumper preaching the same OSAS, “you’re not saved if you’re not certain”, “lips that touch liquor won’t ever touch mine” stuff they’d always heard. They’ll be there till the next scandal, undoubtedly.

And they’ll never see it coming.

 

[guanophore]

Nevertheless, love, unlike faith, is not a condition for salvation.

So, then, one who does not love has never been saved? It’s a fruit of it.

. Our difference is that you’re trying to fulfilled something Christ already has. In fact the only Man who ever could or ever would.

Well, this is where you depart from Apostolic Teaching. The Apostles teach that Christ has set us free from the Law of sin and death,and that when Christ sets us free, we are free indeed. We are able, by His grace working in and through us, to follow Christ our model, and live as He lived, walking in Love, fufilling the commandments.

We “uphold” the Law “by this faith,” , because the purpose of the Law was to lead those under its jurisdiction to Christ - to be justified BY FAITH (Gal. 3:24, notice not “faith plus…”). Hence, “by this FAITH” we uphold the Law. We fulfill its purpose.

I agree with this, except that I think when you say “uphold the law” you may think that it does not still set a standard of behavior. Or you may think that the standard of behavior does not apply to the Christian.

You who want to be justified by Law, however, do not uphold it.

I agree. We are justified by Christ, and can keep the Law by grace, through faith.

As for your latter quote (Rom. 13:8), it’s a statement, not a stated condition for salvation.

"Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law. " Rom 13:8-10

Paul is saying that the moral precepts that God has revealed concerning how people should relate to himself and others are applicable to Christians.

I am curious when you say that love is not a requirement for “salvation”. Do you disagree with what Paul writes, when he says that persons who break the Law do not inherit the kingdom? Or, do you just say that persons who break these commandments were never saved in the first place?

 

[mlchance]

I am curious when you say that love is not a requirement for “salvation”.

Especially when Scripture says otherwise, and even goes so far as to note that love is superior to both faith and hope. One could even observe that to claim love is not necessary for salvation is to also claim that God himself is not necessary for salvation. After all, God is love.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Teflon93]

I agree with this, except that I think when you say “uphold the law” you may think that it does not still set a standard of behavior. Or you may think that the standard of behavior does not apply to the Christian.

Even worse. As we have seen with Moondweller’s responses, Fundamentalists don’t reject the commandments of Christ for an “anything goes” lifestyle—far from it! They simply reject the yardstick of sin given by God to man in favor of their own manmade Law—“Thou shalt not drink”, “Thou shalt not dance”, “Thou shalt tithe” [interesting how THAT aspect of OT Law survives in Fundamentalism, huh?], “Thou shalt attend services on Saturday, Sunday, and Wednesday”, etc. There are variations from community to community but the tendency toward legalism and control is pronounced within Fundamentalism.

They simply won’t admit that they’ve exchanged the yoke of God for the yoke of man, all while rejecting the one Church which makes men free.

 

[guanophore]

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).

I don’t disagree with this at all.

My point was that since not all have come to faith in Christ so they can be justified by Him, the Law still has it’s purpose. To the extent that Christians fail to conduct themselves according their justified state, the Law continues to accuse them.

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

No, moon, Catholics are not “trying to be saved” by the moral principles of God. On the contrary, we are saved by grace, thorugh faith. If it were our own ability to follow the moral principles that could save us, Jesus would not have to die on the cross.

However, because we are justified, we are expected to conduct ourselves according to how a justified person should be behave.

Gal 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Paul would not have to warn believers if those believers were not in any danger.

Yes, Catholics do consider salvation a reward,

I think not in the sense that you are thinking, though. Paul is writing in Colossians to slaves, instructing them to be obedient to their earthly masters:

Col 3:23-24
24 since you know that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward;

He speaks of “the inheritance” as a reward. Do you think if this inheritance to be something other than eternal life?

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

No, the Apostles make it clear that we keep the commandments by grace, through faith. Faith is not the standard, but the means by which we can reach the standard, the righteousness of God in Christ. Our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees, and we are to be perfect, as our heavenly father is perfect. Perfection is the standard. We come into it by faith, but it is based upon grace.

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

I agree. I think where we disagree is that Catholics believe that the moral precepts of God precede and succeed the covenant that God made with Israel.

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.

It is very Catholic of you to say this! Now, if we can just get you to the point where you can accep that it is, indeed, possible to be severed, as you have quoted here, and that it is possible to fall from grace!

Warnings in the N.T. Epistles always served two purposes.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)”?

So, you don’t believe their souls were saved, just their bodies?

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?

I think those people were saved by grace, through their faith. But, that would mean that it was possible to be saved prior to the death of Christ…

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.

Well, we see this differently. Catholics believe that God so loved the world, that He sent His only begotten son, so that we might have life. We believe He did this out of love for us.

 

[moondweller]

Even worse. As we have seen with Moondweller’s responses, Fundamentalists don’t reject the commandments of Christ for an “anything goes” lifestyle—far from it! They simply reject the yardstick of sin given by God to man in favor of their own manmade Law—“Thou shalt not drink”, “Thou shalt not dance”, “Thou shalt tithe” [interesting how THAT aspect of OT Law survives in Fundamentalism, huh?], “Thou shalt attend services on Saturday, Sunday, and Wednesday”, etc. There are variations from community to community but the tendency toward legalism and control is pronounced within Fundamentalism.

They simply won’t admit that they’ve exchanged the yoke of God for the yoke of man, all while rejecting the one Church which makes men free.

“Missing Sunday Mass is a serious sin. If it involves full knowledge and full consent, then it is a mortal sin.” Fr. Greg, educator of the Catholic faithOTOH, I have never seen any official teaching that I’m under any of the aforementioned for the sake of salvation or loss of it.

Now who’s really wearing the yoke of legalism, Tef?

I do, however, wear the yoke of Christ. But it’s not a heavy yoke of legalism with the threat of eternal damnation:Matt 11:29-30 "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. For My yoke is EASY and My burden is LIGHT."There’s the vast difference between coming to church and coming to Christ. Faith in a “service” and faith in a Savior.

 

[moondweller]

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.

I asked before, where in the Hebrew passages does it say anything about Abraham being justified; where does James say Abraham was justified BY offering up Isaac? In fact James must quote Gen. 15:6 because there is no other mention of God justifying Abraham, certainly not in Gen. 22. So, again, we’re down to only one place where it is recorded that God justified Abraham: Gen. 15:6. And Paul builds his doctrine on justification by faith, apart from works, on this same passage in Genesis.Rom 4:3-5 “For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it (singular) was credited to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor (get that Tef.?), but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,”

 

[mikeledes]

Yes.

Justification includes regeneration? I thought regeneration preceded justification?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Teflon93]

“Missing Sunday Mass is a serious sin. If it involves full knowledge and full consent, then it is a mortal sin.” Fr. Greg, educator of the Catholic faithOTOH, I have never seen any official teaching that I’m under any of the aforementioned for the sake of salvation or loss of it.

Now who’s really wearing the yoke of legalism, Tef?

I do, however, wear the yoke of Christ. But it’s not a heavy yoke of legalism with the threat of eternal damnation:Matt 11:29-30 "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. For My yoke is EASY and My burden is LIGHT."There’s the vast difference between coming to church and coming to Christ. Faith in a “service” and faith in a Savior.

In your easy, yoke-bearing community, which of the aforementioned rules are NOT in place:

1. Prohibition against drinking
2. Prohibition against dancing
3. Mandatory service on Sunday
4. Mandatory service on Saturday
5. Mandatory service on Wednesday
6. Mandatory tithing

By “mandatory”, I mean “will be remarked upon negatively and taken as a sign one may not REALLY be saved”.

All of these were facets of my wife’s community prior to our conversion.

As for the Catholic teaching on the Mass, you ought to reference the Catechism, which is the authoritative teaching of the Church:

II. THE PRECEPTS OF THE CHURCH

2041 The precepts of the Church are set in the context of a moral life bound to and nourished by liturgical life. The obligatory character of these positive laws decreed by the pastoral authorities is meant to guarantee to the faithful the very necessary minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor:

2042 The first precept (“You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor”) requires the faithful to sanctify the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord as well as the principal liturgical feasts honoring the mysteries of the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the saints; in the first place, by participating in the Eucharistic celebration, in which the Christian community is gathered, and by resting from those works and activities which could impede such a sanctification of these days.82

The second precept (“You shall confess your sins at least once a year”) ensures preparation for the Eucharist by the reception of the sacrament of reconciliation, which continues Baptism’s work of conversion and forgiveness.83

The third precept (“You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season”) guarantees as a minimum the reception of the Lord’s Body and Blood in connection with the Paschal feasts, the origin and center of the Christian liturgy.84

2043 The fourth precept (“You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church”) ensures the times of ascesis and penance which prepare us for the liturgical feasts and help us acquire mastery over our instincts and freedom of heart.85

The fifth precept (“You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church”) means that the faithful are obliged to assist with the material needs of the Church, each according to his own ability.86

The faithful also have the duty of providing for the material needs of the Church, each according to his own abilities.87

Catholics have a sacramental view of salvation. Surprisingly, access to the sacraments does involve showing up in the normal course of things (for those unable to come to Mass, the priests come to them. Do Fundamentalist pastors physically go to those who cannot come to them in this way? Or do tapes and video feeds cut the mustard?)

Of course, the Catholic yoke is much lighter—Mass takes an hour or less, with half taken up by Scripture readings (one OT, one Psalm, one epistle, and one NT—typically half a chapter or so—plus a 10-minute homily on the Gospel reading) and half by the preparation and receipt of the Eucharist.

Catholics are not required to tithe, because we recognize that this is a Levitical requirement of the old Law which has passed away. Instead, we give freely, in quantity and in nature as our charity and means allow.

And, as usual, I have fully addressed your questions and points whereas you have ignored some of mine.

 

[mikeledes]

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.

According to the Bible, Abraham made two altars to the Lord and invoked His name before Genesis 15:6. So you mean to tell me that Abraham by faith obeyed the Lord and also sought the Lord by invoking His name, and yet he did not believe in the Lord? Can you cite another passage in Scripture in which faith does not mean believing in the Lord?

Humm…Peter’s?

So I’m assuming that your saying - underneath the sarcasm - that the OId Testament saints were saved by the blood of Christ? Then I ask you my original question again. If the Old Testament saints were saved by grace through faith, then how was the Mosaic Law their rule of life before God?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

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.

This may be the case between you and Sandusky, but many Calvinists do not feel that way. If faith is a matter of free choice, then many Calvinists believe that that means salvation depends on human effort and I’ve encountered many Calvinists who will consider this a more subtle version of a gospel of works, such as the Calvinists I cited in that post. They believe it undermines the principle of grace alone when you have to add human effort (i.e. choice) to grace in order for it to be efficacious. Discuss this with a Calvinist and you will see that this argument against free will will surface.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Teflon93]

I asked before, where in the Hebrew passages does it say anything about Abraham being justified; where does James say Abraham was justified BY offering up Isaac? In fact James must quote Gen. 15:6 because there is no other mention of God justifying Abraham, certainly not in Gen. 22. So, again, we’re down to only one place where it is recorded that God justified Abraham: Gen. 15:6. And Paul builds his doctrine on justification by faith, apart from works, on this same passage in Genesis.Rom 4:3-5 “For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it (singular) was credited to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor (get that Tef.?), but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,”

Your Bible is curiously truncated, Moondweller.

I posted earlier Matthew 5, which you ignore, and continue to ignore, even taking the time to provide you the Greek for “reward” lest you strain etymological gnats again.

Matthew 5:

43: Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45: That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46: For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47: And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48:** Be ye therefore perfect**, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

We as Christians ought to obey Christ.

I do not know why love is such a stumbling block for you, Moondweller, but I will continue to pray that it be removed. We cannot fully know Christian joy until we obey this command. We certainly cannot be saved until we do, as St Paul noted in the passage you continue to ignore.

Ephesians 5:

“1”: Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;

“2”: And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour.

Romans 13:

8": Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

“9”: For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

“10”: Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

1 Thessalonians 3:

“11”: Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you.

“12”:** And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men**, even as we do toward you:

“13”: To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.

Galatians 5:

“13”: For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

“14”: For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; **Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. **

“15”: But if ye bite and devour one another, **take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. **

“16”: This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.

“17”: For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

“18”: But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

“19”: Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

“20”: Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

“21”: Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

“22”: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

“23”: Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

“24”: And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

“25”: If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

“26”: Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

Hebrews 10:

23": Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised; )

“24”: And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

“25”: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

“26”: For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

“27”:** But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries**.

Philippians 1:

“9”: And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment;

“10”: That ye may approve things that are excellent;** that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ**;

“11”: Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God.

The Apostle spoke constantly of love, exhorting us to grow in love toward each other; indeed, toward all men.

The Catholic Church loves St Paul; this is the Pauline year.

And I love you, Moondweller my brother, for providing all of us in this thread with the opportunity to remind ourselves of just how important love was to St Paul, as it is to God.

 

[ellammcg]

I strongly disagree with this statement. That was the purpose of my post. I was disagreeing with what those who are OSAS believe.

I know that. My point was that if OSAS applies, then their death was a waste. I am still working on consolidating my belief in that regard. After 20 years of being a Baptist, I have had a problem with OSAS for the last several months and now I am trying to figure out what exactly I do believe.

 

[ellammcg]

In your easy, yoke-bearing community, which of the aforementioned rules are NOT in place:

1. Prohibition against drinking
2. Prohibition against dancing
3. Mandatory service on Sunday
4. Mandatory service on Saturday
5. Mandatory service on Wednesday
6. Mandatory tithing

By “mandatory”, I mean “will be remarked upon negatively and taken as a sign one may not REALLY be saved”.

#1 and #2 are biggies. I have heard it said that if you do either, “you just might want to check and see if you are really saved”.
We don’t have #4 but on Sunday we do have 10:00 am Sunday School, 11:00 am church and 6:00 pm church all of which we are to attend or be labeled “unfatihful” (equated to adulterous).

#5 and #6. yup

 

[Teflon93]

#1 and #2 are biggies. I have heard it said that if you do either, “you just might want to check and see if you are really saved”.
We don’t have #4 but on Sunday we do have 10:00 am Sunday School, 11:00 am church and 6:00 pm church all of which we are to attend or be labeled “unfatihful” (equated to adulterous).

#5 and #6. yup

I should also note that the Catholic Mass attendance requirements amount to 56 services during the course of the year in the United States; 52 weekly Masses + 4 high holy days.

The mortal sin is from willingly (intentionally) missing Mass without good reason; illness being a common one. As with all mortal sins, Confession will be required before receiving Communion. This is not policed, of course—we each must look after our own salvation, which we work out with fear and trembling as Scripture advises.

I posted several pages back the Catechism passages on mortal sin—if anyone has any questions on those, or why intentionally missing Mass without good reason is one, they can simply use the search tool, the profile tool, or page back.

 

[guanophore]

It does not make sense in that the Fundamentalist communities are based on properly identifying who the saved are and are not.

What makes you say this? I thought they were based on the “fundamentals”?

Especially in the light of the gospel reading today, where the Lord of the Harvest instructs the servants NOT to tear up the weeds, but to let them grow with the wheat, and the angels will sort them out.

Indeed, Moondweller has implied they are only commanded to love their fellow Fundamentalists, the “true Christians” who are saved. We shall see whether his response to my question above is consistent with his earlier implication.

I must say, this surprised me too. Learn something new every day!

So if one cannot lose their salvation, and if one cannot sin post justification,

I thought they just believed that those sins won’t keep them from heaven?

and if we continue to see within Fundamentalist communities "Never Saved in the First Place" examples, then we must admit that the Fundamentalist has no idea who is saved and who is not.  They have too poor a track record of believing firmly someone to be saved only to have their post-justification sins exposed.

Maybe not exposed, but didn’t sandy just post that if one sins, they should confess? Not to a priest, or anyone else, but to
God.

 

[Teflon93]

What makes you say this? I thought they were based on the “fundamentals”?

On the surface, of course. But in reality, they ostracize members who do not demonstrate sufficient “fruit”. Ella may have more insight; JustAServant has mentioned this in the past. It was certainly the case in my wife’s community.

Especially in the light of the gospel reading today, where the Lord of the Harvest instructs the servants NOT to tear up the weeds, but to let them grow with the wheat, and the angels will sort them out.

Right on. Our bishop officiated today, and he noted that Christ was the first stalk of wheat harvested; we all hope to be added to the pile which does not get burned.

I thought they just believed that those sins won’t keep them from heaven?

Don’t know; Moondweller keeps dodging the question as to what Commandments we may break. Since these tend to define mortal sins, that answer is necessary to understand their soteriology. In addition, we’d need to know which sins they consider to prevent salvation. We know what St Paul said; I do not know what they say. “Never REALLY saved in the first place” implies that there are some sins incompatible with salvation, otherwise this category could not exist.

Maybe not exposed, but didn’t sandy just post that if one sins, they should confess? Not to a priest, or anyone else, but to
God.

Why bother? If the sin doesn’t jeopardize salvation, and if God knows all, and moreover, if we lack the free will to sin (as some Fundamentalists believe), then confessing our sins is completely unnecessary, isn’t it? Which makes the odd sessions Fundamentalists have where people publicly confess their sins even odder.

 

[moondweller]

In your easy, yoke-bearing community, which of the aforementioned rules are NOT in place:

1. Prohibition against drinking
2. Prohibition against dancing
3. Mandatory service on Sunday
4. Mandatory service on Saturday
5. Mandatory service on Wednesday
6. Mandatory tithing

By “mandatory”, I mean “will be remarked upon negatively and taken as a sign one may not REALLY be saved”.

Can you give me official teaching on these “mandatory” rules and where the threat of salvation loss is attached to them?

As for the Catholic teaching on the Mass, you ought to reference the Catechism, which is the authoritative teaching of the Church:

A lot of “you shall…” So Fr. Greg is wrong? Is he educating in error? You may miss Sunday Mass whenever you wish with impunity? It is not a “mortal sin?” Are you a Priest?