Commandments should not be followed ...

[Teflon93]

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

Where may I find “official” Fundamentalist teaching? Being separatist and schismatic to the core, please point to the one earthly authority representing official Fundamentalist soteriology and rule of faith.

And be specific.

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?

You ask a lot of questions given how many you ignore.

As always, I respond:

1. Father Greg may be wrong, or may not be wrong. It would depend on whether or not the person missing Mass does so with full knowledge and consent. When he says it is a serious sin, he means “grave matter”, which combined with “full knowledge and consent” equals “mortal sin”. I posted the Catechism on this; do you not bother to read the teaching of the Church before condemning it?
2. It is a mortal sin when done with full knowledge and consent. For what other reason would one willingly consent to missing Mass than loving something else over God, who is physically present in the Mass? Sin is a turning away from God toward the flesh; missing Mass “with impunity” certainly meets this definition.
3. I am not a priest. Becoming a Catholic priest requires extensive training and periods of discernment; one can not simply open a Bible in space they deem to be a church and become a Catholic priest. May God bless our priests, who walk in love and comfort the afflicted and daily hold Christ in their hands. And God bless you for associating me with these wonderful men!

 

[Teflon93]

Here again is one of several posts of mine that Moondweller has yet to favor with a response:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3949585&postcount=612

Love being patient and kind, I’ll post the link where he can easily find it.

 

[guanophore]

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.”

You think that Adam and Eve were not in right relationship with God in the beginning? Why do they call it the “fall”? What did the “fall” from, if not right relationship with their creator? I get it from Genesis, where it describes the fellowship they had, then lost.

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.

One of the reasons Catholics believe that the moral precepts of God predated the Mosaic Law…

How can you say then, that law and grace did not co-exist? Do you think that God’s grace rests on the existence of man’s sin, and not before?

But “grace” as a rule of life, did not come about until AFTER the death, burial and bodily resurrection of Christ.

Maybe this is what Teflon was talking about. Do you believe that there should be no law? If you believe that grace and law cannot co-exist (which they clearly do in the person of Jesus), then maybe you don’t believe that Adam and Eve were in right relationship with God, even though there was Law. Living under the rule of grace does not mean there are 'no laws". Just because the principle of law is not the governing force, that does not extinguish laws. Or, maybe that is exactly what you are saying. Antinomian?

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.

They are not confounded. They do co-exist. we uphold the Law because Christ upholds the law, and taught His apostles to do so. the principles of right conduct reflected in it are given for the benefit of man. The fact that we are under grace, and not law, does not nullify the Truth that is in them.

 

[Teflon93]

For a very interesting view of Adam, 2 Esdras 3:

“1”: In the thirtieth year after the ruin of the city I was in Babylon, and lay troubled upon my bed, and my thoughts came up over my heart:

“2”: For I saw the desolation of Sion, and the wealth of them that dwelt at Babylon.

“3”: And my spirit was sore moved, so that I began to speak words full of fear to the most High, and said,

“4”: O Lord, who bearest rule, thou spakest at the beginning, when thou didst plant the earth, and that thyself alone, and commandedst the people,

“5”: And gavest a body unto Adam without soul, which was the workmanship of thine hands, and didst breathe into him the breath of life, and he was made living before thee.

“6”: And thou leadest him into paradise, which thy right hand had planted, before ever the earth came forward.

“7”:** And unto him thou gavest commandment to love thy way: which he transgressed, and immediately thou appointedst death in him and in his generations, of whom came nations, tribes, people, and kindreds, out of number. **

“8”: And every people walked after their own will, and did wonderful things before thee, and despised thy commandments.

“9”: And again in process of time thou broughtest the flood upon those that dwelt in the world, and destroyedst them.

“10”: And it came to pass in every of them, that as death was to Adam, so was the flood to these.

“11”: Nevertheless one of them thou leftest, namely, Noah with his household, of whom came all righteous men.

“12”: And it happened, that when they that dwelt upon the earth began to multiply, and had gotten them many children, and were a great people, they began again to be more ungodly than the first.

“13”: Now when they lived so wickedly before thee, thou didst choose thee a man from among them, whose name was Abraham.

“14”: Him thou lovedst, and unto him only thou shewedst thy will:

“15”: And madest an everlasting covenant with him, promising him that thou wouldest never forsake his seed.

“16”: And unto him thou gavest Isaac, and unto Isaac also thou gavest Jacob and Esau. As for Jacob, thou didst choose him to thee, and put by Esau: and so Jacob became a great multitude.

“17”: And it came to pass, that when thou leadest his seed out of Egypt, thou broughtest them up to the mount Sinai.

“18”: And bowing the heavens, thou didst set fast the earth, movedst the whole world, and madest the depths to tremble, and troubledst the men of that age.

“19”: And thy glory went through four gates, of fire, and of earthquake, and of wind, and of cold; that thou mightest give the law unto the seed of Jacob, and diligence unto the generation of Israel.

“20”: And yet tookest thou not away from them a wicked heart, that thy law might bring forth fruit in them.

“21”: **For the first Adam bearing a wicked heart transgressed, and was overcome; and so be all they that are born of him. **

“22”: Thus infirmity was made permanent; and the law (also) in the heart of the people with the malignity of the root; so that the good departed away, and the evil abode still.

“23”: So the times passed away, and the years were brought to an end: then didst thou raise thee up a servant, called David:

“24”: Whom thou commandedst to build a city unto thy name, and to offer incense and oblations unto thee therein.

“25”: When this was done many years, then they that inhabited the city forsook thee,

“26”: And in all things did even as Adam and all his generations had done: for they also had a wicked heart:

“27”: And so thou gavest thy city over into the hands of thine enemies.

“28”: Are their deeds then any better that inhabit Babylon, that they should therefore have the dominion over Sion?

“29”: For when I came thither, and had seen impieties without number, then my soul saw many evildoers in this thirtieth year, so that my heart failed me.

“30”: For I have seen how thou sufferest them sinning, and hast spared wicked doers: and hast destroyed thy people, and hast preserved thine enemies, and hast not signified it.

“31”: I do not remember how this way may be left: Are they then of Babylon better than they of Sion?

“32”: Or is there any other people that knoweth thee beside Israel? or what generation hath so believed thy covenants as Jacob?

“33”: And yet their reward appeareth not, and their labour hath no fruit: for I have gone here and there through the heathen, and I see that they flow in wealth, and think not upon thy commandments.

“34”: Weigh thou therefore our wickedness now in the balance, and their’s also that dwell the world; and so shall thy name no where be found but in Israel.

“35”: Or when was it that they which dwell upon the earth have not sinned in thy sight? or what people have so kept thy commandments?

“36”: Thou shalt find that Israel by name hath kept thy precepts; but not the heathen.

A useful insight as to the Ten Commandments’ utility and human concupiscence which has prevented us from attaining the righteousness that Christ called the rich man to attain if he were to enter into eternal life.

 

[Pax]

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,”

All of this is carefully answered in my posts:

#'s

356
358
360
453
548

Since all of this has been addressed and answered, it is now time for you to either address what I said or concede the point. If you are unable to refute it, then simply say so. I’m more than willing to move on if you simply admit that you don’t have a rebuttal to what I did say.

 

[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?

Now that I have a little time, I thought I would analyze this post.

First of all you made an immediate blunder in speaking about believing Abraham was justified 3 times if Jesus said so, but you reject it when I say it because I am not Jesus.

Please be advised that there is no place in scripture where Jesus says anything about Abraham being justified. Should we, therefore, claim that unless Jesus said that Abraham was justified, at least once, that we shouldn’t believe that Abraham was ever justified? You see the problem here…you simply don’t think about what scripture says, what it doesn’t say, or what anyone else tells you. You simply cling to your doctrine and then speak illogically.

Jesus doesn’t tell us if Abraham was justified. We learn about the three times he was justified by way of the testimonies of Moses, Paul, and James. It is their testimonies that must be examined. I have done that for you and made a careful set of presentations concerning their testimonies. Unless you can refute that then you should accept what they have said. I am merely pointing out their testimonies. It is not my personal testimony.

Since you agree with the concept of agreeing with scripture, it now behooves you to do so.

I do not understand why it is necessary for me to prove that Abraham was “unjustified” and considered “ungodly” by Yahweh in order for the scripture to be true when it indicates that Abraham was justified on three separate occassions. Scripture simply indicates that he was justified on three occassions, and that is the position that I am presenting.

I doubt strenuously that you would even accept it if Abraham was shown to have acted in an “ungodly way.” Well, Would you accept it? If not, then you shouldn’t even bring that up…Right?

 

[Odell]

I already answered you? GRACE does not exclude love. But salvation itself is not gifted based on my love, either for God or my neighbor, but His love toward me through the sacrificial work of the incarnate Son.

Would Christ have given a “new” commandment to the redeemed to love one another if love was excluded?

No you have not answered me.

i did not ask if salvation was based on love. I asked if your rule of life excluded love how are you any different than the demons

its not that hard of a question really

I think I can expand on that quesiton as well why does God love you more than the demons or the damned?

of course grace does not exclude love but we have to respond to that grace vea faith and love

now answer my question

.

I wouldn’t say different definitions. Our difference is that you’re trying to fulfilled something Christ already has. In fact the only Man who ever could or ever would.We “uphold” the Law “by this faith,” Odell, 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. You who want to be justified by Law, however, do not uphold it.

oh how did I miss that:doh2:

Moondwellers bible/gospel

“Owe no one anything, except** faith for the one who has faith **has fulfilled the law”

Paul in Romans
“Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law” (Romans 13:8),

i dont know but im faced with a delima here should I go with Moondweller or Paul?

its time to come back to earth Moon read the verse again and again and again love fulfills the law not faith

help me out moon are you really telling me not to listen to Paul?

 

[Odell]

Hey moon

for someone to say if Jesus said Abraham was justified 3 time you would believe it.

How could we be so certain?

You dont even believe Paul when he says LOVE fulfills the Law

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

If one is walking in the Spirit, they will manifest the fruit of spirit, against such there is no law. Gal 5

 

[moondweller]

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?

The operative phrase being, “believed in the Lord.”

Can you cite another passage in Scripture in which faith does not mean believing in the Lord?

Can you show me any Scripture before Gen. 15:6 which states that Abraham believed “in the Lord?”

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?

Which saints? Those before the Mosaic Law weren’t under it as a rule of life. National Israel, however, was. They were obligated to abide in all that the covenant demanded. In fact, they were exiled from the land for a duration of 70 years for not obeying the law of sabbath rest for the land (Lev. 26).

Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. The sins of O.T. saints (men of faith) were forever forgiven based on that future, once for all," blood sacrifice: “…because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed” (i.e., prior to the cross). God dealt, once for all, with all the world’s sin through one final sacrifice. At the cross all sins (prior to it and after it) were imputed to Christ. The difference is we, this side of the cross, live in the bright reality of that redemptive work, while they lived in the shadow of it.

It’s recorded in Gen. 15:6 that Abraham believed in the Lord and He reckoned it to him as righteousness. But there’s no indication that Abraham lived with that divine reality, though he lived out the rest of his life in faith. Nor was this grace realized by any other O.T. saint, though they lived by faith.

But with the coming of Messiah and His substitutionary death and bodily resurrection, “grace and truth” were now realized (Jn. 1:17); and it is stated of those who believe: “for of His fulness we have all received, and grace upon grace” (Jn. 1:16).

It’s in unbelief that men today reject the testimony of God concerning His Son and the full reality of His GRACE, insisting rather to be under law. John writes:1 John 5:9-12 "If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son. The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, THAT GOD HAS GIVEN US (who have believed) ETERNAL LIFE, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life."No O.T. saint lived with this divine testimony, nor was was it ever given prior to the cross. But John writes:1 John 5:13 "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."There is a true faith by which God testifies to the one who believes that He HAS eternal life. If that testimony is not in him, well…

But no O.T. saint was ever given such a divine testimony. No O.T. saint ever knew the reality of this “grace upon grace,” nor could it have been understood prior to the cross.

If the Law made sin “utterly sinful,” then rejection of God’s pure grace through the crucified Christ (whom He displayed publicly), makes unbelief utterly shameful.

 

[moondweller]

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

MOST of my closest friends in Christ are Calvinists. I’ve studied the issues and we’ve discussed them many times over without animosity. We have a very strong bond between us in the Lord upon the agreement that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone…this is what Paul meant when he said, “…but the greatest of these is love.” He wasn’t talking in respect to salvation, but community amongst the saints.

 

[sandusky]

Teflon93:

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?

No it does not follow. Paul never says that about love.

1 Cor 13 is being cited, but one must back up to chapter 12 for the context. In chapter 12, Paul speaks of the different gifts, and that it is the Spirit who distributes them. His language implies that many were discontent with not having the “showier” gifts; thereby questioning the Spirit’s wisdom, in addition to acting selfishly and contentiously toward one another—without love.

In chapter 13, what Paul says is not that love saves, or that the one without love experiences a loss of salvation, but that one can have all knowledge, and know all mysteries, and have all faith such as to remove mountains, and give all that he has to care for the poor, and offer his body to be burned, but if that one doesn’t have love, all of that profits him nothing.

Therefore we see that the believer neither gains salvation, nor loses it without love, but that the works are not profitable (cf 1 Cor 3:12-15).

That’s what’s going on with the Rich young ruler.

The rich young ruler contends that he met the requirements of eternal life because he had kept all of the commandments (sure he did :nope; therefore, since [he thought] he had eternal life, the Lord told him that the only thing he lacked was treasure in heaven, and he could get that treasure by selling his possessions and giving them to the poor.

The follow-up question by Peter at the end of the chapter bears that out—Peter knew that he and the boys had eternal life, but because of what the Lord had said to the young ruler, he was now wondering what he and the rest of the boys were going to get as a reward in heaven (not the reward of heaven), because they had left everything.

The Lord told them that in heaven they would rule on thrones.

(In anticipation of your objection, I would, of course, except Judas from that, as Judas betrayed the Lord because he never believed in Him but was, by Christ’s own statements, “a devil,” and “the [definite article] Son of Perdition" (a Hebrew idiom meaning “one destined to perish” according to the NASB), and not, as the other apostles were, ”Sons by adoption.” IOW, Judas was not given by the Father to the Son in order to be raised up on the last day (Jn 6:39); rather, he never embraced the Son, but stumbled from the beginning as he was appointed by the Father as the Son’s betrayer (cf Lk 22:22; 1 Pet 2:8).

Back to Paul, what he’s saying about love is that one can have eternal life and can know everything and can do everything, but without love none of his doing is treasure (again, cf 1 Cor 3:12-15).

In this context, ”love” is exclusively love of believers for one another.

Teflon93:

You are called to love your brother…Christ said that whomever confess that he is the Son of God is.

ISTM that you’re forgetting about ”discernment.” Perhaps no one has ever told you about that, I don’t know. Nevertheless, scripture is rife with warnings against false prophets, and professors.

So go back and read the first 6 verses of 1 Jn 4.

John opens that chapter with these words:**1 John 4:1, 6

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God…he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.**So, taking what John says personally, I am to test the Spirits, and the one who already knows God, will listen to me, and he is the one who has the truth; (from “listening,” I also understand “agreement” as well.)

And, all of that listening and agreeing is with respect to the testimony of God in His Scriptures (both OT, and NT), as Isaiah says (and you can post the whole book of Isaiah if you’d like, however, I believe the verse stands and speaks on its own in its overall implication/application): ”To the Law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light in them.” (Is 8:20).

That’s my loving answer as to whether or not I think you are my brother.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

If one is walking in the Spirit, they will manifest the fruit of spirit, against such there is no law. Gal 5

Seems to me that we should pay attention very well to that verse. I have thought it myself. If one is walking in the Spirit, they are walking in a way that is against sin…it is in the Light. They are following Christ so closely that they are disgusted with the mere thought of committing a sin…not that they think themselves above sin. Quite the opposite…they are totally aware of how easily they could slip up. But they hate sin…as their love for Christ is the Life for them. They hate anything that would separate them from Him…such as sin. So, no, there is no condemnation so to speak with them, for they are walking in grace through faith. Hence, there is no “law” as Md is speaking of. BUT should this same person falter, as sometimes happens, they are bound by the Faith to seek forgiveness and absolution from a priest ASAP. We all fall short…as did the apostles. It is easier to fall less short when we are walking with the Holy Spirit.

Okay, let’s hear it. I know I don’t speak well. Guonophore, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. Thanks.

 

[sandusky]

Teflon93:

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.

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.

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.

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?)

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.

Then those are the people to discuss this with, because I’m not under any of those “mandatory obligations,” nor would I ever put myself in bondage to them.

 

[Teflon93]

Then those are the people to discuss this with, because I’m not under any of those “mandatory obligations,” nor would I ever put myself in bondage to them.

And you thought a reply to Guanophore was directed toward you because…?

As noted, different communities have different de fides within the Fundamentalist umbrella. Could it be otherwise, given the separatist nature Fundamentalism adopted after failing to purge mainline Protestantism of liberals in 1925?

Thus every argument against Fundamentalism is battling the same hydra that is Protestantism. Were it not for the Creed the Catholic Church provided you, there would be hardly any true agreement at all.

And Moondweller has yet to confirm whether he holds to a key de fide within that Creed—the unity of God, reflected in the Holy Trinity.

If he does not, then what is Fundamentalism but mere style at this point in its history?

 

[Philthy]

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

A tree is KNOWN BY its fruit. Apart from producing apples, even an apple tree can’t know that it is an apple tree apart from producing apples. Apart from meeting God’s grace with a faith working in love we cannot judge our faith as “salvific”.
And dont misunderstand me - perhaps God makes such distinctions, but we cant - and IMHO the concept of “faith alone” which needs to be confirmed by the works of love it produces becomes a basically useless distinction.

 

[mikeledes]

The operative phrase being, "believed in the Lord."Can you show me any Scripture before Gen. 15:6 which states that Abraham believed “in the Lord?”

What does “believed in the Lord” mean?

"Which saints? Those before the Mosaic Law weren’t under it as a rule of life. National Israel, however, was. They were obligated to abide in all that the covenant demanded. In fact, they were exiled from the land for a duration of 70 years for not obeying the law of sabbath rest for the land (Lev. 26).

So the Old Testaments saints living under the Mosaic Law had the Law as their rule of life before God?

It’s recorded in Gen. 15:6 that Abraham believed in the Lord and He reckoned it to him as righteousness. But there’s no indication that Abraham lived with that divine reality, though he lived out the rest of his life in faith. Nor was this grace realized by any other O.T. saint, though they lived by faith.

How did the Old Testament saints come to faith? Did they have an understanding of what faith was?

God bless,
Michael

 

[moondweller]

Where may I find “official” Fundamentalist teaching? Being separatist and schismatic to the core, please point to the one earthly authority representing official Fundamentalist soteriology and rule of faith.

I have no idea, I’m not a “Fundamentalist” as you define it on this thread. Maybe you could ask one in your neighborhood. Or ask your wife, wasn’t she involved in one of those churches you describe?

Personally, I have the Scriptures, they’re sufficient.

You ask a lot of questions given how many you ignore.

If you examine my posts I’ve answered them all. But you’re like the Pharisees who kept asking the blind man, in unbelief, exactly how he received his sight.

1. Father Greg may be wrong, or may not be wrong. It would depend on whether or not the person missing Mass does so with full knowledge and consent. When he says it is a serious sin, he means “grave matter”, which combined with “full knowledge and consent” equals “mortal sin”. I posted the Catechism on this; do you not bother to read the teaching of the Church before condemning it?

Condemning it? I merely asked the question about being a mortal sin. Why always so defensive? You seem extraordinarily bitter.

If one goes fishing rather than Sunday mass, wouldn’t that be in the eyes of your church a “mortal sin?” If he decides to sleep in because he stayed out late drinking (I grew up in a Catholic neighborhood) then I would say that’s full knowledge and consent. Wouldn’t you?

You’ve got millions upon millions of professing Catholics out there dead in mortal sin, based on its own law(s), plus the Mosaic law it imposes upon its devotees.

It’s all very legalistic (by nature), but what amazes me is that based on your many tirades that make up your posts, you seem to despise and mock any kind of disciplined lifestyle. Is this the fuel behind your extreme bitterness?

It is true that legalism creates a world of contradictions. It puts itself under many laws, rules and regulations, but then creates all sorts of loopholes to live around them. Very fascinating to examine. This was the very thing Jesus confronted the Pharisees about regarding their traditions (one of the favorite words of Catholicism).

Tef., in the end I will stand before the judgment seat of Christ on my own. The value of my works will be revealed as through fire, and those of value will receive reward. But I myself have been saved by grace alone, through faith alone, through the One who took my judgment in my stead. All in accordance with a substitutionary Sacrifice. Oh, but you don’t believe in that concept.

And in the end, Tef., you too will be standing alone. You’ll have no priest, Pope or prelate at your side. Divine grace, or the rejection of it, determines which judgment one will stand, Christ’s for works examined for reward, or the White Throne where one’s eternal estate has already been determned.

 

[sandusky]

Teflon93:

And you thought a reply to Guanophore was directed toward you because…?

I didn’t think it was directed at me, but as everyone else, I sometimes answers those posts not directed at me.

Teflon93:

As noted, different communities have different de fides within the Fundamentalist umbrella. Could it be otherwise, given the separatist nature Fundamentalism adopted after failing to purge mainline Protestantism of liberals in 1925?

You’re a new convert, don’t be fooled by the claims of Catholic unity.

Teflon93:

Thus every argument against Fundamentalism is battling the same hydra that is Protestantism. Were it not for the Creed the Catholic Church provided you, there would be hardly any true agreement at all.

Don’t be fooled by the claims of Catholic unity.

Teflon93:

And Moondweller has yet to confirm whether he holds to a key de fide within that Creed—the unity of God, reflected in the Holy Trinity.

I’ve read that exchange; I would suggest that you consider that what you said, and the conclusion you’ve reached is of such absurdity that moondweller doesn’t deem it worthy of a response, and has chosen instead to leave you caressing your illusion, all the while chuckling to himself everytime you reintroduce it—I know I do.

Teflon93:

If he does not, then what is Fundamentalism but mere style at this point in its history?

What I know is that I have all of the truth God wants His people, and thus His Church to have recorded in His scripture, that I am saved, and that I cannot lose that salvation—according to the testimony, all of those things are true.

 

[Pax]

Now that I have a little time, I thought I would analyze this post.

First of all you made an immediate blunder in speaking about believing Abraham was justified 3 times if Jesus said so, but you reject it when I say it because I am not Jesus.

Please be advised that there is no place in scripture where Jesus says anything about Abraham being justified. Should we, therefore, claim that unless Jesus said that Abraham was justified, at least once, that we shouldn’t believe that Abraham was ever justified? You see the problem here…you simply don’t think about what scripture says, what it doesn’t say, or what anyone else tells you. You simply cling to your doctrine and then speak illogically.

Jesus doesn’t tell us if Abraham was justified. We learn about the three times he was justified by way of the testimonies of Moses, Paul, and James. It is their testimonies that must be examined. I have done that for you and made a careful set of presentations concerning their testimonies. Unless you can refute that then you should accept what they have said. I am merely pointing out their testimonies. It is not my personal testimony.

Since you agree with the concept of agreeing with scripture, it now behooves you to do so.

I do not understand why it is necessary for me to prove that Abraham was “unjustified” and considered “ungodly” by Yahweh in order for the scripture to be true when it indicates that Abraham was justified on three separate occassions. Scripture simply indicates that he was justified on three occassions, and that is the position that I am presenting.

I doubt strenuously that you would even accept it if Abraham was shown to have acted in an “ungodly way.” Well, Would you accept it? If not, then you shouldn’t even bring that up…Right?

moondweller,

Subsequent to making this post you have once again claimed that Abraham was justified on only one occassion even though I proved otherwise. I even gave you posts 356, 358, 360, 453, and 548 for your review. Instead of answering the scriptural content of those posts and taking the challenge above, you simply march on and repeat that which has been scripturally refuted.

Please make your case by attempting to refute what has been presented. Thus far on this point about Abraham you have no case and you have no credibility. Moreover, there is no place in scripture that says a person shall be justified only once. Yet, scripture clearly shows that Abraham was justified 3 times. I proved it so I can continue to say it. You need to refute my arguments or you are simply making noise and that to no avail.