Commandments should not be followed ...

[Teflon93]

Christ commands repentance.

Election doesn’t mean that one is born saved.

No, it doesn’t. There is another thread going on around Romans 8:30 where the ECFs clearly make this point.

Paul lists this sequence: Those He foreknew, He predestined; these He also called; these He also justified; these He also glorified.

That is from Romans 8:30.

The trouble for some Protestants is that the glorification and justification occur at baptism, as we see in that other thread.

For your question, the key point in time is, ”these He also called.” Called by what and to what? By the gospel to Christ and to repentance—the change of mind and attitude toward God and the things of which the Gospel speaks (cf Mt 21:29).

God’s design is for the elect to appropriate the work of Christ though faith, and that requires God’s doing as well.

Well, you get fuzzy here. We’re here to do God’s works, which require faith and grace.

It is not irresistable if many are called but few chosen, is it?

Yes; why do you think it wouldn’t be possible?

Because of the lack of a sacrament of penance in Protestant communities, and also within Fundamentalist and evangelical communities wherein post-baptismal sin is viewed as evidence of “never really saved in the first place.” Mileage varies with soteriology and discipline.

Repentance is ongoing; why do you think it stops being possible and relevant upon being born again?

I do not think that it does. The Church clearly teaches that sanctification is an ongoing process. We have the sacrament of penance and reconciliation for this purpose.

I take it from the above and some prior posts that your community does not hew to the notion that one is sinless post-baptism and that any subsequent sin is a sign of “never really saved in the first place”. To that extent, your community would be in agreement with the Church.

 

[Teflon93]

That’s why Paul considered it so offensive.

Except he didn’t. He circumcised Timothy, for example.

Moreover, as has been posted many times, St Paul indicates time and again that the Ten Commandments are to be kept right along with Christ’s summation of them and call to love.

I’ll give a hint so you can find it above—"…will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven."

It’s in bold, too.

 

[guanophore]

Repentance is ongoing; why do you think it stops being possible and relevant upon being born again?

Well, personally I don’t think that, but what I don’t understand is, why would this be necessary? If a person is OSAS, then it doesn’t really matter if they repent or not. IF they pray the prayer of faith, then no one can snatch them out of God’s hands. Is that not right?

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

You mean we’re not going to get into another long and drawn out discussion on this issue. Darn, just when I stocked up on Gatorade.

Honestly, I’m going into debt regarding school time while I’m here; not complaining, just looking at the bill, and realizing I need to pay the time.

mikeledes:

I understand your point. However, what I post is not only for you, but for all those who are interested in this topic (Catholic and Protestant) and want to understand the opposing points of view. Believe me, I sometimes get tired arguing the same thing over and over again. But in the end, it’s not about me. What I do is for the greater glory of God and if that means being repetative and burning myself out, then so be it. I’m not suggesting that you don’t feel the same way.

I feel the same way, however, there’s a time to speak, and a time to be silent; we’ve covered that ground enough for me to understand that as far as I can see, we’re not going agree; it’s better for me to be silent with you now, as the Lord instructs.

(P.S. that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t let you buy me lunch; we’d just have to stay away from
that topic. )

mikeledes:

BTW, I thought that last discussion we had was going well, that is, until the moderator had to intervene.

And he was right in doing so.

 

[mikeledes]

Your spin gospel claims that God still demands that the Law be fulfilled by all men in some way, and so He sent the Holy Spirit to empower men for that very purpose. But as I said, that’s just another form of Galatianism. The Spirit has nothing to do with the Law and was sent only AFTER Christ inaugurated the NEW in His blood. The Spirit’s ministry is according to the new, not the old, faith not works, grace not law.

God requires us to fulfill his moral law, moondweller, as expressed in the commandment of Christ to love, which Romans 13:9 explicitly states is a summary of the Decalogue:

**For this, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” **

And by this law we shall be judged:

James 2:12-13

**12So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.
13For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. **

And we are empowered by the Holy Spirit to fulfill this law:

Ezekiel 36:27

27"I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

Romans 8:12-13

**12So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh–
13for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. **

It says obligation - as in required - not optional.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[moondweller]

Except he didn’t. He circumcised Timothy, for example.

Again you fail to comprehend that which is written. I was not referring directly to the act of circumcising (nor was Paul). That’s why you stumble over his teachings on grace.

 

[BRB]

BRB;3962656:

Your inability to express yourself clearly belies your inability to read Scripture and decipher it clearly. Perhaps you are being a little lax? What is the point you are trying to make?

This is not a complete sentence and we cannot understand what you mean to say by composing it. If you meant to say that her faith was separate from her works you failed to do so.

I agree 100%. The problem is that this directly contradicts the notion of having a faith which does not work through love, which was apparently your point above. And just for the record, nowhere in any of these verses is the notion that we should no longer obey the commandments once we are saved. .

Come now … be reasonable and use your noggin. Perhaps I was a little lax, but do I have to spoonfeed you?

You clearly should of seen I was using statement of Paul to support the teaching of Christ regarding : [faith that is evidenced by fruitful, loving deeds].

Finally, I have consistently said that we need to follow the law, but to do so with attention towards the higher law of Christ … the Beatitudes.

How can we be a true disciple of Christ’s and not follow all of his teachings ? Faith trumps legalism, but it doesn’t negate our need to follow laws … so as not to cause a stumbling block for those legalist who don’t appreciate that Love in Christ always leads to obedience of rules, etc.

Many Catholics falsely believe Protestants are unlawful, uneducated hedonists. In truth, Protestants are probably better law keepers than Catholics. Not that I wish to pursue this as an issue … just an observation.

 

[Teflon93]

Again you fail to comprehend that which is written. I was not referring directly to the act of circumcising (nor was Paul). That’s why you stumble over his teachings on grace.

You weren’t referring to it because it doesn’t fit your dogmatic statements.

If St Paul were “so offended” by the Old Law, he wouldn’t have done what he did.

Nor would he have described it as “glorious.”

Nor would he have continued to use the Ten Commandments as a guide to conduct necessary to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Your stumbling block is that you start with your false, manmade tradition and then look for distinct passages which support it. Invariably, you are confronted with passages which contradict it, and invariably you ignore them or ladle on unsupportable interpretations over them.

Unfortunately for you, the Church was around for over 1,500 years before such heresies as comprise your manmade tradition emerged. We see time and again the ECFs had no such interpretation as you claim.

Since many of these are saints and you are not, and all of these devoted their lives to the Church and the study of such things, I’m afraid wherever you contradict them, they win.

 

[BRB]

Well, “remember the Sabbath to keep it holy,” is not exactly a “moral” reflection. It is true that the “thou shall nots…” reflect the moral purity of God (as does the whole Mosaic covenant, especially its sacrificial system), but its stated purpose, according to the N.T. was not to “reflect” but to “expose” sin (which ALL men, Jew and Gentile are under (Rom. 3:9; Gal. 3:22) to be utterly sinful (Rom. 7:13). Through the Law those who were under it (Jews) were not only sinners by nature and practice, but they also became transgressors of the Law and under a “curse” (Gal. 3:10). It’s called a double whammy.

What you’re presenting in your hypothesis, is just another form of Galatianism. Not specifically the desire to be circumcised, but in the same spirit, wanting to be justified by the Law. Completely ignoring the fact that its purpose (which includes the big 10) was never to justify anyone (it had no power to do so), but to lead those under it to Christ that they would be justified BY FAITH (in Christ), and through faith in Him receive the adoption as sons of God (Gal. 3:25-26).

Your spin gospel claims that God still demands that the Law be fulfilled by all men in some way, and so He sent the Holy Spirit to empower men for that very purpose. But as I said, that’s just another form of Galatianism. The Spirit has nothing to do with the Law and was sent only AFTER Christ inaugurated the NEW in His blood. The Spirit’s ministry is according to the new, not the old, faith not works, grace not law.

Yes, in every case, you impose the Law over you, which Paul calls “a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6). Not as the originators of this “gospel” did, demanding circumcision, but your spin, seemingly more palatable to N.T. teachings, asserts that one must fulfill the Law by the Spirit (erroneously declaring that to be His ministry), yet simultaneously retaining the “death and condemnation” factor of the Law through your doctrine of “mortal sins” (any transgression of the 10, and all others according to your tradition).

Your claim is that the divine moral requirements of the Law are never set aside. Oh, but they are, guanophore. According to Paul’s teaching (to the Galatians, btw) the covenant of Law (which included the Decalogue) was temporarily added alongside the Abrahamic covenant of promise only UNTIL the seed should come to whom the promise had been made (Gal. 3:19).

That “seed” is Christ (Gal. 3:16). Christ, the perfect Man, born a Jew, born under the Law, Himself fulfilled the Law. But through His substitutionary, sacrificial death, burial and bodily resurrection He became a Mediator of a NEW covenant by which the old became obsolete (Heb. 8:13). And through that propitiatory sacrifice God’s offended holiness, because of sin, was completely satisfied. And men now, both Jew and Gentile, through faith in Christ alone, are redeemed from the penalty of sin, having been forgiven of ALL sins (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14), justified (Rom. 3:24; 5:1), reconciled to God ((Rom. 5:11; 2 Cor. 5:18-19) and sanctified, being now “in Christ,” and therefore “under grace” and not “under law” (Rom. 6:14-15).

In great frustration Paul said to the Galatians:Gal 4:16-19 “So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth? They eagerly seek you, not commendably, but they wish to shut you out so that you will seek them (as they still do today through the Law). But it is good always to be eagerly sought in a commendable manner, and not only when I am present with you. My children, with whom I am again in labor **until Christ is formed in you”**The true believer has no relation to the Law, whatsoever, nor the Law to him - but Christ.

Teflon93 keeps asking me if I’m his brother. Well, do we have the same mother? Not according to the allegory Paul presents in Gal. 4:21-31. Being under Law he is a child of the bondwoman, I of the free. Allegorically, Law and promise have two different ancestors. It was determined by God that the bondwoman and her son be cast out, that the son of the bondwoman (law) will not be an heir with the son of the free (grace). It is not by my judgment whether or not we are “brothers,” it is God’s, based on who, allegorically, is our "mother.“By this spin you continue to keep yourself bound to the Law, Mt. Sinai, figuratively, a son of Hagar. You “love” as a requirement to fulfill the Law and condemn yourself and others by the Law through your doctrine of “mortal sin” (transgressing the 10)The wages of “sin” is death. And that happened to Adam and ALL his posterity in the garden. Which did not change until Christ, the “second Man,” the Last Adam. But finish the passage Mr. G.:”…BUT the FREE GIFT of God is ETERNAL LIFE in Christ Jesus our Lord."He doesn’t say that at all. Remember in the garden when Satan subtly changed the wording of God and asked Eve, “Indeed, has God said, you shall not eat from any tree of the garden” (Gen. 3:1)? We must be careful not to do the same. Paul did not say that those “who sin” will not inherit the kingdom. You changed his words. But that the “unrighteous” shall not inherit the kingdom. These he NAMES: fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals, thieves, covetous, drunkards, etc. These are NOUNS! He’s not listing “sins” by which one is excluded, but people identified by them, enslaved by them and in spiritual darkness. They’re unbelievers, the “unrighteous,” not numbered and named among the saints (see 1 Cor. 1:2); those of whom he goes on to say:1 Cor 6:11 "Such were some of you; but you were washed (i.e., by blood), but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God"Read in 1 Tim. 1:8-10 for whom law was made, guanophore. Are you saying you’re one of them? Paul gives this principle by which the washed, the sanctified and the justified in Christ (saints, by calling) are to live:1 Cor 6:12 “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything” (see 1 Cor. 10:23).Those who still seek the Law, in any way, to be justified actually snub their nose at the NEW covenant and its Mediator. That’s why Paul considered it so offensive.

Bravo !! A well constructed faith, not works salvation apology

 

[Teflon93]

Come now … be reasonable and use your noggin. Perhaps I was a little lax, but do I have to spoonfeed you?

You clearly should of seen I was using statement of Paul to support the teaching of Christ regarding : [faith that is evidenced by fruitful, loving deeds].

Finally, I have consistently said that we need to follow the law, but to do so with attention towards the higher law of Christ … the Beatitudes.

How can we be a true disciple of Christ’s and not follow all of his teachings ? Faith trumps legalism, but it doesn’t negate our need to follow laws … so as not to cause a stumbling block for those legalist

who don’t appreciate that Love in Christ always leads to obedience of rules, etc.

Many Catholics falsely believe Protestants are unlawful, uneducated hedonists. In truth, Protestants are probably better law keepers than Catholics. Not that I wish to pursue this as an issue … just an observation.

And now BRB introduces…The Self-Refuting Post!

Now please show me in the Catholic Catechism, BRB, where the Church teaches that legalism is to trump faith, and that love in Christ is not a requirement for salvation.

 

[mikeledes]

The next word in the second clause of verse 32 above is the Greek word ”hina,” translated sometimes as “in order that,” but most often, as in this case, SO THAT.

The clause subsequent to the word hina is referred to as a “hina clause,” in English, a purpose clause, in that it states the purpose of the antecedent clause(s).

In the case of verse 32, the reason for the discipline of the Lord for some who partake of the Supper unworthily; namely illness and death, is ”SO THAT we will not be condemned along with the world.”

Notice that Paul in using the plural pronoun humbly includes himself in that “hina clause”
as well.

Therefore, we see that God keeps His people from condemnation not only by decree, but by divine intervention as well. He chastens His to keep them from falling from salvation, even to the point of taking their life before that could happen.

That’s Pure Grace.

So God chastens us, to the point of taking away our lives, in order to keep his people from falling from salvation? I find this logic problematic when one considers what Calvinists and Free Will OSAS Protestants believe. First of all, doesn’t irresistible grace mean that it’s infallibly efficacious in accomplishing its purpose and once regeneration has taken place, the person’s spiritual journey is irrevocably set. In other words, there is an intrinsic change in the person that prevents that person from ever falling from salvation? So why must God chasten and even end a person’s life in order to prevent that person from committing an act that will cause loss of salvation, an act that grace and regeneration has made impossible? Your argument seems to say that regeneration is not instrinsicallysufficient and that God must also rely on extrinsic methods (i.e. sickness, death, etc.) to prevent a person from falling from salvation. Hebrews 12:10-11 is another passage that discusses the purpose of divine chastening:

10For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness.
11All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.

So through divine chastening, we learn to conform our wills to the will of God. Consequently, regeneration is not intrisically sufficient in accomplishing God’s purpose and that the human will must be kept in check by divine chastening - even prevented from acting in the case of death - in order to keep Christians on the right track and not face eternal damnation. This is a tacit acceptance that the regenerate can undo the work God has done within in them and that God must constantly “neutralize” the human will to prevent it.

Second of all, if at justification a person’s past, present, and future sins are forever forgiven, then that precludes any act that can cause loss of salvation, making divine chastening as a preventative measure absolutely unnecessary. In other words, condemnation is impossible solely based on God’s declaration of acquittal. To say otherwise would mean that the imputed righteousness of Christ is insufficient - thus undermining its perfection - and that God must reinforce it with preventative measures. If justification makes any act that causes loss of salvation absolutely impossible, then there is no condemnation to prevent, thus undermining the purpose of divine chastening as expressed by Paul. And if Paul is saying that the purpose of divine chastening is to prevent condemnation, then what is he saying about the sufficiency of the once in a lifetime act of justifcation?

BTW, regarding the word “hina,” you stated:

“The clause subsequent to the word hina is referred to as a “hina clause,” in English, a purpose clause, in that it states the purpose of the antecedent clause(s).”

So the “hina clause” states the purpose of the antecedent clauses. There is another verse in Scripture where we find the “hina clause:”

1 Timothy 6:18-19

18Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share,
19storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that (hina) they may take hold of that which is life indeed.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Bravo !! A well constructed faith, not works salvation apology

Paul constructed a wonderful apology himself:

Galatians 6:7-9

7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
9Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.

Romans 2:6-8

**6who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:
7to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. **

And so does Jesus:

Matthew 16:27 (Second Coming and Judgement)

27"For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.

John 5:28-29 (Second Coming and Judgement)

**28"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
29and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment. **

Revelation 2:26

**26’He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS; **

And also what He says about the unproductive Christian:

John 15:2, 6

**2"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. **

Compare that with:

Matthew 25:14-30

14"For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves and entrusted his possessions to them.
15"To one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey.
16"Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents.
17"In the same manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more.
18"But he who received the one talent went away, and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
19"Now after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them.
20"The one who had received the five talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, ‘Master, you entrusted five talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.’
21"His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’
22"Also the one who had received the two talents came up and said, ‘Master, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more talents.’
23"His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’
24"And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed.
25’And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’
26"But his master answered and said to him, ‘You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed.
27’Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest.
28’Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.’
29"For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.
30"Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

As I stated earlier, the master (Christ) entrusted His slaves (Christians) with His possessions (spiritual gifts) and after a long time comes back (Second Coming) and settles accounts with them (judgement). Those who used their talents (spiritual gifts) and produced a profit for their master (good deeds) entered their master’s joy (eternal life) and were rewarded. The servant that did not use his gift and was thus inactive (i.e. did not bear fruit) for the benefit (glory) of his master, was excluded, had his talent taken away, and was thrown into hell (i.e. cast into the fire). It is no coincidence that this parable appears immediately before the judgement passage in Matthew 25:31-46. James clearly states:

James 2:12-13

**12So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.
13For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. **

And 1 Peter 1:17

**17If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; **

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Teflon93]

Thanks to Mikeledes, the U.S. Olympic team is now far ahead in medal competition.

This is the trouble with the “faith, not works” formulation—too much of Scripture is inconsistent with it.

Let’s see how much of what Mikeledes just posted gets ignored, and how much gets a heaping helping of extra-Scriptural interpretation gravy ladled over it.

 

[guanophore]

Well, “remember the Sabbath to keep it holy,” is not exactly a “moral” reflection.

What makes you think not? If it is true that Love is the fulfillment of the Law, and that the whole of the Law and the Prophets rest on the first two, then it is likely that the rememberence of the Sabbath day is intracately tied to loving God, and loving ones neighbor. If God’s moral precept is that we should put him above all things, and that we need a day of rest in order to have our lives rightly ordered around Him, is this not a moral expectation? Is this not understanding the Spirit of the Law, rather than the letter.

It is true that the “thou shall nots…” reflect the moral purity of God (as does the whole Mosaic covenant, especially its sacrificial system), but its stated purpose, according to the N.T. was not to “reflect” but to “expose” sin (which ALL men, Jew and Gentile are under (Rom. 3:9; Gal. 3:22) to be utterly sinful (Rom. 7:13).

We are in agreement on this point. I am just thinking that the reflection of God’s purity, expressed through the law, is what illuminates sin to be “utterly sinful”.

What your’re presenting in your hypothesis, is just another form of Galatianism. Not specifically the desire to be circumcised, but in the same spirit, wanting to be justified by the Law.

No, moon, no one can be justified by the law. Even those who lived under that law who were justified - it was not by Law, but by grace, through faith.

Ps 119:92-94
92 If your law had not been my delight,
I would have perished in my misery.
93 I will never forget your precepts,
for by them you have given me life.
94 I am yours; save me,
for I have sought your precepts.

What is life giving is not the keeping of the Law, but the precepts upon which is it is based (love). All that law can do is point out the standard,and how we fall short of it. Only God’s love can save

Completely ignoring the fact that its purpose (which includes the big 10) was never to justify anyone (it had no power to do so), but to lead those under it to Christ that they would be justified BY FAITH (in Christ), and through faith in Him receive the adoption as sons of God (Gal. 3:25-26).

I agree with you. Our only disagreement may be that I believe some of God’s adoptive children still fail to live by faith, and fall into sin, and therefore, still require “tutoring” toward the end that they are able to fulfill the Law of Christ.

Your spin gospel claims that God still demands that the Law be fulfilled by all men in some way, and so He sent the Holy Spirit to empower men for that very purpose.

Yes. As Christ defined “Law”.:Matt 22:37-40
37 He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

God’s moral precepts for man have not changed. It does not seem like a “spin” to me. It does seem clear that we are to keep God’s commandments. “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” John 14:15-16

John 14:21
21 They who **have my commandments and keep them **are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them."

John 15:10-11
10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. 11 I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete.

2 Bear one another’s burdens, and in this way you will** fulfill the law of Christ. ** Gal 6:2-3

Rom 13:9-10
“Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, **love is the fulfilling of the law. **

It seems clear to me that

But as I said, that’s just another form of Galatianism./ quote]

I think it seems this way to you because your theology of man and of salvation has departed from the Teaching that was given to the Church when the above verses were written for our instruction. It does not seem to me that you believe it is possible for the power of God to overcome sin within the flesh of a person, and therefore, you do not believe it is possible for a person to avoid sin.
moondweller;3962985:

The Spirit has nothing to do with the Law

Really? Whose finger wrote it on the tablets?

and was sent only AFTER Christ inaugurated the NEW in His blood. The Spirit’s ministry is according to the new

, not the old, faith not works, grace not law.

The basis of salvation has always been by grace, through faith. The basis of salvation has not changed. The ministry of the Law, to make known to man what is sinful has not changed. For the Christian, who is under grace, there is at last the indwelling power of the HS, by whose ministry we are able to keep the commandments.

Yes, in every case, you impose the Law over you, which Paul calls "a different gospel

" (Gal. 1:6).

I am sorry, moon, neither you or Moses is able to “impose” that from which Christ has freed me by His blood on the cross. I am frankly mystified as to why you would want to do so. How does trying to force others under the law, and deny grace further your evangelistic efforts?

Not as the originators of this “gospel” did, demanding circumcision, but your spin, seemingly more palatable to N.T. teachings, asserts that one must fulfill

the Law by the Spirit (erroneously declaring that to be His ministry),

I think you are misunderstanding the scriptures here, moon. Let’s look at the passage again:

John 15:10-11
10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. 11 I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete.

Jesus is clear that abiding in His love is what makes our joy complete. When we live, move, and have our being in His love, our joy will be full. When one is perfected in love, one cannot help but fulfill the commandments, because His commandments are not burdensome. This is the Spirit at work within us to will and to do the Father’s good pleasure. The following of the Way of Love is the outcome of our salvation, the fruit of the saved soul. I find it hard to believe that you would disagree with me on this point.

…yet simultaneously retaining the "death and condemnation

" factor of the Law through your doctrine of “mortal sins” (any transgression of the 10, and all others according to your tradition).

Well, Jesus passage through time did not change the wages of sin. The wages were death before, death during, and death after his rising. We avoid the wages of sin by trusting in HIm for our expiation. We can avoid this death by being “in Him”. When we are “in Him”, His love fills us to overflowing, and it is our joy to keep his commandments (they are not burdensome).

 

[BRB]

Well, “remember the Sabbath to keep it holy,” is not exactly a “moral” reflection. It is true that the “thou shall nots…” reflect the moral purity of God (as does the whole Mosaic covenant, especially its sacrificial system), but its stated purpose, according to the N.T. was not to “reflect” but to “expose” sin (which ALL men, Jew and Gentile are under (Rom. 3:9; Gal. 3:22) to be utterly sinful (Rom. 7:13). Through the Law those who were under it (Jews) were not only sinners by nature and practice, but they also became transgressors of the Law and under a “curse” (Gal. 3:10). It’s called a double whammy.

What you’re presenting in your hypothesis, is just another form of Galatianism. Not specifically the desire to be circumcised, but in the same spirit, wanting to be justified by the Law. Completely ignoring the fact that its purpose (which includes the big 10) was never to justify anyone (it had no power to do so), but to lead those under it to Christ that they would be justified BY FAITH (in Christ), and through faith in Him receive the adoption as sons of God (Gal. 3:25-26).

Your spin gospel claims that God still demands that the Law be fulfilled by all men in some way, and so He sent the Holy Spirit to empower men for that very purpose. But as I said, that’s just another form of Galatianism. The Spirit has nothing to do with the Law and was sent only AFTER Christ inaugurated the NEW in His blood. The Spirit’s ministry is according to the new, not the old, faith not works, grace not law.

Yes, in every case, you impose the Law over you, which Paul calls “a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6). Not as the originators of this “gospel” did, demanding circumcision, but your spin, seemingly more palatable to N.T. teachings, asserts that one must fulfill the Law by the Spirit (erroneously declaring that to be His ministry), yet simultaneously retaining the “death and condemnation” factor of the Law through your doctrine of “mortal sins” (any transgression of the 10, and all others according to your tradition).

Your claim is that the divine moral requirements of the Law are never set aside. Oh, but they are, guanophore. According to Paul’s teaching (to the Galatians, btw) the covenant of Law (which included the Decalogue) was temporarily added alongside the Abrahamic covenant of promise only UNTIL the seed should come to whom the promise had been made (Gal. 3:19).

That “seed” is Christ (Gal. 3:16). Christ, the perfect Man, born a Jew, born under the Law, Himself fulfilled the Law. But through His substitutionary, sacrificial death, burial and bodily resurrection He became a Mediator of a NEW covenant by which the old became obsolete (Heb. 8:13). And through that propitiatory sacrifice God’s offended holiness, because of sin, was completely satisfied. And men now, both Jew and Gentile, through faith in Christ alone, are redeemed from the penalty of sin, having been forgiven of ALL sins (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14), justified (Rom. 3:24; 5:1), reconciled to God ((Rom. 5:11; 2 Cor. 5:18-19) and sanctified, being now “in Christ,” and therefore “under grace” and not “under law” (Rom. 6:14-15).

In great frustration Paul said to the Galatians:Gal 4:16-19 “So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth? They eagerly seek you, not commendably, but they wish to shut you out so that you will seek them (as they still do today through the Law). But it is good always to be eagerly sought in a commendable manner, and not only when I am present with you. My children, with whom I am again in labor **until Christ is formed in you”**The true believer has no relation to the Law, whatsoever, nor the Law to him - but Christ.

Teflon93 keeps asking me if I’m his brother. Well, do we have the same mother? Not according to the allegory Paul presents in Gal. 4:21-31. Being under Law he is a child of the bondwoman, I of the free. Allegorically, Law and promise have two different ancestors. It was determined by God that the bondwoman and her son be cast out, that the son of the bondwoman (law) will not be an heir with the son of the free (grace). It is not by my judgment whether or not we are “brothers,” it is God’s, based on who, allegorically, is our "mother.“By this spin you continue to keep yourself bound to the Law, Mt. Sinai, figuratively, a son of Hagar. You “love” as a requirement to fulfill the Law and condemn yourself and others by the Law through your doctrine of “mortal sin” (transgressing the 10)The wages of “sin” is death. And that happened to Adam and ALL his posterity in the garden. Which did not change until Christ, the “second Man,” the Last Adam. But finish the passage Mr. G.:”…BUT the FREE GIFT of God is ETERNAL LIFE in Christ Jesus our Lord."He doesn’t say that at all. Remember in the garden when Satan subtly changed the wording of God and asked Eve, “Indeed, has God said, you shall not eat from any tree of the garden” (Gen. 3:1)? We must be careful not to do the same. Paul did not say that those “who sin” will not inherit the kingdom. You changed his words. But that the “unrighteous” shall not inherit the kingdom. These he NAMES: fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals, thieves, covetous, drunkards, etc. These are NOUNS! He’s not listing “sins” by which one is excluded, but people identified by them, enslaved by them and in spiritual darkness. They’re unbelievers, the “unrighteous,” not numbered and named among the saints (see 1 Cor. 1:2); those of whom he goes on to say:1 Cor 6:11 "Such were some of you; but you were washed (i.e., by blood), but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God"Read in 1 Tim. 1:8-10 for whom law was made, guanophore. Are you saying you’re one of them? Paul gives this principle by which the washed, the sanctified and the justified in Christ (saints, by calling) are to live:1 Cor 6:12 “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything” (see 1 Cor. 10:23).Those who still seek the Law, in any way, to be justified actually snub their nose at the NEW covenant and its Mediator. That’s why Paul considered it so offensive.

This is so well done … everyone needs to re-read this a second time.

MD … tell us what Church you belong to ? Your theology is dead on internally consistent. You have taken on CF’s whole group … and scored solid debating points time and again.

Catholics just don’t get Paul … for some weird reason.

 

[BRB]

The basis of salvation has always been by grace, through faith. The basis of salvation has not changed. The ministry of the Law, to make known to man what is sinful has not changed. For the Christian, who is under grace, there is at last the indwelling power of the HS, by whose ministry we are able to keep the commandments.

).

That is very Protestant of you to say MD is rubbing off on you.

With the exception that we don’t really keep the commandments in full. The H.S. does aid us greatly in this regard, and since Christ did fully keep the Law, we receive our justification under the law via him.

 

[mikeledes]

Faith has been defined in this thread as trust in the completed work of Christ on the Cross. Then my question is, can genuine Christians lose this trust?

Galatians 1:6

6I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;

Now what is the “different gospel” that Paul is referring to? It is the gospel of the Judaizers, which taught the necessity of the Mosaic Covenant for salvation:

Acts 15:5

5But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses."

Paul does not say that they are thinking of deserting. No, they have already deserted Christ for the gospel of the Judaizers and this is proven by what Paul says throughout Galatians:

Galatians 3:3

** 3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? **

Galatians 4:7-11

7Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.
8However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.
9But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?
10You observe days and months and seasons and years. (i.e. the Mosaic Covenant)
11I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

So by abandoning Christ and turning to the Judaizing gospel, doesn’t that mean that they no longer had trust in the completed work of Christ, turning to a gospel of self dependance based on observation of the Mosaic Covenant. It is clear that these are genuine Christians for only genuine Christians can receive the Spirit and be considered a son and heir. So did they lose their faith, something that is impossible for those who believe in eternal security? And if they have lost their faith, what was their spiritual status? And when we read these passages and think about the implications, Galatians 5:4 gets even clearer:

4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

It doesn’t say they have been severed from the path to Christ (i.e. faith). Besides, these are people who already had genuine faith. It says they have been severed from Christ, which makes sense since anyone who has faith must have been incorporated into Christ. This reminds me of John 15:6

**6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. **

And how does one abide - which is “meno” in Greek and means to remain, stay, etc. - in Christ?

1 John 2:24

24As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.

Obviously the teachings of Paul did not abide in these Galatians when they’re deserting Christ and turning to a different gospel and hence their being severed from Him. And being severed from Christ also means falling from grace, for only in Christ is their spiritual life and salvation. Oh, and just in case this passage is used against Catholics, Paul also says towards the end of his letter to the Galatians:

Galatians 6:7-9

**7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
9Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary. **

So it’s pretty clear that when Paul says “justified by the law” he is referring to those who were reverting to the Mosaic Law as an integral whole - ceremonial (i.e kosher laws, festivals, circumcision) and moral - as a means of obtaining mercy and salvation from God. This is reinforced by the historical context given to us in Acts 15.

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Catholics just don’t get Paul … for some weird reason.

Oh we get Paul, we just get the whole Paul, Romans 4 and Galatians 6:7-9.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Teflon93]

This is so well done … everyone needs to re-read this a second time.

MD … tell us what Church you belong to ? Your theology is dead on internally consistent. You have taken on CF’s whole group … and scored solid debating points time and again.

Catholics just don’t get Paul … for some weird reason.

Catholics accepted Paul as an Apostle, canonized his epistles as Scripture, canonized him as a saint, and this year celebrate the Pauline Year.

You may wish to note my signature line. You would know nothing of St Paul but for the Catholic Church. Granted, you know little about him, but how much less would you know but for the constant efforts of the Church founded by Christ to bring Scripture to the world?

But now you may return to aping Moondweller, East German judge.

 

[guanophore]

Your claim is that the divine moral requirements of the Law are never set aside. Oh, but they are, guanophore. According to Paul’s teaching (to the Galatians, btw) the covenant of Law (which included the Decalogue) was temporarily added alongside the Abrahamic covenant of promise only UNTIL the seed should come to whom the promise had been made (Gal. 3:19).

Actually I said divine moral precepts for man. These are reflected in the Law of Moses, which Christ fulfilled. God’s expectations of how we are to demonstrate our love toward Him and one another are now governed by grace, not Law. We are not under the Covenant of Law, but of grace. This does not give us license to sin. " Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law." Rom 3:31

That “seed” is Christ (Gal. 3:16). Christ, the perfect Man, born a Jew, born under the Law, Himself fulfilled the Law. But through His substitutionary, sacrificial death, burial and bodily resurrection He became a Mediator of a NEW covenant by which the old became obsolete (Heb. 8:13). And through that propitiatory sacrifice God’s offended holiness, because of sin, was completely satisfied.

The only part of this that I think is not Catholic may be the part of God’s “offended holiness”. However, if I am wrong about that, I am happy to be corrected.

And men now, both Jew and Gentile, through faith in Christ alone, are *redeemed* from the penalty of sin, having been *forgiven* of ALL sins (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14), *justified* (Rom. 3:24; 5:1), *reconciled* to God ((Rom. 5:11; 2 Cor. 5:18-19) and *sanctified*, being now "*in Christ*," and therefore "*under grace*" and not "*under law*" (Rom. 6:14-15).

moondweller;3962985:

The true believer has no relation to the Law, whatsoever, nor the Law to him - but Christ.

This sounds like an antinomial position, and maybe that is what you are trying to support here. If you do not wish to have a relationship with God’s revelation of HImself through the Law, then I guess that is your perogative. My relationship with the Law and the Prophets is that they reveal the One who is to come. The better I understand them, the better I can appreciate the One who has come. I believe that everything was written for our instruction, including the Law of MOses, and I aim to be instructed by it. Such a relationship does not place me “under” it.(except in your mind, apparently).

Teflon93

keeps asking me if I’m his brother. Well, do we have the same mother? Not according to the allegory Paul presents in Gal. 4:21-31. Being under Law he is a child of the bondwoman, I of the free. Allegorically, Law and promise have two different ancestors.

No, moon. You will not find any Catholics here that are “born under the Law,” sorry. Well, I should make concession for fulfilled Jews. However, if there are any Jewish persons on CAF that have become Catholic, they were “born again”, so they are no longer under the Law, but under the promise.

If you want to reject us as your brothers in Christ, you will have to come up with another method. I think sandusky’s method of using the criteria that we dont’ share the same soteriology, while it still falls short in my eyes, at least is more honest.

It is not by my judgment whether or not we are “brothers,” it is God’s, based on who, allegorically

, is our "mother."By this spin you continue to keep yourself bound to the Law, Mt. Sinai, figuratively, a son of Hagar

I am sorry, moon, if you feel that walking in the love of Christ is some kind of bondage, or that fulfilling the Law of Christ somehow puts a believer “under Moses”. If it is true that you are antinomian, then I think there is nothing I can say that will help on this point.

You "love

" as a requirement to fulfill the Law

I am beginning to lose hope that I can make this clear to you, moon, because you seem so determined to put Catholics under Law. However, for those who are lurking on the thread, I will say again:

Love is the fruit of a saved soul. It is the evidence that He lives in us." No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us." 1 John 4:12

By it’s nature, Love fulfills the Law, because it supercedes all that is in the law and the prophets. Love fulfills the requirements of the law because it overshadows them as much as Christ overshadows Moses.

and condemn yourself and others by the Law through your doctrine of "mortal sin

" (transgressing the 10)The wages of “sin” is death.

Do you think that I, personally, came up with some “doctrine” that the wages of sin is death?

Do you deny that there is such a thing as “mortal sin”?

But finish the passage Mr. G.:"…BUT

the FREE GIFT of God is ETERNAL LIFE in Christ Jesus our Lord."

John 3:36
36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but must endure God’s wrath.

One who has accepted the free gift will, as a consequence, obey the Son.

He doesn’t say that at all. Paul did not say that those "who sin

" will not inherit the kingdom. You changed his words

Well, okay, I accept that. Let’s look again. Here is Paul, writing to BELIEVERS:

"Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want. 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.** Gal 5:16-21

If he is not talking about “sin”, then what is the reference “things like these” and again “do such things”?

But that the "unrighteous

" shall not inherit the kingdom. These he NAMES: fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals, thieves, covetous, drunkards, etc. These are NOUNS! He’s not listing “sins” by which one is excluded, but people identified by them, enslaved by them and in spiritual darkness.

I agree that he is listing persons here who are engaged in sinful behavior. What seems to slip your notice is that he is writing this to believers.

They’re unbelievers

, the “unrighteous,” not numbered and named among the saints (see 1 Cor. 1:2);

Well, this seems to reinforce the notion that people can fall from grace…

(saints) those of whom he goes on to say:

1 Cor 6:11 "Such were
​

some of you; but you were washed (i.e., by blood), but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God

Yes! and in the very next passage, begins talking about fornication, and sharing the members of the Body of Christ with a prostitute. If they are not members of His Body (saved), then how would it be possible for them to join His Body with a prostitute?
"Read in 1 Tim. 1:8-10 for whom law was made, guanophore. Are you saying you’re one of them?

I think that we all once were, though some of us were worse than others. And it takes a long time for “Christ to be formed” in one. Until that formation is complete, the Law is still able to provide tutoring.

moondweller:

Paul gives this principle by which the washed

, the sanctified and the justified in Christ (saints, by calling) are to live:1 Cor 6:12 “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything” (see 1 Cor. 10:23).Those who still seek the Law, in any way, to be justified actually snub their nose at the NEW covenant and its Mediator. That’s why Paul considered it so offensive.

Yes, I agree. Upholding the Law, and fulfilling it by walking in Love, is not the same as being “justified” by it. In fact, this is not possible.

Gal 3:11-12
11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law; for “The one who is righteous will live by faith.”
​

​