Commandments should not be followed ...

[guanophore]

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:

This was my understanding also. Why do all this “chastening”, up to an including death, if it is not possible to fall? Why do the Apostles give so many warnings to believers about their behavior when it does not matter? I mean, they may not have any treasures, but the behavior cannot keep them out of heaven.

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.

But, if we fully share in his holiness from the moment of salvation, an dare never more righteous in his sight then the “hour I first believed” then why is this needed?

• 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.

It seems that way to me too.

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?

It seems that way to me too.

 

[Teflon93]

Moondweller claims I am not his brother.

Let’s see how Christ defines this in Scripture, shall we?

Matthew 12:

“47”: Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

“48”: But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

“49”: And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

“50”: For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

But perhaps they just don’t “get” Christ.

1 John 2:

9": He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.

“10”: **He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. **

“11**”: But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes**.

1 John 4:

7":** Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God**.

“8”: He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

“9”: In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

“10”: Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

“11”: Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.

1 John 4:

“15”: Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

But perhaps they just don’t “get” John.

James 4:

“11”: Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge

But perhaps they just don’t “get” James.

2 Peter 1:

5": And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

“6”: And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;

“7”: And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

“8”: For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

“9”: But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

“10”: Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

“11”: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

But perhaps they just don’t “get” Peter.

Hebrews 8:

“10”: For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

“11”: **And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. **

“12”: For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Hebrews 13:

1": Let brotherly love continue.

“2”: Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

But perhaps they just don’t “get” Paul.

Matthew 5:

“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.

But perhaps they just don’t “get” Christ.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Moondweller, a few of us are still awaiting a reply to this question, please:

ellammcg:

moondweller:

Thank you! Those who want to be “justified by law” were never saved, never “justified as a gift through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:24). Fallen from grace means they rejected the gospel of divine grace through Christ Jesus that was delivered to them by Paul and instead embraced LAW, thereby severing themselves from Christ.

Are you saying that someone who was saved and baptized in a local, scriptural, new testament church IAW the prevailing doctrine (faith/trust alone in the work of Christ Jesus) and belief in that doctrine at that time, who then becomes Catholic and subscribes to their beliefs, is no longer saved or never was saved?

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

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?

That’s part of the argument we’ve had before, Mike—this is loss of salvation; no it isn’t; yes it is look at this; no that isn’t either; yes it is, you stink; no you stink; no you do.

I’m not going there with you Mike, but will go this far only, “discipline” is the same word in 1 Cor 11:32 and Heb 12:10, I was going to go into that, and didn’t—my bad—either way, “sleeping” in 1 Cor 11 is discipline, as stated by Paul. Furthermore, if memory serves me correctly, “sleep” and its various forms when used in the epistles, is used when speaking of believers only.

mikeledes:

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.

We need v17 for the context:** 1 Timothy 6:17

17 Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy.**This we haven’t discussed.

Where’s your hope, Mike, on the uncertainty of riches, even those riches ”done in good works, or is it in the rich supplier of all things, God?

There are many verses in scripture containing the “hina clause”**Romans 4:13-16

13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.

14 For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified;

15 for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.

16 For this reason it is by faith, IN ORDER THAT it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, **Paul is consistent in His teaching that righteousness comes through faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, and not in accordance with works, because if it is of works, than grace is no longer grace, but what is owed.

 

[guanophore]

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

We “get” Paul differently because we include all of what he wrote, not just selected verses, and we also include the rest of the scriptures (not limiting salvation theology to Paul). We also read Paul in the light of the Apostolic Tradition which he handed down to the bishops who served in his place, and in whom the Teachings were preserved as he handed them down.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I have tried to work within the limitations of his vocabulary, and avoid using Latin.

We also have the sacrament of reconciliation, so that when we fail to fulfill the law of Christ, we can confess our sins, and He forgives them. This does not lower the standard either. We still uphold the Law.

 

[guanophore]

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:

Well, I guess the dispensationalists would say that those persons were “called but not chosen”. Somehow they never became “true” Christians?

Or maybe the believing Pharisees were not “true” believers?

If I understand what I am reading here correctly, “true” believers are prevented from falling away, including God taking their life before that can happen?

 

[Philthy]

"Teflon:

Paul makes it clear that those who sin will not inherit the Kingdom.

He doesn’t say that at all…that those “who sin” will not inherit the kingdom. You changed his words.

Pure desperation IMHO. No, Paul doesnt say “those who sin” he says “Make no mistake-the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites, 10thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.” Those, of course, are all sins. So what, exactly, is your point?

Paul did…say…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,

Yes, MD he says the “unrighteous” will not inherit the Kingdom and then - you might wanna sit down for this revelation - he provides you with a means of recocgizing the unrighteous: by the nature of the sins they commit. He does not, as you desperately claim, exempt believers from this crowd. NOONE who engages in these acts are to be considered “righteous”. Think about it: if behavior didnt separate the “righteous” from the “unrighteous”, why would Paul claim these behaviors as identifying the “unrighteous”? That makes absolutely no sense. Unless he believed it was of eternal consequence and expected “beleivers” to act accordingly, he wouldn’t bother with the admonitions against sinning. It is very simple and very straight forward.

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”

You know you might almost get away with this ridiculous claim if we didnt have Pauls letter to the Ephesians. It has all the same warnings, but is more explicit in clearly identifying the intended audience. Again, brace yourself. First lets dismantle the claim that Paul is somehow addressing unbelievers. Note the underlined text which only applies to Christians:
St Paul:

I, Paul, the prisoner in the Lord, urge you therefore to lead a life worthy of the vocation to which you were called…do not go on living the empty-headed life that the gentiles live…30do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God who has marked you with his seal, ready for the day when we shall be set free…As God’s dear children,…Among you there must be not even a mention of sexual vice or impurity in any of its forms, or greed: this would scarcely become the holy people of God!

Next lets look at the full context of what Paul is telling “believers” who have been “called” and “sealed” as “Gods dear children, the holy people of God” Dont hold you breath for the “You may now break the 10 commandments with impunity without consequence to your immortal souls.”

As God’s dear children, then, take him as your pattern, 2and follow Christ by loving as he loved you, giving himself up for us as an offering and a sweet-smelling sacrifice to God.

Take Christ as our pattern! And what was that pattern? Love and obedience to the Father. Paul gets much more direct…
St Paul:

There must be no foul or salacious talk or coarse jokes-all this is wrong for you; there should rather be thanksgiving. 5For you can be quite certain that nobody who indulges in sexual immorality or impurity or greed-which is worshipping a false god-can inherit the kingdom of God.

Note MD: All this is wrong for you(ie Christians) NOBODY - no jew, no gentile, and no “Christian” who indulges in idolatry can inherit the kingdom of God. Crystal clear. Do you really wanna maintain that the “kingdom of God” is not a reference to eternal life/salvation?
We’re not quite done folks…

Do not let anyone deceive you with empty arguments: it is such behaviour that draws down God’s retribution on those who rebel against him. 7Make sure that you do not throw in your lot with them.

Still talking to believers and telling them to be careful not to “throw in their lot with them”. It’s over MD. The “this only applies to unbelievers” delusion must end.

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.

I agree, but you havent told the “whole” truth. The whole truth is that although you cannot seek to be justified by the Law, those who think that they remain “justified” while simultaneously worshipping the false gods of “sexual immorality” and murder and drunkenness etc are mistaken. Such behavior reveals the “content of their faith” to be something other than God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Such faith is not unlike the faith of the demons and it surrenders the inheritance provided for by Christ’s atonement.

 

[ellammcg]

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.
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?

That is an interesting point. What would be the point of God chastening us if we will go to heaven no matter what we do after we become saved? Why prevent a condemnation you can’t receive?

 

[sandusky]

Teflon93:

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.

In time, I don’t believe either occur at baptism, but that justification precedes baptism, and glorification is postmortem.

Teflon93:

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

Thus the need for the irresistible, or efficacious, or effective grace and call: the sinner, being dead in sin, is naturally hostile toward God, indifferent toward divine things, and he exalts himself above God (Jn 3:20; Rom 3:11-12, 18; 1 Cor 2:14)

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

Not to be facetious, but using the verse you cite to illustrate, it’s resisted by the “many,” but “irresistible” to the chosen.

In a nutshell, I recognize two “calls” to salvation: a general call, and a special call. The general call God extends through the gospel to the non-elect (the verse above, Mt 22:14; cf Mk 16:15; Is 45:22). That call does not result in their salvation. The special call God extends through the gospel to the elect and it results in their salvation (1 Cor 1:2, 9, 24; Rom 8:28, 30; 1 Thess 2:12).

Some examples of the use of “call” in referring to the special call: “…called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,” “…you are also the called of Jesus Christ,” “…beloved of God in Rome, called as saints,” (Rom 1:1, 6, 7); “…even God, who gives life, and calls into being that which does not exist,” (Rom 4:17);“ “…those who are called according to His purpose,” “…these whom He predestined, He also called,” (Rom 8:29, 30); “…not because of works but because of Him who calls,” “…even us whom He also called, not from among Jews only,” (Rom 9:11, 24); “…saints by calling,“ “…you were called into fellowship with His Son,“ “…but to those who are the called…Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God,” (1 Cor 1: 1, 2, 9, 24); “…walk in manner worthy of the calling by which you have been called.” and so on.

Teflon93:

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.

I don’t believe that Christ instituted a sacrament of penance. The believer can confess directly to God, as he now has access to God, and he is to go confidently to Him and confess (Heb 4:14-16).

I see nothing in the NT that convinces me that God has interposed a priest, or anything else between me and Him. Even in the OT, people confessed their sins directly to God. David comes to mind in his confessions throughout the Psalms, and Manasseh as well, who, after sinning horribly, humbled himself, and God heard his supplication (2 Chron 33).

Teflon93:

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.

One is never sinless in this life; however, a serious sin, in which no repentance is demonstrated after counseling, church discipline (cf Mt 18:15-18), and a lengthy period of non-repentance, does cause me to wonder.

 

[mikeledes]

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.

Sure it’s internally consistent, when you ignore all of the verses that contradict it. First of all, it’s based on an erroneous concept of “the Law.” When Paul refers to “The Law”, he is referring to the Mosaic Law as an integral whole, ceremonial and moral. Hence, to accuse Catholics of attempting to be justified by the Mosaic Law is grossly inaccurate. Moreover, taking Paul’s theology out of its historical context leads to misinterpretation. The Judiazers claimed that it was through observance of the Law that you truly became a member of God’s chosen people and hence saved. Paul, on the other hand, argues that this is not the case. Man cannot become righteous through observance of the Law because man first would have to deliver himself from sin and it’s power in order to accomplish that, and man cannot do that:

Acts 13:39

**39and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses. **

Romans 8:2-4

**2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. **

Man cannot free himself from sin and death through his own efforts, and that’s what Paul is talking about when he is condemning those who claimed that this freedom (i.e. justification) can be obtained through observance of the Law. To be under “the Law”, BRB, means to be in bondage to sin, to be devoid of divine mercy, and to be devoid of the Holy Spirit and love of God. We are freed from this bondage - from being under the Law - but we are not without the law of God:

1 Corinthians 9:20-21

20To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;
21to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

We are freed from being under “The Law” - spiritually dead and in bondage to sin - and placed under the Law of Christ, having experienced the mercy and grace of God, being filled with spiritual life and the Holy Spirit, and having the love of God poured into our hearts. But being under the Law of Christ, BRB, also means we are given the obligatory responsibility of fulfilling this law:

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. **

1 Corinthians 9:27

27but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

Galatians 5:13-14

**13For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
14For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” **

We are called to fulfill this Law of Freedom:

James 1:25

**25But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. **

And are given the Holy Spirit to fufill this law and become and efectual doer (Ezekiel 36:26). But the existence of genuine Christians that are fruitless (John 15:2, 6, 2 Peter 1:8-9) means that not every Christian is an effectual doer, not every Christian uses the spiritual gifts God gives us in order to be an effectual doer:

2 Corinthians 9:8

8And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed;

Catholics are not being taught to observe the Mosaic Law as a means of salvation. We know that apart from the grace and mercy of God, there is no salvation, which cannot be obtained through mere observance of the Law. Rather, we become a new creation by the grace of God in order to fulfill the Law of Christ. Being a new creation comes with the responsibility to live according to this Law:

Galatians 6:15

15For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

1 Corinthians 7:19

19Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

And with this reponsibility, BRB, comes accountability. Judgement means accountability. And we shall be judged according to our works, according to how we have utilized - or not utilized - the spiritual gifts God has given us:

James 2:12

12So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.

And we know the fate of those Christians who have received spiritual gifts from God and do no become effectual doers:

Matthew 25:28-29

**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. ** (Compare with John 15:2,6).

Let’s just say, it’s not a happy one.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Philthy]

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.

“Need” too? More ambiguity Im afraid. What exactly do you mean when you use the term “need” in this context? What is the consequence of not following the law of love/Beatitudes?

How can we be a true disciple of Christ’s and not follow all of his teachings ?

We cant, of course, and that is the point. One of his teachings is that keeping the commandments is an part of participation in eternal life.

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.

I agree - MD and Sandy do not.

Many Catholics falsely believe Protestants are unlawful, uneducated hedonists.

Dont be ridiculous - where would you get such an idea?

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

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. Nor is there even a hint that there are no eternal consequences for breaking the commandments. Yet in the letter - and in the letter to the Ephesians Ch4 - Paul reiterates that ANYONE who engages in adultery, lying, etc effectively engages in idolatry (all encompassed in 10 commandements) and that NOBODY who does these things will inherit the Kingdom of God. As I said in an earlier post, do really think that the reference to the “kingdom of God” is not a reference to eternal life? And if that is a reference to eternal life, how can you dismiss such an admonition? Not a single non-Catholic even bothered to comment, including yourself. The big claim from the non-C’s is that those admonitions “weren’t directed to believers”, but the letter to the Ephesians makes it perfectly clear that it is addressed specifically to believers, those who “have been sealed with the Spirit and forgiven by God”: Eph 4:30-32
And in the very next sentences he says to those believers the following: . These verses very specifically and unambiguously refer to the wrath of God and the exclusion from the inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God as applying to believers and non-believers who are “disobedient” through a variety of sins, including those contained in the Commandments. And what specifically has been offered to counter this clear teaching? Interpretations of verses which never even say that “even if you sin, you will still inherit the Kingdom of Heaven”. Throwing out a verse where Christ said, “Your faith has saved you” does nothing to obviate the clear teachings of Christ and his Apostles that we are to “live a life worthy of our calling and election” and that if we dont we can squander our inheritance which he earned for us.

Thanks for stating the Truth

 

[moondweller]

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:

In context, Paul simply makes the statement that he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. What he does not say is that one is required to fulfill the law FOR salvation. You’re reading that notion into the text.

You say God requires us to fulfill His “moral law.” (1) Requires this of us for what purpose? (2) What exactly is this “moral law” you keep harping on that we must fulfill? I have found no law in Scripture designated by that name. (3) Where does it say, “For by fulfilling God’s moral law you shall be saved…”?

 

[moondweller]

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

I do, as defined by your church. Not even John himself defines it. It’s one of the most obscure passages in the N.T., but men have taken advantage of its obscurity only to build their own doctrine of damnation upon it, for the enjoyment of enslaving others to its bondage, and to them.

 

[guanophore]

“Need” too? More ambiguity Im afraid. What exactly do you mean when you use the term “need” in this context? What is the consequence of not following the law of love/Beatitudes?

Pardon me Philthy, for using your post as a springboard to address moondweller.

It only seems ambiguous to those who have rejected the Apostolic Teaching. The Apostles never separated the grace that saves from the grace that produces the fruit of salvation (obedience and love). I will copy some excellent elements of Michael’s post # 809

"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Romans 8:2-4

What do you think Paul means when he says “the requirement of the Law”?

" To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; 21to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. 1 Corinthians 9:20-21

Moon, you have said that Christians “have no relationship with the Law”. That being the case, how do you explain this passage where Paul testifies that Christians are not without the Law of God?

“So 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.” Romans 8:12-13

What does “we are under obligation” mean to you, moondweller?
If this is not something you “need” to do, what is that?

27but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified. 1 Corinthians 9:27

From what might Paul be “disqualified”?

"For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” Galatians 5:13-14

How do you understand this, moondweller. When the Holy Word says “YOU SHALL”, does this seem like something one should set aside?

“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. 18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matt 5:17-20

How did you get to be under the impression that heaven and earth have already passed away? By what authority have you trumped that of Christ so that you can “relax” the commandments? Paul would be scandalized!

“For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.” 1 Cor 7:19

You have said that there is only one commandment to keep. To have faith in Christ. Why, if this is true, does Paul use a plural here?

“So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.” James 2:12

What is the “law of liberty” moondweller? If Christians have no relation to the law, and are not judged by it, what does the Apostle mean?

“He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” John 14:21-22

I think, from your posts, that you believe “my commandments” are something different than the Decalogue. You have stated that Jesus refers to Mosaic Law as “your (Jewish) law” and thus not applicable to Christians. Which commandments are Christs’?

I note here that He did not say “he who has faith in me loves me”. How does Jesus’ “know” that we love Him? How did God “know” that Abraham believed in Him.?

One of His teachings is that keeping the commandments is an part of participation in eternal life.

 

[guanophore]

In context, Paul simply makes the statement that he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. What he does not say is that one is required to fulfill the law FOR salvation. You’re reading that notion into the text.

You know, this may be true. When we read this text in the light of so many others where Paul states that persons who engage in the sins specified in the Decalogue will not inherit the kingdom, it does seem to fit better.

Perhaps I missed your reply to Teflon’s question. Do you think that the Kingdom of God is different from “eternal life”? When Paul says that people who engage in these sins will not inherit the Kingdom, does that mean something different to you than eternal life?

You say God requires us to fulfill His “moral law.”

No. I said that the moral precepts (standards)that God has ordained for mankind in relation to HImself and other human beings are beyond the Mosaic Law. They existed before, during, and after it. These are the precepts that are based on Life, and Love. God requires that our righteousness (right conduct) be greater than that of the Pharisees. Now, I know you will say that our “rightousness” is reckoned to us by God by virtue of our faith. I will agree, but He also desires that we become that which we have been declared.

(1) Requires this of us for what purpose?

“They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, 19 thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed.” 1 Tim 6:18-19

Our obedience to God’s commandments is our spiritual worship. It is the method by which we “take hold of the life which is life indeed”. Can anyone lay up for themselves a foundation for the future? Is not Christ our cornerstone? In our obedienc to him, we become part of that foundation, into which we are built.

Salvation is not a “passive” event or even process but a relationship. Our contribution to that relationship is the obedience of faith. By faith, we fullfill the Law of Christ, and in doing so, we are set free from the law of sin and death.

(2) What exactly is this “moral law” you keep harping on that we must fulfill? I have found no law in Scripture designated by that name. (3) Where does it say, “For by fulfilling God’s moral law you shall be saved…”?

It does not. I think where you are getting lost is that you have somehow separated the moral precepts that God has ordained for mankind from the grace that He provided that enables us to keep them. If we are to be like Christ, then we are to fulfill the Law just as He did, by faith, through grace. We are to be imitators of HIm, who has called us according to divine mercy.

Nobody is "harping’ moon (unless it is your own conscience). For those who follow the obedience of faith, HIs commandments are not “burdensome” as you (apparently) experience them.

 

[guanophore]

I do, as defined by your church.

Such a statement “your church” seems to contradict scripture, which indicates that there is only ONE CHURCH. All who are joined to the Head are members of His Body.

But, for the sake of discussion, let me be clear about how the Church defines mortal sin. The Apostles taught that mortal sins can separate us from our inheritance in eternal life.

You do not agree with this, am I understanding you correctly?

Not even John himself defines it. It’s one of the most obscure passages in the N.T.,

It is more obscure for those who are separated from theApostolic Tradition that produced the passage. Those who have received this Tradition have perfect clarity about it’s meaning, because it came from the Apostolic Teachings that were complete before a word of the NT was written.

but men have taken advantage of its obscurity only to build their own doctrine of damnation upon it, for the enjoyment of enslaving others to its bondage, and to them.

Well, setting aside what men may have done. can we explore what the meaning of "mortal sin"might be? Recipients of the Apostolic Teaching understand this very specifically. If these Teachings are not from God, but men, and are not of God, then what might the Apostle mean?

How is the Teaching on mortal sin “doctrine of damnation” ?

How is the Teaching on mortal sin “enslavement to bondage”?

I am mystified by these ideas, and I hope you can help me understand better wht you mean.

What do you imagine might be a “deadly sin”?

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

I do not wonder. All Who are joined to Christ our Head are members of HIs Body, the Church. Since there is only one Body, and only one Head, and only One Baptism, then all who are members are my brethren, even if I do not recognize them!

So I can take some Calvinists to communion at a Catholic Church, Latin Rite, one day next week?

guanophore:

I must confess that I do not fully understand it. I accept it by faith, but not having lived as a Jew, and not really understanding what it was like to make sacrifices at the temple, it is a mystery to me how "In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 Both of them were righteous before God, living blamelessly according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord."Luke 1:5-6

How could they be righteous before God? How could they live blamelessly?

The Luke 1 passage tells you how: they kept the commandments and regulations of the Lord; IOW, they wore the proper clothing, ate the proper foods, sacrificed on the appointed days and offered the prescribed sacrifice(s), and, as commanded, offered the prescribed sacrifices for their sins, according to the commandments and regulations of the Lord (cf Php 3:2-6).

guanophore:

Well, I don’t know if I “alleged” such a thing, but I don’t think it is possible for Catholics [to fully understand the sacraments] either. The reason they are called Divine Mysteries" is because they cannot be accessed or understood by human reason - only by faith. If walking by faith before God seems like a “cult” to you then I do understand that. I think this is a very old charge, one that can be seen in the book of Acts.

Catholics don’t fully understand the sacraments either. I won’t argue with that.

guanophore:

This might be grist for another thread, but I don’t think Hebrews was “setting aside Jewish ritual worship”. The system of sacrifices, yes, but the early Christians continued to follow the liturgical pattern of the Jewish synagogue service even after they were ejected from the synagogues. The pattern is the same to day as it was when Jesus and Paul preached in the synagogues. If you ever go to a Mass, then a synagogue service, you will recogize the pattern (liturgy) and even some of the language as identical.

That “blued” is true with one exception, that being that I don’t think the majority of the leadership in the early church were Jews, but gentiles.

As I stated in my last post to you, the early church adopted the position of having replaced Israel. IMO, and the opinion of many others, that’s a huge error, and it did impact, among other things, the liturgy.

guanophore:

This contains some truth, however…

Sandusky:

Your church teaches that through its sacraments grace is obtained, and that partaking of its sacraments is necessary for each believer if he is to have any hope of eternal life.

.

Some truth? My statement is completely true. From your Catechism:**1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. **“Sacramental grace” is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.That’s exactly what I said, and it’s a pronouncement of the Council of Trent.

 

[Pax]

moondweller,

Since you have not refuted the exegesis presented concerning Abraham’s justification on 3 occassions, I am going to leave it at that and move on.