Commandments should not be followed ...

[Pax]

There is a problem that I’ve noticed on the thread in which Sandusky and moondweller have unfortunately scored a few undeserved points.

We have to some degree let them define the terms of the debate. They have tried to paint our position and arguments as “legalistic.” Frankly, we should not allow the arguments to evolve along these lines simply because it isn’t true.

There is a sense in which it is correct to say that the New Covenant did away with all of the OT law including the ten commandments. The difficulty is defining all of this correctly. The new covenant speaks of the “Law of Christ.” Likewise, the NT condemns “lawlessness” [see 2 Thess chp 2, 1 Tim 1:9-11, 2 Peter 3:17, and 1 John chp 3, and others].

It has been mentioned before but it bears repeating. The OT Mosaic and Levitical Laws as well as the gentile pagan systems are legalistic works righteousness systems. They do not justify the ungodly.

The Christian system of grace, faith and works is not legalistic or works righteousness. The Christian system differs from the other two in two important ways. The Jewish system and gentile systems view the relationship of God and man as an employer and employee. The legalistic system of works under these systems are that of a wage.

The Christian system is not that of an employer/employee relationship with a wage. The Christian system is a family. The relationship of God and man is one of adoption. We become brothers and sisters in Christ, we are born again, we are placed in a state of friendship with God, and become members of His household. This is all by grace and God’s gracious gifts in justification. There is no earning it, and there is no wage.

Catholics articulate these truths and believe them. It is simply wrong for non-Catholics to claim that our beliefs vary from this or that they are legalistic.

It is time for Sandusky and moondweller to properly articulate why our view of Eph 2:10 is incorrect. So far much has been said, but our view of grace, and being a new creation in Christ Jesus for good works which the Father prepared in advance of our justification that we should walk in them, have been shown to be perfectly congruent to scripture. Our position must be viewed, examined, and critiqued in terms of a family relationship with God.

In other words, as members of the household that are in a loving relationship with the Father and led by the Spirit, how is it that we are not obliged by our love and the relationship to be Christ like? The Father’s purpose is to conform us to the image of his son. How is it that as members of the divine family and thus heirs can anything that we say about works be classified as a wage or legalistic?

In order to properly argue against the Catholic position you must do so within that framework. If you do otherwise you merely attack a strawman. As members of the household the entire dynamic and connection between grace, faith, and works is completely changed. It is for this reason that Paul says that “for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.”[Romans 14:3]

 

[guanophore]

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

Sure! Why not?

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).

" Look out for the dogs, look out for the evil-workers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. 3 For we are the true circumcision, who worship God in spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh. 4 Though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If any other man thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee, 6 as to zeal a persecutor of the church, as to righteousness under the law blameless." Phil 3:2-7

Ok, the part I do not understand is that one cannot become righteous under the law. The Law, it is said, is only a ministry of death. So, how is it that anyone, even a pious Jew, can be “righteous” before God by keeping it’s ordinances?

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

Who can argue a Divine Mystery? Does not “arguement” rest on the ability of logic? Yet, there are many Truths about God that are beyond the capacity of human reason.

Fortunately, it is not necessary to rationally understand something in order obtain grace from the promised sources.

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.

Perhaps you are a little short on your church history? Have you considered how many years had lapsed between Pentecost and the conversion of Saul?

Basically what you are saying is that the Apostles, all of whom were selected by Christ and were Jews, were not the leadership in the Early Church.

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.

Ok, it may be off the topic, but since I don’t understand you, maybe I cannot tell that it is related to the topic. Please explain how it is that the Early Church adopted the position of “having replaced Israel”. I am sure this must be some aspect of the Dispensational theology that I do not know.

 

[guanophore]

It has been mentioned before but it bears repeating. The OT Mosaic and Levitical Laws as well as the gentile pagan systems are legalistic works righteousness systems. They do not justify the ungodly.

Do you agree, then, with moondweller and sandusky that the OT Levitical Laws were able to justify the godly?

Catholics articulate these truths and believe them. It is simply wrong for non-Catholics to claim that our beliefs vary from this or that they are legalistic.

Well…good luck with that!

It is time for Sandusky and moondweller to properly articulate why our view of Eph 2:10 is incorrect. So far much has been said, but our view of grace, and being a new creation in Christ Jesus for good works which the Father prepared in advance of our justification that we should walk in them, have been shown to be perfectly congruent to scripture. Our position must be viewed, examined, and critiqued in terms of a family relationship with God.

It has been, if not on this thread. A son remains a son, even if he denies his inheritance. The OSAS contingent maintains that a son can squander his inheritance, and then, even if unrepentant, can then return the fathers house and has a right to all that no longer belongs to him (his inheritance having been squandered) and can basically, by “grace” rob the Father of what belongs to Him.

In other words, as members of the household that are in a loving relationship with the Father and led by the Spirit, how is it that we are not obliged by our love and the relationship to be Christ like? The Father’s purpose is to conform us to the image of his son. How is it that as members of the divine family and thus heirs can anything that we say about works be classified as a wage or legalistic?

I think that concept of “obligation” is the key.

In order to properly argue against the Catholic position you must do so within that framework. If you do otherwise you merely attack a strawman. As members of the household the entire dynamic and connection between grace, faith, and works is completely changed. It is for this reason that Paul says that “for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.”[Romans 14:3]

You are shooting holes in the whole premise of the objection in saying this. It is mandatory that the entire dynamic be completely changed. If it is not, then moondweller and sandusky would have to become Catholics, and that must never happen!

 

[moondweller]

Pixie Dust:

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by ellammcg:
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?

Originally posted by Pixie Dust:
OK, as someone who has done exactly that - was saved and baptized in an independent, fundamental, KJV-only, premillennial Baptist Church and is now Catholic - I have lost the better part of my afternoon reading from this post (#399) to the end of the thread for MD’s answer to no avail. I’m really interested in MD’s answer to this question.

Why so interested in my answer, Pixie?

I do not believe, based on N.T. revelation, that anyone whom God Himself saves (as a gift, by His grace, through faith in Christ alone) can ever lose it. I believe in eternal security because the only life God gives, in Christ, is eternal.

Jesus pointed to Himself as the object of salvation faith (His Person and work). Based on what you posted, it seems to me that the object of your faith is the church which you’re attending at any particular time. And the content of it being whatever is taught by that church.

Such a faith is not salvation faith - wrong object. But I cannot judge your salvation. God knows the heart.

 

[Teflon93]

Why so interested in my answer, Pixie?

I do not believe, based on N.T. revelation, that anyone whom God Himself saves (as a gift, by His grace, through faith in Christ alone) can ever lose it. I believe in eternal security because the only life God gives, in Christ, is eternal.

Jesus pointed to Himself as the object of salvation faith (His Person and work). Based on what you posted, it seems to me that the object of your faith is the church which you’re attending at any particular time. And the content of it being whatever is taught by that church.

Such a faith is not salvation faith - wrong object. But I cannot judge your salvation. God knows the heart.

Ahh, so now Catholics worship the Church, not Christ?

Applying your same logic to Protestants of the sola scriptura stripe, would it not follow that you worship a book and not a God?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Catholics worship the Church. Now that is just pure bias and it is apparent that moondweller is an ignorant Protestant who doesn’t know Catholicism. We worship Christ. He is the center, source, and summit of our faith

 

[Teflon93]

Catholics worship the Church. Now that is just pure bias and it is apparent that moondweller is an ignorant Protestant who doesn’t know Catholicism. We worship Christ. He is the center, source, and summit of our faith

That’s what the Catechism teaches:

266 “Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son’s is another, the Holy Spirit’s another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal” (Athanasian Creed: DS 75; ND 16).

The irony of course is that Moondweller in his hatred of the Law must deny the First Commandment of it as well:

Exodus 20:

2: I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3: Thou shalt have no other gods before me

By his logic, then, worship of God isn’t required for salvation.

But he accuses us of not worshiping God.

“By their fruit shall ye know them”.

 

[moondweller]

Ahh, so now Catholics worship the Church, not Christ?

Applying your same logic to Protestants of the sola scriptura stripe, would it not follow that you worship a book and not a God?

I was addressing the person(s) who ask the question. I wasn’t generalizing (as you often do, and did).

It is possible to worship a Book just as it is possible to worship a statue or a host. But I was talking about belief and the content of it for salvation. In whom or what is one’s belief?

Abraham believed in the Lord and He (the Lord) reckoned it (his belief in Him) to him as righteousness. Paul told the jailer, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved…” And he did.

Neither of these men were called Protestant or Catholic. Both were justified and saved based on the object of their faith ALONE.

 

[BRB]

Sure! Why not?

.

You do seem to practice the Beatitudes and understand Church’s mission of Great Commission.

I wish more Catholics would not take the attitude of ‘heretics be damned’ or ‘Protestants be unclean, we no touch or dialogue with them’.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

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.

Very true. It’s easy to spot now-a-days. It’s called “protestantism”

 

[ellammcg]

In other words, as members of the household that are in a loving relationship with the Father and led by the Spirit, how is it that we are not obliged by our love and the relationship to be Christ like? The Father’s purpose is to conform us to the image of his son. How is it that as members of the divine family and thus heirs can anything that we say about works be classified as a wage or legalistic?

I want to do what is right in the Lord’s eyes because of the great sacrifice Jesus made for me (and all of us). He gave everything for us. I know that the right thing (and the thing I want to do) is to please Him in everything I say, think, or do (including writing what may be anonymous to others but never to Him). Most of the time (I definately have my moments ), I don’t consider this a burden but a small token of my appreciation to Him, for Him.

I wonder, if we are to interpret what the Lord wants only by the words of the Bible and the nudging of the Holy Spirit, how come so many of us are in disagreement about what that entails? I am pretty certain that Moondweller and Sandusky have many similar beliefs to my (Baptist) church, but it is doubtful they share them all (actually, neither do I).

If I (we) can really “do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me”, why wouldn’t we be able to fulfill all of the moral commandments? I am guessing one difference in OSAS and Catholicism is that it’s more of a matter of want to vice have to. (Of course, there is always the possibility I am completely wrong. )

 

[moondweller]

Catholics worship the Church. Now that is just pure bias and it is apparent that moondweller is an ignorant Protestant who doesn’t know Catholicism. We worship Christ. He is the center, source, and summit of our faith

How is it both you and Tef. changed my post from belief to worship? I said nothing about worship. I think the subject change was based on pure bias.

As to the “center, source and summit” of one’s faith, you can only speak for yourself, not all Catholics. One can worship Christ and yet not believe in Him (I’m not talking about His existence).

 

[sandusky]

" Look out for the dogs, look out for the evil-workers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. 3 For we are the true circumcision, who worship God in spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh. 4 Though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If any other man thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee, 6 as to zeal a persecutor of the church, as to righteousness under the law blameless." Phil 3:2-7

Ok, the part I do not understand is that one cannot become righteous under the law. The Law, it is said, is only a ministry of death. So, how is it that anyone, even a pious Jew, can be “righteous” before God by keeping it’s ordinances?

Sorry, it was late for me; I forgot to list another verse.

Paul referred to himself while a Pharisee as righteous and blameless under the law.

In 1 Tim 1:15 he describes himself this way:**1 Timothy 1:15
It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.**Paul was, at the time, righteous before the law, and the chief among sinners.

Continuing on in the Philippians 3 quote, Paul said that he considered all of that righteousness and blamelessness gained from the law as garbage, and that his strongest desire was for the righteousness of Christ, a righteousness which comes by faith.

Paul rejects the righteousness he thinks he gains from the law, for Christ’s righteousness that comes from faith.

guanophore:

Perhaps you are a little short on your church history? Have you considered how many years had lapsed between Pentecost and the conversion of Saul?

Basically what you are saying is that the Apostles, all of whom were selected by Christ and were Jews, were not the leadership in the Early Church.

Post-apostolic.

 

[Teflon93]

I was addressing the person(s) who ask the question. I wasn’t generalizing (as you often do, and did).

It is possible to worship a Book just as it is possible to worship a statue or a host. But I was talking about belief and the content of it for salvation. In whom or what is one’s belief?

Abraham believed in the Lord and He (the Lord) reckoned it (his belief in Him) to him as righteousness. Paul told the jailer, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved…” And he did.

Neither of these men were called Protestant or Catholic. Both were justified and saved based on the object of their faith ALONE.

And you continue to lie about what the Catholic Church teaches regarding salvation. I have posted the Catechism on this; the Catechism is the authoritative teaching of the Church.

As noted then, to continue to claim Catholics believe in a “works salvation” is a lie based on the clear contradiction of the Catechism.

 

[LutheranDK]

To please God is to OBEY the commandments. You do it out of love.

When Jesus comes in glory, he will separate good and evil. He will sent those evil ones to hell, while the good is sent to heaven. How does he judge us in those final days? He will judge us by our actions, deeds. We are NOT judge by God through “FAITH ALONE.”

If you do good works because you believe that your good deeds MUST outweigh the evil deeds, or you’re doomed, you are NOT acting out of love of God. You are acting out of FEAR of the consequences of not doing it. So while you’re giving to charity, helping an old woman cross the street, visiting the sick, etc, you’re mentally keeping score: “Ok, Lord! That’s one more in my favor”

Your claim is not indisputable fact, and it can only be defended by taking Scripture totally out of its context…and fall back on referring to various theologians who lived several centuries after Christ’s appearance on Earth…who even disagrees amongst themselves!

Salvation through faith ALONE is clearly shown in a contextual reading of Scripture. But if you WANT to believe something else, then you can certainly find ammunition in Scripture also. Out of context, and therefore close to useless, but you CAN if you want to…

 

[Philthy]

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.

Whether or not Paul is claiming that one is required to follow the Commandments “FOR salvation”, he obviously considers it VERY IMPORTANT to do so. He obviously believes that there is an undesireable, significant and eternal consequence to not obeying the Commandments.
So, once again, what is your point? Is it that “technically” you dont need to follow the Commandments, that you might still be saved? If so, then one must wonder how much our rewards are compromised by failing to live our faith. In short how satisfying will a salvation devoid of rewards be? Clearly Paul doesnt think its a good situation at all and attempting to minimize his strong warnings is foolish.

 

[Philthy]

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

Im flattered that you find something of mine useful.

 

[Pax]

I want to do what is right in the Lord’s eyes because of the great sacrifice Jesus made for me (and all of us). He gave everything for us. I know that the right thing (and the thing I want to do) is to please Him in everything I say, think, or do (including writing what may be anonymous to others but never to Him). Most of the time (I definately have my moments ), I don’t consider this a burden but a small token of my appreciation to Him, for Him.

I wonder, if we are to interpret what the Lord wants only by the words of the Bible and the nudging of the Holy Spirit, how come so many of us are in disagreement about what that entails? I am pretty certain that Moondweller and Sandusky have many similar beliefs to my (Baptist) church, but it is doubtful they share them all (actually, neither do I).

If I (we) can really “do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me”, why wouldn’t we be able to fulfill all of the moral commandments? I am guessing one difference in OSAS and Catholicism is that it’s more of a matter of want to vice have to. (Of course, there is always the possibility I am completely wrong. )

This is a good post that show that you seek to explore the areas of common ground. Understanding everyone’s terminology and motivation in their walk of faith is a great starting point.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Why so interested in my answer, Pixie?

I do not believe, based on N.T. revelation, that anyone whom God Himself saves (as a gift, by His grace, through faith in Christ alone) can ever lose it. I believe in eternal security because the only life God gives, in Christ, is eternal.

Jesus pointed to Himself as the object of salvation faith (His Person and work). Based on what you posted, it seems to me that the object of your faith is the church which you’re attending at any particular time. And the content of it being whatever is taught by that church.

Such a faith is not salvation faith - wrong object. But I cannot judge your salvation. God knows the heart.

My faith is in Jesus Christ, the only Saviour. My faith in Christ was initially formed in an I/F Baptist Church, and now I have found the Fullness of Faith in His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I love Jesus more, and am closer to Him than I have ever been before in my life. The Catholic Faith is all about Jesus Christ and knowing, loving and serving Him.

The reason I was so interested in your answer is 1)because ella asked you so nicely many, many posts ago and you never answered her, and 2)because I’ve encountered those who believe in eternal security, but would conclude (wrongly) that since I’m now Catholic that I was never truly saved to begin with - since they can’t say I’ve lost my salvation without contradicting their theology.

 

[banjo]

If you do good works because you believe that your good deeds MUST outweigh the evil deeds, or you’re doomed, you are NOT acting out of love of God. You are acting out of FEAR of the consequences of not doing it. So while you’re giving to charity, helping an old woman cross the street, visiting the sick, etc, you’re mentally keeping score: “Ok, Lord! That’s one more in my favor”
quote]

I’m not answering for Manny but for myself. This is a mischaracterization of Catholic thought. It isn’t about keeping score it’s about keeping the Lord’s commandment of love given in Jn 15:12 and summarized well by the same writer:
1 Jn 3:17 “But if any one has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?”