Commandments should not be followed ...

[Philthy]

Nope … ‘moral assurance’ is not enough to satisfy.
Unless the Catholic Church [and its members] believe in salvation security in Christ … Protestant teachings offer the only valid Pauline message of Christ to the world.

You are interesting but often confusing.
What is it that you mean when you use the term “salvation security”? Apart from divine personal revelation of your own salvation, we cannot declare “When I die I will go to heaven”. The reason for this is simple: you have not completed the race. You can be exceedingly confident that you will, just as you are confident that the sun will rise tomorrow, but that is different than “absolute certainty”. It’s an unfortunate consequence of being “in time” rather than “in eternity”.
After teaching the Lord’s prayer, Christ explicitly says that “if you dont forgive others their trespasses, neither will your father in heaven forgive you yours.” I think we both agree that we need to have all our sins forgiven to enter Heaven, right? The problem is that you have no control over others “trespassing” against you - and you simply dont know when the last trespass against you will occur. But we DO know that Christ has established a conditional: IF you dont forgive, THEN you will not be forgiven. As much as you would like to believe that you could forgive any sin, that is different than knowing it with “absolute certainty”. Until your best friend has violated your trust by having an adulterous affair with your teenage daughter, or some other hideous “trespass” has been committed against you, you must persevere in faith, confident that "No trial has come to you except what is human. “God is faithful and will not let you be tried beyond your strength, but with the trial he will provide a way out so that you may be able to bear it.” Unfortunately, most of us are all too familiar with failure under temptation rather than perfect obedience through grace. Its reality, not theology, that we must deal with.

 

[BRB]

There is no absolute assurance when it can be taken away:

Is this your personal belief … or that of the Cath. Church ?

Christ works unceasingly to maintain his flock of disciples. Prodigal sons/daughters are numerous. Most are retained/recaptured … so it would appear.

Christ would never withdraw his salvation gift to a believer. Yes, salvation can be lost … so the Gospels teach. But, its always our deliberate choice to withdraw from faith in Christ. Any gift can be returned. Afterall, salvation is not earned !!! Thus, can we later reject and lose the gift ? Yes.

Christ will not force his will upon us. Judas was an apostate. Some Catholics later reject the Church and deny Christ.

In these cases … salvation assurance is not desired by those individuals. It’s referred to by Paul as making ‘shipwreck of our faith’. Did Luther do this ? Catholics say yes … Protestants no.

But, any Catholic disciple should be assurred of their salvation … on basis of living presence of H.S. within. If someone doesn’t have assurance of salvation … they have probably grieved the H.S. and can no longer feel presence of Trinity. This is not only clear teaching of Christ, but also Paul, and especially John.

 

[sandusky]

Sean Boyle:

The Church is either what she says she is or there is no christianity in the world.

I don’t agree with that; if the RC were obliterated tonight Christianity would still be in the world; IMO, the RC does not define Christianity.

The more accurate statement is, either “she’s what she says she is, or she isn’t," and I go with the latter.
Sean Boyle:

Unless of course, it make one feel better to ignore Church history altogether.

ISTM that’s the point given the most weight by contemporary Catholics—an historical pedigree. The Baptist warned the Jews against just such thinking.

 

[mikeledes]

Is this your personal belief … or that of the Cath. Church ?

Christ works unceasingly to maintain his flock of disciples. Prodigal sons/daughters are numerous. Most are retained/recaptured … so it would appear.

Christ would never withdraw his salvation gift to a believer. Yes, salvation can be lost … so the Gospels teach. But, its always our deliberate choice to withdraw from faith in Christ. Any gift can be returned. Afterall, salvation is not earned !!! Thus, can we later reject and lose the gift ? Yes.

Christ will not force his will upon us. Judas was an apostate. Some Catholics later reject the Church and deny Christ.

In these cases … salvation assurance is not desired by those individuals. It’s referred to by Paul as making ‘shipwreck of our faith’. Did Luther do this ? Catholics say yes … Protestants no.

But, any Catholic disciple should be assurred of their salvation … on basis of living presence of H.S. within. If someone doesn’t have assurance of salvation … they have probably grieved the H.S. and can no longer feel presence of Trinity. This is not only clear teaching of Christ, but also Paul, and especially John.

So you believe that salvation can be lost?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[BRB]

You are interesting but often confusing.
What is it that you mean when you use the term “salvation security”? Apart from divine personal revelation of your own salvation, we cannot declare “When I die I will go to heaven”. The reason for this is simple: you have not completed the race. .

The Gospels are replete with scriptures dealing with salvation assurance. Paul, esp. John give out the keys … and Christ told his 12 ‘exactly’ how they could have assurance.

Did Mary have assurance ? Need we even ask the question ?

Most of us won’t have visitation by an angel. But, we get an even better deal. Christ told his 12 they would be even better off [more assured and empowered] … once the 3rd person of Godhead was sent. Not in only a global sense to the Church … but to the laity, on individual basis.

As long as a Christian has H.S. … they have more than enough assurance. But, if we sin and don’t promptly confess … the H.S. will soon be driven away, and we are spiritually defenseless. Confess and receive Eucharist … and God’s graces will restore one’s fellowship to Christ via H.S.

H.S. is our spiritual barometer. Keep the tank on FULL … like the Pope and Magesterium … and maybe MD does

 

[BRB]

So you believe that salvation can be lost?

God Bless,
Michael

In one sense yes, in another no.

Heres the distinction … as I see it.

Its our free gift received, but later returned back to Christ … rejected by us. Christ never gives up on us … its always our choice to give back the gift.

So in the final analysis … its not really lost. Its rejected/returned by us. We are lost, by our on choice.

 

[moondweller]

guanophore:

I know. Even though you are trinitarian, you seem to believe that the Second Person of the Trinity somehow did not participate in the giving of the Law.

Though the text does not state it, it may very well have been the 2nd Person of the Trinity that spoke directly to Moses on Mt. Sinai. He is called the “Word” (Jn. 1:1).

However, the Son incarnated, being born into this world as a MAN, a Jew in fact, born under the Law. Though He is God He did not come into this world as God - the Law Giver - but one born UNDER it. He Himself, being born a Jew, was obligated to keep the covenant of Law in its entirety, and He did, perfectly. He, in fact, came to fulfill it. And fulfill it He did - not as God - but as a Man. He walked on this earth as a Man, a Jew, in complete obedience to the Law.

I did answer your comment above in a previous post: Here it is again:So what about the word “commandments” in relation to Christ in such passages as: Jn. 14:14, 21; 15:10; 1 Jn. 2:3; 3:22, 24; 5:2; Matt. 28:20; etc. It needs to be understood that when dealing with Jews in Israel He gave no commandments of His own relative to the rule of their lives. He recognized only the Law of Moses. During the time of His earthly ministry Israel was under the covenant of Law and when asked He responded accordingly: “What do you read in the Law,” or, He asked what Moses had commanded them.

Jesus did not use the term “My commandments” until the upper room discourse, the night before His sacrificial death (Jn. chapters 13-14). That discourse was not addressed to national Israel but to those few who were clean through the Word He had spoken to them (Jn. 15:3). In this portion of Scripture the cross is treated as an accomplished fact, and that whole body of teaching is dated beyond the cross as seen by His words in Jn. 14:29: “Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe.”

In respect to the covenant of Law, when addressing those whom He chose as His own, He placed them outside its authority as demonstrated by His words: “But {they have done this} to fulfill the word that is written in their (not “your”) Law…” (Jn. 15:25).

The “Upper Room Discourse” is the Genesis of the Epistles of the N.T. In it, in germ form, the great doctrines of GRACE are announced. His phrase, “My commandments” is reserved until this GRACE-revelation, because this term refers to the teachings (doctrines) of grace found in the Epistles, rather than to the Law. They are uniquely distinct.

His “new commandment” in Jn. 13:34 is in reference to those who will make up His church which He would build after His bodily resurrection and ascension back into glory - upon the foundation of the Apostles (Eph. 2:20-21). The ones who would be baptized into the “body of Christ” upon belief in Him; recipients of divine grace.

The commandments of Christ are not related to the Law or any aspect of it. They constitute the “law of love,” and the “perfect law of liberty.” They enter into the doctrines of GRACE set forth by Christ to His Apostles whom He gave authority and commandment, and are found in the Epistles which are addressed to His church.

 

[moondweller]

BRB:

MD & Sandy … give us your Christian credentials, CV, etc ? It will not prejudice our take on your posts … but, it will give us some insight into your Church’s beliefs and practices — and might even convince some of us to join your church.

My beliefs are my own (as beliefs should be). They are not derived from the local fellowship I now attend. I brought them with me and have taught them there. I don’t attend a church community to follow or be dictated by its established belief system. Nor is it a requirement of the church I now attend. But obviously I wouldn’t be attending there if we didn’t agree on the essentials.

I would bet MD will tell us that any ‘born again’ disciple in the Catholic Church will see heaven …if he stays faithful to the end, w/o putting his faith in the Mosaic law, but in Christ, our advocate before the Father, with regards to our law breaking pasts.

I believe EVERY “born again” believer is NOW a citizen of heaven waiting for the transformation of the body of his humble state into conformity with the body of Christ’s (Phil. 3:20-21). He Himself being the first fruits of the resurrection unto life. For all who are truly “born again” during this church age, this transformation will occur at the rapture of the church.

The problem lies with the Catholic idea that one is “born again” through water baptism - not necessarily through faith in Christ: “baptismal regeneration.” There’s some Protestant churches that have retained this Catholic notion.

And I’m leaning Catholic. Can’t I become Catholic and still enjoy ‘eternal security’ ?

No! You must jettison that cargo. What do you base your eternal security on, BRB?

 

[moondweller]

Mikeledes:

Here we go again. Regarding the Spirit enabling believers to keep God’s commandments, 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."

Let’s finish the passage, shall we?:Ezek 36:28 “**You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God.”**What “land” did God give to your forefathers, Mikeledes, that you’re now living in? The text does not indentify what those “statutes and ordinances” are.

Regarding keeping God’s commandments, Paul says:
19Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. Which commandments - as in plural - of God is he talking about?

How does the text indentify them? You’re asking me to answer according to your assumption.

6And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it. Love means to walk according to His commadments - as in plural. Walk according to which commandments? Paul explains how love means walking according to His commandments and what these commandments are.

You’re spinning. The commandment (singular) “from the beginning” is found in Jn. 13:34.

Romans 13:9

9For 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.”

Let’s read verse eight which puts it in context:Rom 13:8 ¶ Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled {the} law.He’s making a statement, Mike, not a conditional requirement. As I said in a previous post, the legasist mindset interprets all the exhortations for believers to live disciplined, godly lives as conditional statements (binding laws) regarding their salvation.

 

[moondweller]

In one sense yes, in another no.

Heres the distinction … as I see it.

Its our free gift received, but later returned back to Christ … rejected by us. Christ never gives up on us … its always our choice to give back the gift.

So in the final analysis … its not really lost. Its rejected/returned by us. We are lost, by our on choice.

Then you are truly leaning toward Catholicism (in fact in agreement). But none of this is Biblical. What does “eternal” in the phrase “eternal life” mean? How do you “give back” something that’s eternal. Especially in respect to life? Have you read 1 Jn. 5:9-15? What is the witness of God in verse eleven? Is the witness of men greater than God’s?Rom 3:4 "May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man {be found} a liar, as it is written, “THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED.”

 

[Philthy]

Christ would never withdraw his salvation gift to a believer. Yes, salvation can be lost … so the Gospels teach. But, its always our deliberate choice to withdraw from faith in Christ.

Correct - we simply do not know the future choices which we will make with PERFECT CERTAINTY. That is why the notion of absolute certainty that “when I die I am going to heaven” is erroneous unless you have recieved a personal, divine revelation from God. End of discussion.

 

[Philthy]

The Gospels are replete with scriptures dealing with salvation assurance. Paul, esp. John give out the keys … and Christ told his 12 ‘exactly’ how they could have assurance.

Did Mary have assurance ? Need we even ask the question ?

Most of us won’t have visitation by an angel. But, we get an even better deal. Christ told his 12 they would be even better off [more assured and empowered] … once the 3rd person of Godhead was sent. Not in only a global sense to the Church … but to the laity, on individual basis.

As long as a Christian has H.S. … they have more than enough assurance. But, if we sin and don’t promptly confess … the H.S. will soon be driven away, and we are spiritually defenseless. Confess and receive Eucharist … and God’s graces will restore one’s fellowship to Christ via H.S.

H.S. is our spiritual barometer. Keep the tank on FULL … like the Pope and Magesterium … and maybe MD does

You failed to define exactly what you mean by salvation assurance - despite quoting my asking for it. So in a sense I still dont know what you mean. From what you have posted your view is entirely consistent with Catholic teaching on the confidence we have of our eternal destiny. It isnt “absolute” in the sense that we recognize the possibility for all of us to fall from grace DESPITE the fact that Jesus “works unceasingly” to preserve us.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

My beliefs are my own (as beliefs should be). They are not derived from the local fellowship I now attend. I brought them with me and have taught them there. I don’t attend a church community to follow or be dictated by its established belief system. Nor is it a requirement of the church I now attend. But obviously I wouldn’t be attending there if we didn’t agree on the essentials.

Not speaking of moondweller specifically here…honestly.

Some of these comments do bring to mind the rather odd self involved notion that some non-denominational protestants need to believe to be valid in their own minds.

The idea that “my” faith can’t be defined, sounds so self-involved. The thinking goes like this, "my wisdom is so great and grand that the current belief systems that exist now can’t possible contain the whole of my understanding about God and faith therefore I am outside anyone’s definations on faith, and I exist their by myself.

No offense moondweller, not intenting to target you! Something I’ve come across with non-denomination protestants before.

It seems so weird to me. Sorry for the side track.

 

[mikeledes]

Let’s finish the passage, shall we?:Ezek 36:28 "You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God."What “land” did God give to your forefathers, Mikeledes, that you’re now living in?

So obviously you don’t believe that passage is reference to regeneration? You don’t believe that God put’s His Spirit in the Christian to cause them to walk in His commandments?

The text does not indentify what those “statutes and ordinances” are. How does the text indentify them? You’re asking me to answer according to your assumption.You’re spinning. The commandment (singular) “from the beginning” is found in Jn. 13:34.

I’m sorry, but you’re the one doing the spinning, avoiding the obvious. When Jesus, Paul, and John uses the word commandments (plural), what do you believe they are referring to?

**6And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it. **

John gives the meaning of the command to love. He categorically says that the command to love means to walk according to His commadments. Why does he use the plural, moondweller, if he is only talking about a single command?

Let’s read verse eight which puts it in context:Rom 13:8 ¶ Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled {the} law.He’s making a statement, Mike, not a conditional requirement. As I said in a previous post, the legasist mindset interprets all the exhortations for believers to live disciplined, godly lives as conditional statements (binding laws) regarding their salvation

I cited that passage to point out that Paul says Jesus’s command to love is a summary of the 10 commandments.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Teflon93]

Is this your personal belief … or that of the Cath. Church ?

Christ works unceasingly to maintain his flock of disciples. Prodigal sons/daughters are numerous. Most are retained/recaptured … so it would appear.

I don’t know this to be the case. Indeed, it is unknowable. If God tells you with certainty, please let us know.

Christ would never withdraw his salvation gift to a believer. Yes, salvation can be lost … so the Gospels teach. But, its always our deliberate choice to withdraw from faith in Christ. Any gift can be returned. Afterall, salvation is not earned !!! Thus, can we later reject and lose the gift ? Yes.

This is precisely why the Catholic definition of mortal sin, posted earlier, includes full knowledge and consent on the part of the sinner. We have free will; we also have the free gift from God of His grace. As the epistles note, some of us reject this gift of grace. In so doing, they reject the gift of salvation should they die in such a state. We hope that all who currently reject Christ embrace him before the end.

Christ will not force his will upon us. Judas was an apostate. Some Catholics later reject the Church and deny Christ.

True and true.

In these cases … salvation assurance is not desired by those individuals. It’s referred to by Paul as making ‘shipwreck of our faith’. Did Luther do this ? Catholics say yes … Protestants no.

True.

But, any Catholic disciple should be assurred of their salvation … on basis of living presence of H.S. within.

As the article I linked to notes, our issue is not with assurance of salvation should we die today. Most of us would have confidence in that regard today. The trouble is predicting the future, which none of us can do.

If someone doesn’t have assurance of salvation … they have probably grieved the H.S. and can no longer feel presence of Trinity.

It is more along the lines that sin begets sin, until the voice of the Spirit is tiny and unheeded.

This is not only clear teaching of Christ, but also Paul, and especially John.

I would rather say it is an implication of their teaching; part of the reason we continue to have discussion is that the Scriptural teaching is NOT so clearly stated, at least not in one place. This is why Christ founded a Church rather than writing the New Testament; we have difficulty understanding all that God has in mind for us and thus rely upon the full system of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium and the sacraments of the Church so empowered in order to help us persevere in Christ to the end.

This is why we Catholics insist that one must account for all of Scripture rather than craft traditions based on verses here and there. Moreover, Tradition is necessary because the Church has had to wrestle with the Truth entrusted to her for millennia to make explicit what is necessarily implicit in Scripture, such as the nature of the Holy Trinity. The Church in Scripture is in seed form; it is very difficult to describe the final flower from the seed alone----one must wait until it blooms.

 

[Teflon93]

My beliefs are my own (as beliefs should be). They are not derived from the local fellowship I now attend. I brought them with me and have taught them there. I don’t attend a church community to follow or be dictated by its established belief system. Nor is it a requirement of the church I now attend.

This is why I say that non-Catholics have an alien notion of the Church.

.No! You must jettison that cargo.

That is mighty prescriptive. With what authority have you been invested to make such dogmatic statements, Moondweller?

 

[Philthy]

moondweller:

Then you are truly leaning toward Catholicism (in fact in agreement). But none of this is Biblical. What does “eternal” in the phrase “eternal life” mean?

It is both a qualitative and quantitative description of the nature of life in Christ.
MD:

How do you “give back” something that’s eternal.

Same way its given to you! Why does the fact that it’s eternal effect whether it can be entered into or exited out of? If “eternal life” can be “entered” why can it not be “exited”? And remember - no matter what we do we recieve “eternity” after this life. Eternal life with Christ or eternal separation. It is not the quantity that we are choosing, rather the quality of our afterlife. During this life we can enter and exit qualitative “eternal life” with Christ - once we die, however, there is only quantitative eternity: heaven or hell.

Especially in respect to life? Have you read 1 Jn. 5:9-15? What is the witness of God in verse eleven?

Let’s all take a look at it…

And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

I guess I dont see the part that says we cant “lose” the Son (through choosing self over God) and thereby forfeit the “eternal life” which is conditional upon being one who “has the Son”. What we do know, is that Christ spoke of this “having” Him as “abiding” in Him. Is there any Scripture that hints, even warns of not continuing to abide in Christ? If there were, that would completely invalidate your limited understanding of the eternal life spoken of above. Take a look at this - from the same John:

“Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.”

Now forgive me for being oversimplistic, but doesnt Christ’s saying “remain” mean that it is possible to NOT remain in Him? Yes, of course it does. Does it make any sense to believe that you can “have” the Son (1John) yet not “remain” in Him? No, of course it doesnt.

"

If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned."

Oh boy - its getting uglier! Fire, burning…hmmm what could that be a reference to? Could it be…hell? I think it is! We must “remain” in Christ. Too bad He doesnt tell us how to do that…oh wait…here it is!

"

If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love."

Bring it on home! The “commands” must be obeyed!

“I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete.”(qualitative nature of eternal life!)
“My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.”

BTW this is where your separation of the commandments of Christ vs the Father come from isnt it? And where you conclude that we are only required to love “believers”? But there is one little problem, several in fact. Did Christ wait until they were “beleivers” to love them? Was it not an act of love on His part to say, “Come, follow me.”? I think it most assuredly was, and it happened before they were believers.

 

[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

I reaffirm what I stated in the above post.

God bless,
Michael

 

[moondweller]

Not speaking of moondweller specifically here…honestly.

Some of these comments do bring to mind the rather odd self involved notion that some non-denominational protestants need to believe to be valid in their own minds.

The idea that “my” faith can’t be defined, sounds so self-involved. The thinking goes like this, "my wisdom is so great and grand that the current belief systems that exist now can’t possible contain the whole of my understanding about God and faith therefore I am outside anyone’s definations on faith, and I exist their by myself.

No offense moondweller, not intenting to target you! Something I’ve come across with non-denomination protestants before.

It seems so weird to me. Sorry for the side track.

Well, the question was asked in a way that suggested that what I believe, doctrinally, I received from the leadership of the fellowship I now attend. Which, of course, is not true.

I have always considered it nothing less than “cult-ish” when people say “I’m Roman Catholic, or I’m Eastern Orthodox, or Methodist, or Lutheran,” or whatever, "therefore I (we) believe (or do not believe) this or that.

What then is the true object of this so-called packaged “faith?”

 

[mikeledes]

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.

Hey, I didn’t say you stink. Though I thought I was raising a new point, I respect your right to remain silent.

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.

My hope is in God and in His promises. Yes, righteousness does not have its origin in man, it comes from God and there is no effort or work that can free us from the bondage of sin and death and make us righteous before God. Everything is grace. By the grace and mercy of God, we have the gift of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of faith, hope, and love. By the grace and mercy of God we are incorporated into Christ and this incorporation makes our works good and pleasing to him because they are rooted in in faith working through love. We cannot boast before God because of our good works because it is God that gives us the ability to perform them:

John 15:5

5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.

This reminds me of the warning God gave to the people of Israel regarding prosperity:

Deuteronomy 8:11-14, 17

**11"Beware that you do not forget the LORD your God by not keeping His commandments and His ordinances and His statutes which I am commanding you today;
12otherwise, when you have eaten and are satisfied, and have built good houses and lived in them,
13and when your herds and your flocks multiply, and your silver and gold multiply, and all that you have multiplies,
14then your heart will become proud and you will forget the LORD your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. …17"Otherwise, you may say in your heart, ‘My power and the strength of my hand made me this wealth.’ 18"But you shall remember the LORD your God, for it is He who is giving you power to make wealth, that He may confirm His covenant which He swore to your fathers, as it is this day.
**

Those who rely on the Lord humbly recognize their dependance on Him and do not glory in their own works, but humbly work for the glory of God. And if they do not trust Him, if they do not have their faith and hope in Him, then their works are useless for…

Hebrews 11:6

**6And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who)comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. **

Now we turn to the context of 1 Timothy 6:17-18. Yes, Paul is telling the rich not to put their trust on riches - a constant theme in the Bible - and reminding them that they need to put their trust in the one who gives them those riches and provides for their physical needs and that they must use these riches for the greater glory of God.

However, that still does not take away from what he said regarding good works and the life that is truly life. Nor does that take away the fact that Paul uses the “hina” clause, connecting the previous clause on works with the clause on eternal life:

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 they may take hold of that which is life indeed.

The “hina” clause states the purpose of the antecedent clause.

God bless,
Michael