If it's not in the bible

[deb1]

Pax:

This issue of obedience is a great example of taking an isolated verse of scripture out of its proper context. If this verse was in any way absolute then Paul could not have said the following:

Eph 5:23-24
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be **subject in everything to their husbands. **

Please notice that this verse is not an absolute either, and yet it also has been misconstrued by many. A thorough reading of scripture can help untangle the misconceptions. I hope this will help your brother.

WHen I first became a christian, I read an awful book entitled **Me? Obey Him?:nope: **In it the author advocated a woman’s complete and utter obedience to her hubby, even if it meant doing something contrary to scripture like getting an abortion! :banghead: Her reasoning was that God would forgive the woman because she was subject to her husband, and thus following God’s will. It was the man who would get punished. Besides, she reasons God will prevent the said abortion from being carried through if the woman prays hard enough. The woman, the author says, must obey her hubby as if he were God.:nope: They have this book on Amazon.com, if anyone doesn’t believe that there are women who go to this extreme.

 

[johnshelby]

RyanL:

Like this?

James 2:4You see then how that by works a man is justified, and **not by faith alone.

**Or this?

1 Pet 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us…



God Bless,
RyanL

it’s James 2:24,
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;
23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God.
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

and yes, Abraham was saved by works…
in fact, before the Lord died on the cross, the only to be
saved was by works…

and yes, baptism does save, but it doesn’t say that’s the
ONLY way to be saved… plus, the whole verse is…

21Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

i believe that the ‘appeal to God’ refers to saving faith… and before
you say it, yes infant baptism saves a child… thru the faith of
the priest and the parents, and the fact that the child is free from
all but, original sin, which baptism washes away…

 

[johnshelby]

i’m sorry… i seem to be drifting off topic…

what exactly is it that is causing this contention??

is it your faith?? does your parents have a problem with
your faith? or is it in general matters??

 

[RyanL]

johnshelby:

…AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," …
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

and yes, Abraham was saved by works…
in fact, before the Lord died on the cross, the only to be
saved was by works…

I disagree. While Abraham was saved before Christ, I don’t think he was saved by “Works Alone”.
Rom 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? * “Abraham believed God, and it was* * accounted to him for righteousness.”*

Additionally, I would say that Elijah, Enoch, and Moses were pretty saved fellas (being either taken into heaven directly or presented at the transfiguration), but it wasn’t by their works alone they were saved. I’m not so sure God has changed His mind on this: “the obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5;16:26) - if you separate the faith from the obedience, the obedience is worthless. If you separate the obedience from the faith, the faith is worthless. The difference between Pre-Christ and Post-Christ is that our works are now God working through us, and not us working in obedience to the Law. Perhaps it’s a fine distinction, but it is one I would argue for drawing. Additionally, by Christ’s atoning sacrifice and purifying work we are now afforded the opportunity to join with God in eternal life, whereas before Christ’s work the gates of heaven were closed. But this is just my opinion…

and yes, baptism does save, but it doesn’t say that’s the ONLY way to be saved… plus, the whole verse is…

21Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

i believe that the ‘appeal to God’ refers to saving faith… and before you say it, yes infant baptism saves a child… thru the faith of the priest and the parents, and the fact that the child is free from all but, original sin, which baptism washes away…

I *think *we agree on this. When both of the CCC references we cited are read together, I think there is harmony. God has made a promise to us via Baptism, but God is not limited to only that promise. I would assert, however, that outside of the promise it is mere speculation as to what God will do in His infinite justice and mercy. We cannot claim “God will”, but only claim that “God may if He so chooses” as far as salvation without Baptism (either by water or desire/blood).

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Mystophilus]

RyanL:

I also do not appreciate the constant reference to Catholics as “cats”, nor do I enjoy the continued contrast between “cats” and “dogs”, which I can only take as an abbreviation for “Dogmatists”, or those Catholics who are completely fathful to the Magisterium. Simply because some cafeteria Catholics choose to ignore the teachings of the Church, I cannot justify the pejorative “cats”. Similarly, I will not tolerate anyone using the term “ants” as slang for Protestants, nor “ox” or “oxen” as shorthand for the Orthodox. The separation between the Catholics and the Orthodox is the lack of Petrine Primacy, which I won’t allow to be called “Pet”. We are all members of God’s family.

In summation, and using the terms of this thread,
All Cats should be Dogs, all Ants are Cats if you pour water on them correctly (even though they may still think they are Ants), and if you took the Pet away from a Dog, you would have an Ox.

:clapping: :bowdown2:

This is the best post that I have ever seen anywhere about anything!!!

Apart from being hilarious, it is a fabulously apt essentialisation of the different doctrinal positions.

It deserves an award!

 

[MikeinSD]

:clapping: :bowdown2:

This is the best post that I have ever seen anywhere about anything!!!

Apart from being hilarious, it is a fabulously apt essentialisation of the different doctrinal positions.

It deserves an award!

I think Ryan L did a wonderful post! Bravo!