Reading Scripture together as Christians

[cfrancis]

We know that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Your quote from Rom 8 is not Paul saying salvation is assured. As you remind us, context is key:
Rom 7:
22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,
23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.
24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?
25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.
Rom 8
1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in (I)the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
4 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.

And as Christians, we know we can only do the works God prepared for us to do through Christ. And we know God will reward Christians for the work He prepared and enabled for them to do. It is all of grace. God is just going to reward Christians for the work that they did in Christ. The idea is that God crowns us for what He has done in us… grace upon grace. The credit or reward has nothing to do with our justification or position, or legal standing before God. It only has to do with Heveanly rewards.

And God, should we choose not to do as we ought, will also “reward” us for our sins/omitted works. Jesus spoke to this in Mt 25:14-30, 31-46 and Lk 19:11-27; and Paul reiterates Christ’s message in Rom 2:
5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:
7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

 

[cfrancis]

cfrancis;4299770:

I’m not sure where we are disagreeing in suffering? Does a non-believer suffer like a believer. Why does Paul state that we are granted faith and suffering? Look at the book and the context. Who is causing the suffering, and who is receivng the suffering, and why?

This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God. 29 For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, 30 engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have. - Phil 1

No disagreement, but agreement. Why did you think I was disagreeing?

 

[sandusky]

I mentioned these verses earlier and don’t remember getting a response. (I apologize if you did)

if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead. (3:11)

Paul shares Christ’s sufferings so that “if possible” he may attain resurrection. Paul does not view his own resurrection as a certainty. He hopes for salvation instead of thinking its a guarantee.

Why do you think that is?

It is not that I am eager for the gift; rather, I am eager for the profit that accrues to your account. (Phil 4:17)

I shared the Catholic understanding of this verse. What does it mean to you?

In the light of his ambition and longing (v10), Paul thus hopes somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. Could the apostle be in doubt about his final salvation? He never lacked the assurance that he was a child of God, accepted by God (Rom. 8:15–17; Gal. 4:6–7), yet he was never complacent or presumptuous. Faith must endure to the end (Mk. 13:13; Heb. 3:14). We should read Paul’s words here as an expression not as of doubt, but as of humility.

As Paul confidently states later concerning his citizenship, it is in heaven (v 20).

 

[ryanoneil]

Maybe all regenerate Christians must suffer for God’s transformation process? I think if a professer does not face tribulation as promised by Jesus, than that person needs to question if they were actually converted. Look at Paul again in Phillipians 1 in regards to being granted faith and suffering.

There are subtle nuances between our different traditions, but in general I agree. We don’t see conversion as a one shot deal though.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. (Mat 16:24)

We know salvation is a process… pressing ahead… and not fully obtain… we haven’t been rescused from this body of death in fullness… because we struggle with indwelling sin, right?

I don’t know about indwelling sin, but agree about the propensity to sin. Maybe we should talk about the process of salvation. I don’t understand how salvation is a process if justification is a one shot deal.

**Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered; and when he was made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him (Heb 5:8-9) **

We know that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. And as Christians, we know we can only do the works God prepared for us to do through Christ. And we know God will reward Christians for the work He prepared and enabled for them to do. It is all of grace. God is just going to reward Christians for the work that did in Christ. The idea is that God crowns us for what He has done in us… grace upon grace.

For the most part I agree, except Christians who later choose not to do the works God prepared for us. (being cut off the vine)

Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that increases to your credit.

The credit or reward has nothing to do with our justification or position, or legal standing before God. It only has to do with Heveanly rewards. To understand Protestant comments, you have to understand our mindset or justification through imputation. I understand the mindset of Roman Catholics with justification being final upon your copperation with the grace of God at the end of your pilgrimage.

I kind of thought that’s how you viewed it. I have a basic understanding of imputed justification. Maybe we should talk about this.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Saul to Paul, Abram to Abraham, Sari to Sarah, Peter to ?. I did not know Jesus addressed Peter by another name after the account recorded in Matthew 16.

Peter’s name was Simon.

 

[Reformed]

There are subtle nuances between our different traditions, but in general I agree. We don’t see conversion as a one shot deal though.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. (Mat 16:24)

I don’t know about indwelling sin, but agree about the propensity to sin. Maybe we should talk about the process of salvation. I don’t understand how salvation is a process if justification is a one shot deal.

We finally come full circle to our division and the Protestant Reformation. Justification by faith is the heart of our division and is the great good news of God. Justification is taught specifically in Romans chapters 3 and 4. However, our fate on this thread is in your hands. Let’s finish this book and you can choose to do a letter by Paul at the end of the day. I think Romans or Galatians will drive a discussion on justification. We can do other shorter books by Paul too… because Paul was quite obessed about the gospel of God’s grace in all his letters. BTW…the process of salvation is taught in Romans 8 and the entire book of Romans. I don’t think Luther was wrong when he stated that the church stands or fall on the article of justificatiion by faith. I see this letting go of this foundational doctrine in Protestant churches, including Reformed Churches…when that happens…it’s leads to a form of Roman Catholicisim (IMO). Maybe all roads lead to Rome after-all. But what should we do as Christians at the fork on the road?

 

[Reformed]

Peter’s name was Simon.

Maybe you are right!

Was his name Simon, Simon Peter, Peter or Cephas?

Results from Matthew 4:18 - John 21:11
Matthew 4:18 (Show me Matthew 4)

Jesus Calls the First Disciples
While walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon (who is called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen.

Matthew 10:2 (Show me Matthew 10)
The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;

Matthew 16:16 (Show me Matthew 16)
Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Mark 3:16 (Show me Mark 3)
He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter);

 

[ryanoneil]

In the light of his ambition and longing (v10), Paul thus hopes somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. Could the apostle be in doubt about his final salvation? He never lacked the assurance that he was a child of God, accepted by God (Rom. 8:15–17; Gal. 4:6–7), yet he was never complacent or presumptuous. Faith must endure to the end (Mk. 13:13; Heb. 3:14). We should read Paul’s words here as an expression not as of doubt, but as of humility.

As Paul confidently states later concerning his citizenship, it is in heaven (v 20).

Your point about Paul’s humility is well taken, and enduring to the end is important to mention. Paul’s opponents claimed a status already attained. Paul is expressing a hope which is confident, but I don’t think he’s talking about a guarantee.

compair to:

Thus I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight as if I were shadowboxing. No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified. (1 Cor 9:26-27)

 

[Reformed]

Your point about Paul’s humility is well taken, and enduring to the end is important to mention. Paul’s opponents claimed a status already attained. Paul is expressing a hope which is confident, but I don’t think he’s talking about a guarantee.

compair to:

Thus I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight as if I were shadowboxing. No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified. (1 Cor 9:26-27)

I am not attempting to speak for Sandusky because we are completely united on the essentials of the faith. I love the Church that he attends. I agree with him even when I disagree with him because we all know in part.

I think Paul speaks this way because he believed in the concept of the visible and invisble church. Jesus clearly taught that the visible church contains both wheat and tares, thus the invisble church is only the wheat. Look how Paul writes. He is saying to examine if you are actually in the faith (actually converted). In 1 John, the Apostle John writes the same way, are you really in the faith in the first place? Do you bear the marks and have the desire of a new creation in Christ? Or, do you have the marks and desire of those who are not converted (James 2)? The Spirit wars with the flesh… and those who are in the flesh (uncoverted) cannot please God, nor will they have a true desire to love and please God - Rom 8. Even Peter writes this way… make your calling and election sure by doing this…

2 Corinthians 13:5

Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!

 

[ryanoneil]

I don’t think Luther was wrong when he stated that the church stands or fall on the article of justificatiion by faith. I see this letting go of this foundational doctrine in Protestant churches, including Reformed Churches…when that happens…it’s leads to a form of Roman Catholicisim (IMO). Maybe all roads lead to Rome after-all. But what should we do as Christians at the fork on the road?

It’s definately a complicated issue. Especially when the same words has different meanings to different people.

It would be helpful to have a discussion where we started off with yes or no questions.

example: Does justification mean this? Y or N
Does it mean this? etc. . .

That way if we knew where everybody was coming from, we might have an easier time moving forward.

 

[Reformed]

It’s definately a complicated issue. Especially when the same words has different meanings to different people.

It would be helpful to have a discussion where we started off with yes or no questions.

example: Does justification mean this? Y or N
Does it mean this? etc. . .

That way if we knew where everybody was coming from, we might have an easier time moving forward.

Let’s just trust that God the Holy Spirit is working in all our hearts while we work through a book. Please pick a new book when you have time for tomorrow. Let’s see if anyone wants to comment on the last two chapters of Phillipians for today.

 

[sandusky]

ryanoneil:

Your point about Paul’s humility is well taken, and enduring to the end is important to mention. Paul’s opponents claimed a status already attained. Paul is expressing a hope which is confident, but I don’t think he’s talking about a guarantee.

compair to:

Thus I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight as if I were shadowboxing. No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified. (1 Cor 9:26-27)

Paul’s humility, with respect to his ministry, which was conferred upon him by the will and the calling of God (Rom 1:11, etc).

Insisting that Paul was unsure of his salvation, IMO, is absurd.

 

[Reformed]

1 Corinthians 15:10

But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

The worst of all sinners - Paul

 

[guanophore]

Please don’'t misunderstand me. I stated that the book of Revelation is difficult to understand. I never stated or implied I have difficulites understanding the letters of Paul (by the grace of God).

No, I did not mean to imply that you did, either. My point was that both are letters written by an Apostle to specific communities for specific problems at a specific time in history.

I would not create doctrines related to the gospel from the book of Revelation. It seems Ryan was attempting to do that through his quote of Revelation. The books of Romans, Ephesians, and Galatians are much better books to understand the great good news of God (gospel of grace) as compared to the book of Revelation.

By whose standard? “much better books” “as compared”. It seems that you have made your own judgement based on which material will best fit into your theology.

This is one of the major differences between Catholic and Reformed theology. Catholics get their doctrine from Christ, through the Apostles. We receive all of it, and do not exclude parts of what is revealed so that we can “create doctrines” as you do. We then look at the scriptures in the light of the teaching we have received, so that we can understand them from the point of view from which they were written.

It is also very important from my perspective to seperate my idea of Roman Catholic from catholic (universal). It is not made to offend, by to keep a doctrinal distinctive.

Yes, I think that is part of what keeps us alienated from one another. You have made it clear that “my idea of Roman Catholic” is not, in reality, what “Roman Catholic” is.

I would not react so strongly on this point if you did not use the term with so much pejorative language accompanying it.

Apostolic teaching is limited to the Apostles in the Scriptures.

This is a lie that you have been taught to believe. Have you ever considered what it might be like if you considered that this was not true? I mean, what if you were to just “role play”, for the sake of being able to see from a different perspective, that this is not the case. Ever been on a debate team? Ever debated a position you did not espouse? It really helps to broaden the mind.

It has nothing to do with a claim of apostolic succession taught by Roman Catholicism and Mormonism.

I am sorry, but if you believe that that the Apostolic succession taught by Roman Catholicism is anything like that of Roman Catholicism, then you grossly misunderstand one or the other, an perhaps both.

The Reformers believed it was necessary to jettison the idea of Apostolic Succession in order to jettison the corruption they observed in the so called adherants to it.

12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13 Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. 16 Only let us hold true to what we have attained." Phil. 3.

I have always wondered by OSAS folks do not espouse this view, which Paul states is more “mature” than the one they do espouse.

This passage is one that supports the Catholic practice of venerating the saints.

"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. 9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.Phil 4

I always wonder why some people think that death separates us from the Love of God, or from one another, in His love. The honor and excellence of the saints does not vanish at their deaths. On the contrary, their deeds follow them.

Saul to Paul, Abram to Abraham, Sari to Sarah, Peter to ?. I did not know Jesus addressed Peter by another name after the account recorded in Matthew 16.

I have heard converts say that there were verses invisible to them when they were Protestants. I guess this is a good example of that phenomenon.

Matt 16:17
17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah!

At the point where Jesus decided to build His Church on the Rock, Jesus changed Simon’s name to “Peter” (Rock). He did this on purpose.

 

[ryanoneil]

Paul’s humility, with respect to his ministry, which was conferred upon him by the will and the calling of God (Rom 1:11, etc).

Insisting that Paul was unsure of his salvation, IMO, is absurd.

I guess it depends on ones understanding of salvation.

What could Paul be refering to other than salvation in (1 Cor 9:26-27)?

 

[cfrancis]

Let’s just trust that God the Holy Spirit is working in all our hearts while we work through a book. Please pick a new book when you have time for tomorrow. Let’s see if anyone wants to comment on the last two chapters of Phillipians for today.

Phil 3
8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ,
9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,
10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death;
11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
12 Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.
13 Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead,
14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

 

[Reformed]

Originally Posted by Reformed
Apostolic teaching is limited to the Apostles in the Scriptures.

This is a lie that you have been taught to believe. Have you ever considered what it might be like if you considered that this was not true? I mean, what if you were to just “role play”, for the sake of being able to see from a different perspective, that this is not the case. Ever been on a debate team? Ever debated a position you did not espouse? It really helps to broaden the mind.

Here’s the problem. If you cannot supply me with the deposit of faith that was once for all delivered to the Saints, then we have an on-going source of revelation. I am aiming at a moving target. Sacred Tradition and the claim of apostolic succession will always put the Magestrium’s authority over and above everything else. The Faith for a Catholic is believing what the Catholic Church tells them to believe because of this authority claim. It nullifies the light of the Scriptures (IMO). You can actually watch this played out in the testimonies of Protestant converts like Scott Hahn. The source of final authority will always drive what someone believes. Do you agree with my conclusion?

Jude 1:3

Judgment on False Teachers
3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

This verse probably doesn’t mean much to a Roman Catholic Christian. All you can defend is apparent apostolic succession.

 

[sandusky]

I guess it depends on ones understanding of salvation.

What could Paul be refering to other than salvation in (1 Cor 9:26-27)?

Contextually the entire chapter is about his apostleship, his ministry, and not about is salvation, Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord…? (v 1).

Disqualification of his apostleship, his ministry (also, will never happen, as scripture attests).

Again, to insist that Paul is not sure of his salvation, IMO, is absurd.

 

[ryanoneil]

I guess it depends on ones understanding of salvation.

What could Paul be refering to other than salvation in (1 Cor 9:26-27)?

If salvation is absolutely assured in his mind why would Paul hope? Because his hope is assured IF he perseveres to the end.

through whom we have gained access (by faith) to this grace in which we stand, and we boast in hope of the glory of God. Not only that, but we even boast of our afflictions, knowing that affliction produces endurance, and endurance, proven character, and proven character, hope, and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy Spirit that has been given to us.(Rom 2:2-5)

 

[Reformed]

If salvation is absolutely assured in his mind why would Paul hope? Because his hope is assured IF he perseveres to the end.

through whom we have gained access (by faith) to this grace in which we stand, and we boast in hope of the glory of God. Not only that, but we even boast of our afflictions, knowing that affliction produces endurance, and endurance, proven character, and proven character, hope, and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy Spirit that has been given to us.(Rom 2:2-5)

Romans 2:2-5 is another favorite out of context verse used as a staple by Roman Catholics, just like Phil 2:12 without 13, and James 2. Romans 2:2-5 goes with Romans chapter 1, the rest of Romans 2, 3, 4, and 5. , and 6, 7, 8, and 9… and even 10. The chapters are not inspired…it’s one letter in thought. Have you considered the commands of Paul in rightly dividing the Word of Truth and the warnings of the Apostle Peter in twisting the words of Paul?