Refuting Reformed Theology on "2 Corinthians 5:21"

[Gadgeteer]

Oops! A lot of people make that mistake, because of the name. But I’m a 60 year old man.

Well — then — my cherished brother! :hug1:

33 year married to the same lovely woman and father of four.

Goodness! I’m beginning to think you’re SERIOUS about her!

I took the name “De Maria” in line with the old and cherished Catholic tradition of Saints who take on our Lady’s mantle. Examples: Sts. Alphonsus “de Marie” Liguori and Louis “Marie” de Montfort.

I dated someone named Maria; “Maria Jesus”. Whattre the odds…

The gift of salvation is not like a birthday gift. In order to receive the gift of salvation, one must exert some effort with regards to God’s commands. There’s no sitting on the sidelines.

You’re quite right, I was right in that “it is a gift we volitionally receive”; but I was very wrong if someone perceived that “we blithely and complacently receive a present”. No, salvation is a union between two very real people — Creator (Jesus!), and creature (you and me!). As someone else posted, it is far from sufficient to know OF God, we absolutely have to know Him personally.

“Father, eternal life is knowing You, and knowing (Me).” Jn17:3

Revelation 3:16 So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.

And reading further, “I stand at the door and knock; if anyone OPENS the door I shall come in and sup with him, and he with Me…”

that would be as though Jesus’ Cross does not reach all the way across the chasm! It does — it’s the bridge that is COMPLETE.

Certainly. But only those who do the works which God commands will be allowed to cross the bridge:

Matt 22:11 But when the king came in to meet the guests he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment. 12 He said to him, ‘My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?’ But he was reduced to silence. 13 Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’ 14 Many are invited, but few are chosen.”

It all goes to cause and effect; do we do things TO CROSS the bridge, or do we do things because we have crossed the bridge (because He lives in us)? The difference is significant…

Sin separated us from God, Jesus now bridges the gap; I know you’ve seen those tracts showing the Cross connecting both sides. Those “certificates-of-debt” were nailed to the Cross, not nailed to a rope PARTWAY TO the Cross; they are up all the way on His Cross. We don’t have to carry those condemning papers any part of the way, they’re “nailed to the Cross”. He nailed it there, but it is as if those nails, are fabricated out of our FAITH. I think that’s another good “word-picture”! He nailed our debts to His Cross, but if we do not persevere in faith the nails go away, and the hateful paper flutters back onto us!

We are still in debt. Not to the flesh, but to the Spirit:

Romans 8:11 If the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the one who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also, through his Spirit that dwells in you. 12 Consequently, brothers, we are not debtors to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

But see we are not actually doing anything on our power! If BY THE SPIRIT we put to death our flesh — His power, through our faith. It’s the same as I quoted in 2Cor1:12-14, “Guard by the Spirit who indwells us, the treasure (of eternal life!) entrusted to you”!

I don’t think you really answered Col2:14. Let’s start with Rom4:4:

“Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.”

What does that have to do with our sins? Let’s read Rom6:23:

“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

The wages of sin are death — we really do run up a debt by pursuing sin, we earn a wage of death.

“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…” Rom2:5

By working sin, we store up a debt of wrath and condemnation for ourselves; that is why Col2:14 is so critical — Jesus CANCELED out our certificate of debt, He has NAILED IT TO THE CROSS.

Nailed to the Cross — that’s something that happened two thousand years ago. And as I said, we can consider those nails as having been fabricated out of our faith. Without faith that certificate of debt is not nailed to the Cross.

While Rom2 continues to discuss “judged according to our deeds”, if the actual placement of that certificate-of-debt depended on something we do NOW, it could not have been “nailed-to-the-Cross” two thousand years ago! It would have to be somewhere in between, hanging on a thread until we complete the rest of the distance.

No, Paul plainly said “nailed-to-the-Cross”. His finished work, our faith-nails, but it was (provisionally!) fully affixed to the Cross two thousand years ago. In truth, it is only when a person disbelieves and rejects Jesus (as all who are perishing have done!), that the certificate gets pulled off because of unbelief.

 

[Gadgeteer]

Gadget:

There is one Savior — “there is no Savior but Him”. Isaiah43:11. When Paul says “save-yourselves” in 1Tim4:16, and Jude says “save-others” in vs 23, it means we are to lead them to THE Savior, we do not actually do the saving!

Yes, we do. It’s not a zero sum game. Jesus did the major work. But if we don’t do the rest, we will be lost.

So Jesus did PART of the work, and we do the REST? That nasty certificate hangs on a rope somewhere short of the Cross? (And it’s up to us to move it the rest of the way?)

You believe that?

Unfortunately, although your ideas are closer to Catholic Doctrine, they are still off the mark.

The main problem, I assume, is that you join other Protestants in believing that WE are supposed to read Scripture and figure out what to believe. But Scripture says:

Hebrews 13:7 Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.

And, that’s the difference between every non-Catholic and Catholics. We submit to the Teaching authority of Christ which now resides in the Church. Not in ourselves.

Ephesians 3:10 so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities in the heavens.

I believe in the “authority of Scriptures”, to which many Catholics also profess. In those circumstances when Scripture is clear, it doesn’t matter what any church says — we cannot go against what the Apostles wrote. I realize that will be an “inflammatory statement in the world of Catholicism” — but I gave an example about the idea of “authority”.

The example was a quote from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops — an accepted authority — on 1Cor3:1-3. They perceived that the “carnal Christians”, were saved. I pointed out the words “jealousy and strife”, which Paul plainly says in Gal5:19-21 “those who do, will not inherit”. So either there is an exemption to Paul’s absolute in Gal5, that some can still waltz through Heaven’s gates with jealousy and strife, or in spite of what Paul said in 1Cor3 they were NOT in “jealousy and strife”, or the Bishops were not right. Those are our choices. And then I said "If anyone decides the Bishops were not entirely right, that is no cause to go charging into any assembly combatively."

All I ask is just for people to keep their hearts and minds open to what the Apostles wrote; I am not out to change anyone, and certainly not out to cause divisions and strife in any assembly, including Catholic.

I enjoy your replies, pray that you enjoy mine, and I look forward to your thoughts about “‘how closely was the certificate of debt nailed to Jesus’ Cross in Col2:14”…

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi, Gadgeteer!

It’s the old ego trip thing… remember the rich young man? ‘…been there; done that… from early on…’ then Jesus ups the ante: sell (give up what ties you to the world), give to the poor (buy the “good” gold), then Come and Follow Me (Abide in Me)…

…sadly, people keep thinking that only the rich (financially wealthy) will have a hard time entering the Kingdom… but it is not only money that will cause man to lose his Way… self-assurance and pride do as much damage… perhaps even more since through these man can impede/derail not only his own Salvation but that of all of the humanity.

You’re right. “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me” — what is an idol? It is any thing, or any ONE, that occupies a higher place in our esteem than God…

…but it is progressive, though… as is going to hell in a handbasket!

Yes …well …America is in hot pursuit, if we do not remember our Godly heritage. Do you have a TBN affiliate where you are? They’re running David Barton’s “America’s Godly Heritage” — very excellent video. America is great, because America is good; if America ever ceases to be good (Christian), it will cease to be great. (Alexis De Toqueville…)

…actually, not; …just don’t let St. Paul hear you:

I didn’t mean to disparage anyone wearing a Cross; whenever I see one on a necklace, or one on a wall or t-shirt, it makes me smile — they are thinking about Jesus, and so is anyone who sees it.

…and, aside from His Own Person, this is what Christ presented as a sign of Salvation:

…so while we Catholics celebrate Jesus’ Resurrection and Ascension, we must Celebrate our Salvation not in an empty tomb or a plain cross… but in the Crucifix: Christ Crucified for the sin of the world… consider too Christ’s own sign on His Parousia:

For me, I know what He went through, and am full of sorrow that my sin contributed to His suffering. :imsorry:

And yet, I’m full of humble gratitude that He DID, and of His love which compelled Him to suffer; love that completes me, and embraces me forever. I do not envision Him suffering continually — that is as Heb6:6 says, they continue to crucify Him over and over by constant sin. No, I grieve for His death, I willingly join Him in death (my old sinful self dies), and now I walk hand-in-hand with Him out of the empty tomb. For the place He and I are in now, is not on that cruel Cross; but victorious in His resurrection.

You’re right that we have to crucify our flesh daily, but we are to walk in His “alive from the dead presence” also daily.

To each his own, JCR…

Correct! …it is the reason why St. James admonishes us to be doers of the Word!

Wasn’t it James who also said “He who hears and is not a doer, is like an unstable man who sees himself in a mirror, but walks away and forgets what he looks like…”?

 

[De_Maria]

I responded; among other things, I asked "what would you do if your daughter handed you a stack of money for the car? You’d be pretty chapped!

Why? I’d be very proud. She is standing on her own two feet. She’s learning the value of sacrifice. She’s showing her gratitude. Why would I turn a wonderful gesture into something bad?

Why do they do good works? To be saved? Nay, that’s the approach all religion has – “if you’re good you’ll go to Heaven, if you’re bad you’ll go to (other-place)”…

It happens to be right. The Holy Spirit blows where it will. Other religions aren’t completely wrong. They have some aspects of truth in them. Even non-Christians love their mothers and fathers.

Rather, your and my understanding is that we draw near to GOD, and the good works are consequential.

True. Good works are a consequence of faith. But not, of justification. Justification is a consequence of faith and good works.

Jesus sacrifice was sufficient for us to be justified. But in order to be justified, we have to walk the rest of the way:

Romans 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

 

[jcrichton]

The example was a quote from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops — an accepted authority — on 1Cor3:1-3. They perceived that the “carnal Christians”, were saved. I pointed out the words “jealousy and strife”, which Paul plainly says in Gal5:19-21 “those who do, will not inherit”. So either there is an exemption to Paul’s absolute in Gal5, that some can still waltz through Heaven’s gates with jealousy and strife, or in spite of what Paul said in 1Cor3 they were NOT in “jealousy and strife”, or the Bishops were not right. Those are our choices. And then I said "If anyone decides the Bishops were not entirely right, that is no cause to go charging into any assembly combatively."

All I ask is just for people to keep their hearts and minds open to what the Apostles wrote; I am not out to change anyone, and certainly not out to cause divisions and strife in any assembly, including Catholic.

I enjoy your replies, pray that you enjoy mine, and I look forward to your thoughts about “‘how closely was the certificate of debt nailed to Jesus’ Cross in Col2:14”…

Hi, Gadgeteer!

…this is one of the issues that I recon goes to vocabulary.

…it would be nice to have the actual excerpt quoted along side the passage from Scriptures.

I’ve attempted to explain to you how you may be going on an erroneous understanding of both the Bishops and Scriptures…

True, St. Paul is sanctioning strife and dissention amongst the Believers… but he is not claiming that they have ceased to be Believers because they have sinned in their behavior/act/s; rather, as he has done in several Epistles, he is cautioning the Believers that if we are to return to our sinful existence (a life of unrighteousness) we will not inherit the Kingdom.

I’ve showed you where St. Paul speaks of the flesh, as in being a carnal man, and of the desires of the flesh, which war against the Holy Spirit.

…so unless the Bishops are teaching that man can live in a sinful/unrighteous existence and still be “Saved,” I think that you must further study what they actually mean to convey.

…again, either St. Paul is saying that any Believer that sins is no longer a Believer (as some claim that Scriptures teach) or St. Paul is Teaching that even Believers who embrace a sinful/unrighteous life will lose Salvation.

Personally, though I’ve not read the material from the Bishop’s site, I doubt that the Catholic Bishops are espousing OSAS–no matter how much one sins and relishes the sinful existence and refuses to Repent and Return to God, that person is “Saved.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

You’re right. “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me” — what is an idol? It is any thing, or any ONE, that occupies a higher place in our esteem than God…


Yes …well …America is in hot pursuit, if we do not remember our Godly heritage. Do you have a TBN affiliate where you are? They’re running David Barton’s “America’s Godly Heritage” — very excellent video. America is great, because America is good; if America ever ceases to be good (Christian), it will cease to be great. (Alexis De Toqueville…)

Hi, Gadgeteer!

…it amazes me how the human experience has demonstrated this (beginning with the Jews) and man is still bent on not only rejecting God but actively warring against God.

…we see the experience of the Crusades… when the battle was to safe keep the Holy Land… they were fully successful; when the battles turn to greed and power mongering, they failed; we have the Moros occupying Spain for hundreds of years… as their attention turned to the eradication of Christendom… they failed and were driven back… then we have the various episodes in the West’s not distant history… and do you recall the US’s public school system when “prayer” in school was not illegal?

…“progressives” caused a hole to be torn in the heart of public education only to be filled with hatred, strife, violence, and death… remove God from man’s heart and mind, and as Jesus stated:

44 Then it says, “I will return to the home I came from”. But on arrival, finding it unoccupied, swept and tidied, 45 it then goes off and collects seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they go in and set up house there, so that the man ends up by being worse than he was before. That is what will happen to this evil generation.’

(St. Matthew 12:44-45)
…ditto in the Spirituality of the business arena… when “enlightened” professors removed “virtue” from their classrooms they taught that the means justifies the ends–and the corruption explosion erupted engulfing all levels of public and private sectors: ‘do onto others, and run with the loot!’

I didn’t mean to disparage anyone wearing a Cross; whenever I see one on a necklace, or one on a wall or t-shirt, it makes me smile — they are thinking about Jesus, and so is anyone who sees it.

For me, I know what He went through, and am full of sorrow that my sin contributed to His suffering. :imsorry:

And yet, I’m full of humble gratitude that He DID, and of His love which compelled Him to suffer; love that completes me, and embraces me forever. I do not envision Him suffering continually — that is as Heb6:6 says, they continue to crucify Him over and over by constant sin. No, I grieve for His death, I willingly join Him in death (my old sinful self dies), and now I walk hand-in-hand with Him out of the empty tomb. For the place He and I are in now, is not on that cruel Cross; but victorious in His resurrection.

You’re right that we have to crucify our flesh daily, but we are to walk in His “alive from the dead presence” also daily.

To each his own, JCR…
…this too is part of vocabulary (understanding); I replied because too many times non-Catholics go with personal’s/groups’ understanding of the Catholic Church, not with what the Catholic Church Believes/Understands.

Wasn’t it James who also said “He who hears and is not a doer, is like an unstable man who sees himself in a mirror, but walks away and forgets what he looks like…”?

…yes; his comparison is so clear that only a blind person could miss it; a doer of the Word actually embraces God’s Word and Abides in Christ… if he/she veers off (as it happens) Knowledge of the Word that is in him/her will Compel him/her to Return to God (Isaiah 1:16-19; 1 St. John 1:8-10; St. James 5:16); a hearer of the Word remains involved with God only as far as he/she is caught up in the euphoria of having heard the Word.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Gadgeteer]

Why? I’d be very proud. She is standing on her own two feet. She’s learning the value of sacrifice. She’s showing her gratitude. Why would I turn a wonderful gesture into something bad?

To me, if I gave a present to someone out of love, the recipient offering to pay for the present is a rejection of that love. “I don’t need you, I’ll pay for my OWN stuff…”

It happens to be right.

We don’t “go to Heaven 'cause we’re good”, we inherit eternal life because HE was good and because He paid the price — all of it.

The Holy Spirit blows where it will.

Careful – that’s the same idea Calvinists espouse; that “the Spirit blows regeneration and salvation on some, but not on others” — the intent of Jesus’ words in Jn3:3-6 is “You can’t see the wind but know if it by its effects, so also is spiritual birth; you can’t actually see it, but will know of it by its effects…”

Other religions aren’t completely wrong. They have some aspects of truth in them. Even non-Christians love their mothers and fathers.

True. Jesus also said “sinners do good”, Lk6:33. Yet, they’re all based on works — Islam for instance teaches that at the Judgment we stand before God and our good works are weighed against our bad works. One by one they’re piled on the scale — our teeth are clenched and knuckles white, as the scale swings back and forth between “LIVE”, and “DIE”…

We are not saved by works, but by grace — “If it be by works, then grace is no longer grace” Rom11:6. John wrote “He who has the Son has eternal life, …you may KNOW…” (1:5:11-13)

True. Good works are a consequence of faith. But not, of justification. Justification is a consequence of faith and good works.

This is a disagreement between us; I perceive the certificate of debt was nailed to the Cross, all the way onto the Cross, not floating some distance away (and we have to carry it the rest of the way).

There’s no need for hard feelings between us; we can celebrate being brothers and be together with Jesus when He returns (and tells us “Gadget was ri” — err uhm, tells us “which one was right!”) :whacky:

Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for us to be justified. But in order to be justified, we have to walk the rest of the way:

Romans 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

Yes; and — Rev20:13 “we will be judged according to our deeds”. But only being written in the BOOK (or not), determines whether we live forever or not… Rev20:15…

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi, Gadgeteer!

…this is one of the issues that I recon goes to vocabulary.

…it would be nice to have the actual excerpt quoted along side the passage from Scriptures.

Bishops – 1Cor3:

• [3:1–4] The Corinthians desire a sort of wisdom dialogue or colloquy with Paul; they are looking for solid, adult food, and he appears to disappoint their expectations. Paul counters: if such a dialogue has not yet taken place, the reason is that they are still at an immature stage of development (cf. 1 Cor 2:6).
• [3:1] Spiritual people…fleshly people: Paul employs two clusters of concepts and terms to distinguish what later theology will call the “natural” and the “supernatural.” (1) The natural person (1 Cor 2:14) is one whose existence, perceptions, and behavior are determined by purely natural principles, the psychē (1 Cor 2:14) and the sarx (flesh, a biblical term that connotes creatureliness, 1 Cor 3:1, 3). Such persons are only infants (1 Cor 3:1); they remain on a purely human level (anthrōpoi, 1 Cor 3:4). (2) On the other hand, they are called to be animated by a higher principle, the pneuma, God’s spirit. They are to become spiritual (pneumatikoi, 1 Cor 3:1) and mature (1 Cor 2:6) in their perceptions and behavior (cf. Gal 5:16–26). The culmination of existence in the Spirit is described in 1 Cor 15:44–49.
• [3:3–4] Jealousy, rivalry, and divisions in the community are symptoms of their arrested development; they reveal the immaturity both of their self-understanding (1 Cor 3:4) and of the judgments about their apostles (1 Cor 3:21).

usccb.org/bible/1cor/3:1#54003001

It’s the same in Heb5:11-14, they’re taking the “immature/carnal” to be saved, though they need to “be shaken out of their inertia”.

I’ve attempted to explain to you how you may be going on an erroneous understanding of both the Bishops and Scriptures…

In no place does Scripture espouse the idea of “immature/carnal” as being “still saved”. Yes it’s a reprimand (as USCCB affirms about Heb5:11, but it’s a reprimand back to salvation.

True, St. Paul is sanctioning strife and dissension amongst the Believers… but he is not claiming that they have ceased to be Believers because they have sinned in their behavior/act/s; rather, as he has done in several Epistles, he is cautioning the Believers that if we are to return to our sinful existence (a life of unrighteousness) we will not inherit the Kingdom.

What kind of a “believer” is it that won’t inherit? Ain’t no believer 'tall…

I’ve showed you where St. Paul speaks of the flesh, as in being a carnal man, and of the desires of the flesh, which war against the Holy Spirit.

Not in terms of “you should be mature, but you’re still saved” — in Heb5-6 the admonishment is to press on to maturity because those who WILL NOT repent are beyond preaching…

…so unless the Bishops are teaching that man can live in a sinful/unrighteous existence and still be “Saved,” I think that you must further study what they actually mean to convey.

The Bishops call them “infants who need maturing” — same in Heb5:11-14, where necessarily they perceive a subject change into “true apostates”.

Bishops:

• [5:11–6:20] The central section of Hebrews (5:11–10:39) opens with a reprimand and an appeal. Those to whom the author directs his teaching about Jesus’ priesthood, which is difficult to explain, have become sluggish in hearing and forgetful of even the basic elements (Heb 5:12). But rather than treating of basic teachings, the author apparently believes that the challenge of more advanced ones may shake them out of their inertia (therefore, Heb 6:1). The six examples of basic teaching in Heb 6:1–3 are probably derived from a traditional catechetical list. No effort is made to address apostates, for their very hostility to the Christian message cuts them off completely from Christ (Heb 6:4–8).

So, “apostates are cut off completely from Jesus, (but) the carnal are sluggish in hearing and forgetful of basic elements (but) need to mature…”

No, there is no subject change; the apostates in Heb6 are the same ones called “milk-eaters” in 5:11-14.

…again, either St. Paul is saying that any Believer that sins is no longer a Believer (as some claim that Scriptures teach) or St. Paul is Teaching that even Believers who embrace a sinful/unrighteous life will lose Salvation.

It’s a question of “practicing”. Milk-eaters practice “walking in the flesh”, that’s why they’re called “sarx/carnal/milk-eaters”.

Personally, though I’ve not read the material from the Bishop’s site, I doubt that the Catholic Bishops are espousing OSAS–no matter how much one sins and relishes the sinful existence and refuses to Repent and Return to God, that person is “Saved.”

No; but they dangerously overlap “Antinomianism”.

The issue is that someone who walks in the flesh (which is what they’re doing in 1Cor3:1-3, and Heb5:11-14), is not compatible with “saved”. Salvation is a union with Jesus, and it’s like when a woman is pregnant — we either are with Jesus, or are not.

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi, Gadgeteer!

…it amazes me how the human experience has demonstrated this (beginning with the Jews) and man is still bent on not only rejecting God but actively warring against God.

…we see the experience of the Crusades… when the battle was to safe-keep the Holy Land… they were fully successful; when the battles turn to greed and power mongering, they failed; we have the Moros occupying Spain for hundreds of years… as their attention turned to the eradication of Christendom… they failed and were driven back… then we have the various episodes in the West’s not distant history… and do you recall the US’s public school system when “prayer” in school was not illegal?

Yes. And I recall a few years ago the first “Meet Me At The Flagpole For Prayer Meeting” — participants were detained in police cars and threatened with EXPULSION (not suspension!) for, among other things, “possession of Christian items (a Bible!!!) on campus!” The next year a demand letter was submitted to ALL districts by the ACLJ, but eleven still refused to “allow prayer meetings before hours on school grounds”. Each of those districts received a direct phone call — “If you deny these students’ FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, we will fly to your city and enter your school with police and ARREST YOU, and PUT YOU IN HANDCUFFS and take you to JAIL. And we will not do that next month, or next week; we will be there TOMORROW. Do you understand?!”

Only on impending threat of arrest did the God-haters back down. In American history, I think it was Patrick Henry who objected to having textbooks in classrooms – for fear that it would DISPLACE THE BIBLE! Another said “If you take the Bible out of classrooms (stop teaching from it!), there will be an explosion of crime and violence such as never before has been seen.”

…“progressives” caused a hole to be torn in the heart of public education only to be filled with hatred, strife, violence, and death… remove God from man’s heart and mind, and as Jesus stated:

…ditto in the Spirituality of the business arena… when “enlightened” professors removed “virtue” from their classrooms they taught that the means justifies the ends–and the corruption explosion erupted engulfing all levels of public and private sectors: ‘do onto others, and run with the loot!’

Have you seen “Time Changers”? By seeing education 100 years in the future, that professor realized the folly of trying to promote the teachings of the Lord, without the Lord of the teachings.

…this too is part of vocabulary (understanding); I replied because too many times non-Catholics go with personal’s/groups’ understanding of the Catholic Church, not with what the Catholic Church Believes/Understands.

Did you ever hear the joke about the public high-school student???

…yes; his comparison is so clear that only a blind person could miss it; a doer of the Word actually embraces God’s Word and Abides in Christ… if he/she veers off (as it happens) Knowledge of the Word that is in him/her will Compel him/her to Return to God (Isaiah 1:16-19; 1 St. John 1:8-10; St. James 5:16); a hearer of the Word remains involved with God only as far as he/she is caught up in the euphoria of having heard the Word.

Yes. They become “believers only superficially” (James2:19); not in true union with Jesus.

James especially in chapter 2 embraces what Jesus said in Matt7:16-18; a good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good; we can know them by their fruits (deeds).

 

[steve_b]

On the other thread, I said:

Jesus is speaking of spiritual life, so — yes, the son was (spiritually) dead. One cannot be “alive AGAIN”, unless there was sumpthin’ in between *what wuzn’t alive.
*

The in between is repentance of the son.

Gadgeteer:

There is an issue that, though subtle, is important. In Acts17:28 Paul said, “Even some of your poets have said 'We are (all) God’s children” (genos, offspring). But there is a great difference between being “God’s children”, and being “children of God”.

It’s a distinction without a difference

Gadgeteer:

In Jn1:12-13, the right to become children of God is granted to those who receive Jesus — who (verse 13) are born/begotten (gennaō) not of Human descent, but of God

We are “begotten”, by adoption — we receive the Spirit of adoption, Rom8:15.

That happens through Baptism

Then

Romans 8:17
and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Romans 8:21
because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Ephesians 5:1
Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children.

Philippians 2:15
that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world,

1 John 3:1
See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him.

1 John 3:10
By this it may be seen who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not do right is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother.

1 John 4:4
Little children, you are of God, and have overcome them; for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.

All those passages are delivered to the baptized.

Gadgeteer:

Respectfully, yes. "He was dead — now is alive again. A corpse is not a son — RT’s argue vehemently that he never stopped being a son!

He’s always the father’s son even when he’s dead spiritually.

Gadgeteer:

The “father” is allegorically God; so by the same argument, every other person in the world is “a son of the father”!

When baptized we become children of God.

Gadgeteer:

Is every other person the father’s son (or daughter)? No. The Prodigal **became like everyone else…

**

The son never lost being the son. A person who is baptized, never looses their baptism. Had the son died away, THEN the son would have been lost to the father forever. Until that time, the son could repent.

Gadgeteer:

Do you agree that the father (in Jesus’ story), represents God? So — “we were all …children of wrath (Hell)” — Eph2:3.

Without Jesus heaven was closed.

Gadgeteer:

Steve, I know you agree that the Prodigal was “lost and dead”; please understand Reformers (and other OSAS) insist “he never stopped being the father’s son (never was unsaved), did he?”

Just because the son remains the son, doesn’t translate into the son was always saved, or he couldn’t lose his salvation… The son was in a position of complete ruin. Had the son remained away, in that condition, he would have been lost. However, the son came back. He repented. Hence the father says

This son of mine was lost. NOT, this son of mine ceased being my son.

Gadgeteer:

Yes – Jesus fully intended that the Prodigal became as spiritually dead as everyone else who didn’t belong to the father…

The son always remains the son. Even if the son is spiritually dead.

 

[Gadgeteer]

The in between is repentance of the son.

Hi, Steve – thank you for your time.

Yes the son could repent; the question is what Jesus was trying to convey, about a son who was “wandered away and engaged in licentiousness”.

It’s a distinction without a difference

The essence of Christianity is becoming “begotten-of-God”, “born-from-above”. Rm8:15 says we receive the Spirit of adoption. Is someone “begotten-of-God” before he/she believes in Jesus and receives the Spirit? (Of course not.)

Now, is someone who was begotten, still there if he wanders away into drunkenness and carousing and fornication? (I’m sure you also say “of course not”.)

So if every Human is created by God, and therefore “God’s children”, but each can only become a “begotten-child of God” by joining with Jesus, how can someone who returns to his previous unbegotten-state, still be considered “a child of God”?

That happens through Baptism

That’s beyond the scope of this discussion. I would be curious though (not to argue with you), do you think those in Acts10:47 were NOT saved even though they received the Holy Spirit?

And — are they a “special case”, we’re not saved the same way now as they were then?

Then

…All those passages are delivered to the baptized.

Can you show me a verse that says, “He who is not waterbaptized is not saved”? I look forward to what you think about those in Acts10:47 — they received the Holy Spirit just as the Apostles had (Acts11:15-17), but they were not yet waterbaptized. Were they different from us?

Understand, I agree that someone who refuses to be waterbaptized, is not saved; but our perceptions are different – it is not the water that saves us, but a saved dedicated-to-Jesus heart will absolutely want to be waterbaptized.

He’s always the father’s son even when he’s dead spiritually.

This is the argument two of the OSAS views use.

How are we “our Father’s sons” (and daughters)? In Heb12, if we submit to God’s discipline then He regards us as sons. But if we refuse His discipline (even though we had become partners in His discipline), then we are no longer sons but (have become) illegitimate.

Is there any way that “we-are-not-sons” (not any longer), can become “he-remains-his-father’s-son”?

When baptized we become children of God.

I would think, per Rom8:15, that happens when we receive the Spirit. Yes it often happens at waterbaptism, as Peter alludes in 1:3:21. But in Acts10:47 it happened before waterbaptism, and Acts8:16 it happened after waterbaptism.

Didn’t it?

Again thank you for your time and effort; if you will grace the discussion with your thoughts in response to this post, that would be excellent!

 

[JMM1957]

Can you show me a verse that says, “He who is not waterbaptized is not saved”? I look forward to what you think about those in Acts10:47 — they received the Holy Spirit just as the Apostles had (Acts11:15-17), but they were not yet waterbaptized. Were they different from us?

“Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21)

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16-16)

There are exceptions though:

Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized” (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).

As for Acts 10-47: True, the HS was poured out on the Gentile listeners, but they also received baptism soon after, which confirmed their desire to accept the Word of God (Acts 11:1)

 

[Gadgeteer]

“Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21)

steve b:

When baptized we become children of God.
Gadget:

I would think, per Rom8:15, that happens when we receive the Spirit. Yes it often happens at waterbaptism, as Peter alludes in 1:3:21.

But in Acts10:47 it happened before waterbaptism, and Acts8:16 it happened after waterbaptism.

Didn’t it?

Hi, JMM. Excellent post.

I perceive Peter as saying, "Waterbaptism saves you, if accompanied by repentance (appeal-to-God-for-clear-conscience)".

What do you think about those in Acts10:47? Were they saved, before being waterbaptized? Peter said “received the Holy Spirit the same as we did after believing” — are we saved the same way as they were? And in Acts8:16 — they had been waterbaptized, but had not yet received the Holy Spirit. Were they saved differently than us, also? What are your thoughts on these two groups?

In Rom10:13, “all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved”, doesn’t say anything about water.

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16-16)

Right. I asked:
Gadget:

Can you show me a verse that says, “He who is not waterbaptized is not saved”?

Mark16:16 does not say “undipped are condemned”. Do you think the meaning is that, so therefore those in Acts10:47 were filled-with-the-Spirit-unsaved?

There are exceptions though:

Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized” (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).

Jesus already said “the kingdom of Heaven belongs to children”, Matt19:14. Peter tied salvation to waterbaptism through “appeal-to-God-for-clear-conscience”, repentance. But the question remains about Cornelius and his group, Acts10:47; they received the Spirit the same as the Apostles, after believing. Weren’t they saved?

As for Acts 10-47: True, the HS was poured out on the Gentile listeners, but they also received baptism soon after, which confirmed their desire to accept the Word of God (Acts 11:1)

They received the Spirit — there was a real period between “receive-the-Spirit”, and “waterbaptism”. Can anyone declare "not actually saved until they hit the water"?

As I said, I agree that someone who calls himself (herself?) “Christian”, but refuses to be waterbaptised, is not saved. My conflict is that being water-baptized, is something we do; a “work”. And salvation was finished by Jesus on the Cross — “He has nailed our certificate-of-debt to the Cross” — that was completed, and was done 2000 years ago. While it’s true that if we turn away from Jesus, that nasty certificate comes back off the Cross and lands on our shoulders; but He did not paste our certificates on a rope somewhere between us and the Cross, they are fully nailed there on the Cross itself. There is no distance left for us to move the certificates, is there!

“If it be by works, then grace is no longer grace.” “By grace through faith are you saved, not by works lest anyone boast.” “If Abraham was justified by works, then he could boast.”

Religion (all of them, Buddhism, Shintoism, Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witness, every one) is based on DEEDS. Christianity is different, it’s not works, it’s by Jesus’ work — and we work the work of salvation by believing in Him. (Jn6:29) We walk in the good works that He prepared beforehand (Eph2:10), it is GOD who is at work in us both to will and to work according to His good pleasure (Philip2:13).

So it (salvation) cannot be due to anything we do, “he who works his wage is what is due” – and grace is NOT something owed to us, it’s only because He loved us and died for us.

Do we disagree so much?

 

[jcrichton]

It’s the same in Heb5:11-14, they’re taking the “immature/carnal” to be saved, though they need to “be shaken out of their inertia”.

In no place does Scripture espouse the idea of “immature/carnal” as being “still saved”. Yes it’s a reprimand (as USCCB affirms about Heb5:11, but it’s a reprimand back to salvation.

What kind of a “believer” is it that won’t inherit? Ain’t no believer 'tall…

Not in terms of “you should be mature, but you’re still saved” — in Heb5-6 the admonishment is to press on to maturity because those who WILL NOT repent are beyond preaching…

The Bishops call them “infants who need maturing” — same in Heb5:11-14, where necessarily they perceive a subject change into “true apostates”.

So, “apostates are cut off completely from Jesus, (but) the carnal are sluggish in hearing and forgetful of basic elements (but) need to mature…”

No, there is no subject change; the apostates in Heb6 are the same ones called “milk-eaters” in 5:11-14.

It’s a question of “practicing”. Milk-eaters practice “walking in the flesh”, that’s why they’re called “sarx/carnal/milk-eaters”.

No; but they dangerously overlap “Antinomianism”.

The issue is that someone who walks in the flesh (which is what they’re doing in 1Cor3:1-3, and Heb5:11-14), is not compatible with “saved”. Salvation is a union with Jesus, and it’s like when a woman is pregnant — we either are with Jesus, or are not.

Hi, Gadgeteer!

…again, it is vocabulary…

…here’s what St. Paul is talking about:

11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand. 12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

(Hebrews 5:11-14–NIV)

1. St. Paul is not making a distinction between those of the world (pagans) and the Believers
2. St. Paul is making a distinction between the Believers who have merely heard the Word and complacency compelled them to remain steadfast to their old life and values and the Believers who have not only heard the Word but are Laboring in the Word, seeking to Fellowship as God Commands.

The first are stagnant… not only that but they want to remain in sin and pretend that they are acceptable to God just as they are (these are the OSAS and all those sin-as-you-please theologies). The latter are those who have not only gained the Understanding of Abiding in Christ but are actually seeking to bear Good Fruits, in righteousness.

St. Paul is not condemning any of the Believers. He is warning them that to return/persist in sin is a state of denial/rejection of Christ’s Grace:

1 Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2 instruction about cleansing rites, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And God permitting, we will do so.

(Romans 6:1-3)
St. Paul urges the Believers to embrace the Faith; to advance in responsibility and response to Christ’s Grace and Calling… to go into the Great Beyond that Binds man’s spirit to the Holy Spirit.

4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

(Romans 6:4-6)
Now, St. Paul ups the ante; he warns that there’s no way to reconvert those who have already Converted to the Faith.

St. Paul is telling us that the Believer cannot receive the Sacrament of Initiation and Reconciliation (Baptism) all over again; that they cannot be Preached to and Convicted of the Truth more than Once–that they cannot be brought back, by their peers or God into repentance… from this particular state man can only be brought back to God by the individual him/herself. This is because only the person who is an apostate of the Faith can renounce the apostasy and Return to God.

Notice that the emphasis is not that “we are Saved and you are not,” but that those who reject God, even thought they came to Know God, will perish (v 8).

Further, St. Paul is not excommunicating anyone from the Body of Christ–even those who are “immature” in the Faith, the “milk” eaters and stalled Believers:

9 Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation. 10 God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. 11 We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, so that what you hope for may be fully realized. 12 We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised

. (Romans 6:9-12)
St. Paul is urging the immature Believers to embrace the Fullness of the Faith!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Yes. And I recall a few years ago the first “Meet Me At The Flagpole For Prayer Meeting” — participants were detained in police cars and threatened with EXPULSION (not suspension!) for, among other things, “possession of Christian items (a Bible!!!) on campus!” The next year a demand letter was submitted to ALL districts by the ACLJ, but eleven still refused to “allow prayer meetings before hours on school grounds”. Each of those districts received a direct phone call — “If you deny these students’ FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, we will fly to your city and enter your school with police and ARREST YOU, and PUT YOU IN HANDCUFFS and take you to JAIL. And we will not do that next month, or next week; we will be there TOMORROW. Do you understand?!”

Only on impending threat of arrest did the God-haters back down. In American history, I think it was Patrick Henry who objected to having textbooks in classrooms – for fear that it would DISPLACE THE BIBLE! Another said “If you take the Bible out of classrooms (stop teaching from it!), there will be an explosion of crime and violence such as never before has been seen.”

Hi, Gadgeteer!

…I find the hypocrisy so entrenched in society’s ACLU movements… it reeks to the lowest levels of hell as they not only fight for irresponsible behavior but they actively war against God and the Church, stripping citizens of the liberties granted them by God–it is the euphemistic “mercy killing:” ‘I crush you, because I want to liberate you!’

Have you seen “Time Changers”? By seeing education 100 years in the future, that professor realized the folly of trying to promote the teachings of the Lord, without the Lord of the teachings.

…did not; I used to be a great fan of sci-fi… but so much nonsense has been forced into it that I’ve almost given up the genre altogether… from your description it sounds very much like the Euro-topia: ‘…yeah, all our problems will be erased, once we remove God and the Church from history!’

Did you ever hear the joke about the public high-school student???

…which one, the one where they don’t know how to spell “hi” or the one where they follow hollowood’s mentality in their quest to be unique?

Yes. They become “believers only superficially” (James2:19); not in true union with Jesus.

James especially in chapter 2 embraces what Jesus said in Matt7:16-18; a good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good; we can know them by their fruits (deeds).

Exactly! Since the good tree Abides in Christ Jesus, the fruit it brings forth is good.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, JMM. Excellent post.

I perceive Peter as saying, "Waterbaptism saves you, if accompanied by repentance (appeal-to-God-for-clear-conscience)".

What do you think about those in Acts10:47? Were they saved, before being waterbaptized? Peter said “received the Holy Spirit the same as we did after believing” — are we saved the same way as they were? And in Acts8:16 — they had been waterbaptized, but had not yet received the Holy Spirit. Were they saved differently than us, also? What are your thoughts on these two groups?

Hi, Gadgeteer!

…the problem lies not in Scriptures or God’s Revelation but in man’s quest for short cuts!

…did you noticed what took place right after the Holy Spirit demonstrated in Acts 10?

…were they all welcomed into the Fold and did the Apostles packed up and all left, each to their own homes?

No! St. Peter brought up the condition of merit: ‘they have Received the Holy Spirit’ (even though they are pagans/gentiles); ‘can anyone here deny them (the right) Baptism?’

…the very next thing that happened was that they were ushered into the Faith by Water Baptism!

In Rom10:13, “all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved”, doesn’t say anything about water.

…ever noticed how cartoonish most programs/films are… things fall into the Goldilocks’ phenomenon: “juuuust right!”

…too many times Believers demand such thing from Scriptures… while I could counter you with Jesus’ Own Word (“not all who Call Me Lord…”), I rather take you back to Pentecost:

37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you

, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:37-39–NIV)
The process is clear:

• Baptism
• Reception of the Holy Spirit

…so, is St. Peter’s Teaching different from St. Paul’s or is St. Peter limiting God’s Functions or the Holy Spirit’s Gift?

No, and No!

There’s One Baptism, One Gospel, One Faith, One Body, One Lord, One God.

Scriptures are God’s Revelation to man; Scriptures are not a script which Binds God to a specific Form, Pattern or Behavior/Function.

There was a very specific reason why the event in Acts 10 took place–it was not to offer several versions of Reception of the Holy Spirit; it was to Teach the Believers (who at that time were mostly Jews) that Yahweh God had also Called to Salvation the Gentiles/Pagans:

34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. 36 You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.

(Acts 10:34-36)
…right after Cephas’ Pronouncement the Holy Spirit Acted amongst them Blessing the Gentiles with His Grace and Power:

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

(Acts 10:44-46)
…the rest is Baptism history!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[steve_b]

Hi, Steve – thank you for your time.

Yes the son could repent; *the question is what Jesus was trying to convey, about a son who was “wandered away and engaged in licentiousness”. *

Putting this in today’s terms, The son is still the son, and a son can lose his salvation.

Gadgeteer:

The essence of Christianity is becoming “begotten-of-God”, “born-from-above”. Rm8:15 says we receive the Spirit of adoption. Is someone “begotten-of-God” before he/she believes in Jesus and receives the Spirit? (Of course not.)

Now, is someone who was begotten, still there if he wanders away into drunkenness and carousing and fornication? (I’m sure you also say “of course not”.)

You’re covering a big area

While baptism is a permanent sacrament, the grace given is NOT permanent. It can be lost through mortal (deadly) sin. And thus so can one’s salvation. Not all sin is (deadly) mortal as John says, but there is mortal sin 1 John 5:16 ]. While a soul is in mortal sin, sanctifying grace then, present from baptism, is gone. If one dies in that state they go to hell.

The way to restore that lost grace is sacramental confession.

Gadgeteer:

So if every Human is created by God, and therefore “God’s children”, but each can only become a “begotten-child of God” by joining with Jesus, how can someone who returns to his previous unbegotten-state, still be considered “a child of God”?

Since space / post is limited, for space I’ll add this link
catholic.com/encyclopedia/baptism
Bet ya didn’t think so much could be said about baptism

Gadgeteer:

That’s beyond the scope of this discussion. I would be curious though (not to argue with you), do you think those in Acts10:47 were NOT saved even though they received the Holy Spirit?

Finish the thought

Acts 10:
47 “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized

Gadgeteer:

And — are they a “special case”, we’re not saved the same way now as they were then?

Can you show me a verse that says, “He who is not waterbaptized is not saved”?

Jesus said

“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5

THAT is baptism

Gadgeteer:

I look forward to what you think about those in Acts10:47 — they received the Holy Spirit just as the Apostles had (Acts11:15-17), but they were not yet waterbaptized. Were they different from us?

the answer was given previously, Acts 10:47-48.

Gadgeteer:

Understand, I agree that someone who refuses to be waterbaptized, is not saved; but our perceptions are different – it is not the water that saves us, but a saved dedicated-to-Jesus heart will absolutely want to be waterbaptized.

That’s one way

The promise given in baptism is for them as well as to the children. Acts 2:39

How young are the children we’re speaking of?

“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; …you were buried with him in Baptism” (Colossians 2:11-12).

When was circumcision done by the Jews to male children? When was Jesus circumcised?

That’s why Catholics baptize babies.

Gadgeteer:

This is the argument two of the OSAS views use.

How are we “our Father’s sons” (and daughters)? In Heb12, if we submit to God’s discipline then He regards us as sons. But if we refuse His discipline (even though we had become partners in His discipline), then we are no longer sons but (have become) illegitimate.

Is there any way that “we-are-not-sons” (not any longer), can become “he-remains-his-father’s-son”?

I would think, per Rom8:15, that happens when we receive the Spirit. Yes it often happens at waterbaptism, as Peter alludes in 1:3:21. But in Acts10:47 it happened before waterbaptism, and Acts8:16 it happened after waterbaptism.

Didn’t it?

Again thank you for your time and effort; if you will grace the discussion with your thoughts in response to this post, that would be excellent!

May I suggest, looking over the link I gave on Baptism, up the page aways

 

[JMM1957]

All good answers steve b on your above post!

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi, Gadgeteer!

:tiphat:

…again, it is vocabulary…

…here’s what St. Paul is talking about:

1. St. Paul is not making a distinction between those of the world (pagans) and the Believers

He’s talking to a single audience; some of whom (presumably) are “carnal”.

1. St. Paul is making a distinction between the Believers who have merely heard the Word and complacency compelled them to remain steadfast to their old life and values and the Believers who have not only heard the Word but are Laboring in the Word, seeking to Fellowship as God Commands.

So then it’s “believers” (who are laboring and seeking), and those who are not believers at all.

The first are stagnant… not only that but they want to remain in sin and pretend that they are acceptable to God just as they are (these are the OSAS and all those sin-as-you-please theologies). The latter are those who have not only gained the Understanding of Abiding in Christ but are actually seeking to bear Good Fruits, in righteousness.

Well, they are the Antinomianist OSAS’ers. All of the “Eternal Security” and all of the “Reformed Theology” folks with whom I’ve conversed say they reject “willful sin”.

St. Paul is not condemning any of the Believers. He is warning them that to return/persist in sin is a state of denial/rejection of Christ’s Grace:

St. Paul urges the Believers to embrace the Faith; to advance in responsibility and response to Christ’s Grace and Calling… to go into the Great Beyond that Binds man’s spirit to the Holy Spirit.

Very — WELL DONE! That is exactly what it’s about — “do not reject Jesus’ grace”, “embrace the faith”. Be saved.

Now, St. Paul ups the ante; he warns that there’s no way to reconvert those who have already Converted to the Faith.

St. Paul is telling us that the Believer cannot receive the Sacrament of Initiation and Reconciliation (Baptism) all over again; that they cannot be Preached to and Convicted of the Truth more than Once–that they cannot be brought back, by their peers or God into repentance… from this particular state man can only be brought back to God by the individual him/herself. This is because only the person who is an apostate of the Faith can renounce the apostasy and Return to God.

Actually, a prominent misunderstanding is that it asserts some kind of “cannot return” – no, the clear meaning is it is impossible/powerless/unable to restore them to repentance BECAUSE (and while!) they are focused on willful sin. But it is as you said “only the apostate can return” — the message is "Don’t waste your time preaching repentance to those who don’t wanna…"

Notice that the emphasis is not that “we are Saved and you are not,” but that those who reject God, even thought they came to Know God, will perish (v 8).

Further, St. Paul is not excommunicating anyone from the Body of Christ–even those who are “immature” in the Faith, the “milk” eaters and stalled Believers:

St. Paul is urging the immature Believers to embrace the Fullness of the Faith!

Actually, it is fully “BE SAVED”. And most do think Paul wrote it, though some see mannerisms of Luke…

The theme continues throughout the chapter; “choose whether to be a fruitful field and be blessed, or a thorny field and be cursed and burned”. And “you need diligence so that you not imitate the sluggish but those who by faith and patience inherit the promises…”

It’s consistent with the whole letter; verses 10:26-29 teach the exact same thing. I think I listed verses from the whole letter warning “be saved”…

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi, Gadgeteer!

…I find the hypocrisy so entrenched in society’s ACLU movements… it reeks to the lowest levels of hell as they not only fight for irresponsible behavior but they actively war against God and the Church, stripping citizens of the liberties granted them by God–it is the euphemistic “mercy killing:” ‘I crush you, because I want to liberate you!’

Actually, the organization fighting for the children, was the “ACLJ” — American Center for Law and Justice. Headed by Kieth Fornier and Jay Sekulow. Very Christian legal firm. Jay is now on Trump’s staff…

…did not; I used to be a great fan of sci-fi… but so much nonsense has been forced into it that I’ve almost given up the genre altogether… from your description it sounds very much like the Euro-topia: ‘…yeah, all our problems will be erased, once we remove God and the Church from history!’

It’s a Christian movie – staring Gavin McCloud (“Love Boat”, “Mary Tyler Moore”) and Hal Linden (“Barney Miller”). Can’t remember who the main character was who actually time-traveled.

…which one, the one where they don’t know how to spell “hi” or the one where they follow hollowood’s mentality in their quest to be unique?

Okay (warning, a non-Catholic is about to tell a Catholic joke on a Catholic board!)

A high-school student was doing poorly, especially in math. Parents put him in a Catholic school. First night, he went right upstairs and studied – Mom and Dad looked at each other and frowned. Second night, third night, every night the same. At mid-terms he was making “A’s”, even in math! They sat him down and asked “what was the difference?”

He said, "Well, public school let us slack off. But when I went to CATHOLIC school, and walked into math class, and saw that poor guy up there on the wall nailed to a plus sign, I knew they meant BUSINESS…"

Exactly! Since the good tree Abides in Christ Jesus, the fruit it brings forth is good.

And we will know them (and they will know us!) by our fruit!