romans 4:5

[Sherlock]

bene7:

Parables are not doctrines. They relate to the listener in story form a certain concept and are limited to that concept. In the case of the unforgiving servant, how could he not forgive his fellow man of a very little, when he himself was forgiven of a lot? How could I not forgive someone who offends me a little when, in fact, I was forgiven of everything by God through the cross of Christ? But my salvation does not hinge on my forgiving othes, but faith in the fact that God forgave me of ALL my sins through the substitutionary, sin-sacrifice of His Son. The message of salvation, or the cross, is not for me to forgive others, but that I have been forgiven by God who Himself took the drastic measures to procure that forgiveness. Now I who have been forgiven of much should forgive others who sin against me, a little, in comparison.

God Bless,
Bene

Wow, I can’t believe that you ignore what Jesus says in that parable. Of course a parable is not a formal statement of doctrine, but to dismiss what Jesus says because it does not square with your personal doctrine is a bit shocking to me. To focus on a few select verses while ignoring the whole is an unfortunate and poverty-stricken way to approach Sacred Scripture—I hope you will come to see the beauty and power of the whole picture instead of being satisfied with a few small details.

A similar story is found in the parable of the talents: gifts are given to us (grace), and we are expected to cooperate with that grace and increase it. The person who has received grace but merely keeps it safe is punished with his talent taken away.

Notice how St. Paul also says that those who partake in the Eucharist unworthily (by not discerning the Real Presence and treating it as if it were merely a meal) bring condemnation upon themselves: he is speaking to BELIEVERS, those who are already participating in the Liturgy.

What is your particular denominational affiliation?

 

[Philthy]

bene7:

First of all I do not take what Jesus said as “figurative.”

Fair enough - lets see if, instead of telling me how you don’t understand it, you will actually tell me what it means to you. After all, ALL Scripture is inspired…

bene7:

It’s you who are choosing what is figurative in Christ’s words and what is not.

I have made a choice and backed it up with my thoughts. You have disagreed with me. I have simply asked how you have come to disagree with my reasoning other than by claiming it can’t be true because it opposes your theology. Im still waiting, but I sense your thoughts have run their course and will evaporate shortly.

bene7:

Actually, how I interpret and apply Matthew chapters 5-7 would be futile for me to discuss with you, you being Catholic and adhering to the Amillennial eschatology handed down to you from Rome.

It appears you will not tell me how you interpret Matt6:14, nor how you weave it into your theolgy. This does not surprise nor disappoint me. But what is a bit disconcerting is that rather than take the “I don’t know - I’ll get back to you” high road, you have chosen to blame your inadequacies on me for asking. My sense is that you are a good person and I feel badly that my interaction with you has caused you to act in such a way. My confidence, however, is that by the Grace of God some greater good will come from it for each of us, and for that I am grateful.

bene7:

Suffice it to say that everything recorded in the Bible is written FOR us, but not everything is written TO us.

Suffice it to say? This is hardly sufficient to explain anything we have discussed. It’s only purpose, as far as I can see, is to transition us away from the topic which you, understandably, no longer wish to discuss.

bene7:

And that’s why you struggle with the word “faith,” even trying to harmonize it with Matt. 6:14.

I don’t struggle with the word faith as you claim - do not satisfy yourself with the luxury of that delusion. I have clearly, logically, and Scripturally tried to communicate my understanding of faith and belief within the context of the thread. If I have fallen short in your estimation, so be it - I can respect that. It is my estimation that you have - only with much prodding and by extrapolation - claimed faith to be “belief in Jesus” apart from works of the law. When I sought clarification for the meaning of belief and whether that bore any relationship to being God’s handiwork from Eph2-10 you simply chided me for such a question. I guess I apologize for being stupid - I’ve been told that my whole life.

bene7:
There will come a time on this earth when all that Christ states in Matt. chapters 5-7 must be revered and feared, but not during this Church age, not this present age of GRACE.

This is interesting and I will give it some thought and reflection as to understanding the many excellent things you have shared - thank you.

con’d…

Phil

 

[Philthy]

bene7:

But the real question is, can you show me where Paul, Peter, John or even James quotes Jesus in Matt. 6:14 in their gospel message?

In my small mind I see this as a diversion from the the question at hand so please forgive my not addressing it in this thread.

bene7:

There’s no such thing as “incompletely” saved. God saves based on Christ’s FINISHED work on the cross: "…When He had made purification of sins, He sat down (the position of rest)* at the right hand of the Majesty on High* (Heb. 1:3). "Hence, also, He is able to save forever (or, completely) those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them (Heb. 7:25).

This is very good and logical and I don’t claim to disagree with it, but as I am typing I can’t help but here Paul’s statement: “our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed” which was:

1. made after Christs resurrection;
2. indicates that they are not yet completely saved; and
3. admits they are already believers;
   and so I’m a little confused as to why they have believed after Christs finished yet remain, in some sense, not yet saved. But you make a good point - I’ll have to wrestle with it in prayer and meditation - thanks.

bene7:

If God, through faith in Christ, saves INCOMPLETELY, then the completion of said salvation must be completed by someone other than Christ.

Actually this is not a conclusion of necessity. You are ignoring that although the salvation is accomplished ENTIRELY through the finished work of Christ that the APPLICATION of that salvation may be temporally sequential. One example would be the righteousness of Christ somehow being applied at the Judgement in a manner not yet effected. This is how my brain works - I told you it was obnoxious.

bene7:

This MUST be done by one’s own work, contrary to the verse in question on this thread:Rom. 4:5.

Therefore this conclusion, though understandable, is not valid.

bene7:

Pax gets irritated and calls this my “mantra.” But it’s not mine, it’s Paul’s. It’s Paul’s gospel. If only Christ had not saved Paul, right?Oh, if only Jesus had not said: “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and BELIEVES HIM who sent Me, HAS ETERNAL LIFE, and DOES NOT come into judgment, but HAS passed out of death into life” (John 5:24).

Excellent point. I have thought about this and approached it from several angles. I admit that I approach it with a bias. I will give you a couple things which confuse me about it. First, here it is not Jesus himself who is to be believed in, but God the Father. That is a little weird. And secondly, the conditional that “he who “hears” my word” - is that those who heard Jesus directly or anyone who hears the Gospel message? I hesitate to even share such thoughts because they are so flimsy, but I do so just to be honest and hopefully restore somewhat the fellowship we should gain through these exchanges.

 

[Philthy]

bene7:

Now I suppose you’re going to come back with something like, “What does it mean to “hear” His word.”

How prophetic! You know me now…

bene7:

No, it’s a definite work when you frame it in a propositional context: “If you do not, then I will not.” It then becomes what Paul calls a “wage that is due.” “If you do, then I will do.” (see Rom. 4:4). In a plain word: works.

That is a slippery slope, because you would say that if you dont beleive then you are condemned, and such a conditional makes belief a work by your definition.Heres a quote from your last post:

bene7:

…His atoning work on the cross is applied only to those who turn from unbelief to belief "

That sounds a lot like:
IF you believe THEN His atoning work on the cross will be applied.
And according to your criterion above belief, then, becomes a work

bene7:

But to answer your question, they fell when they actually transgressed the commandment.

Just for clarification, is that a retraction of your original claim that they fell from “unbelief”? IF so, accepted. IF NOT, then what does that say about unbelief? Note the word ACT in “ACTually” which you placed before transgressed. You have to be honest and acknowledge that somehow it took more than your alleged “unbelief” to cause the fall, or that implicit in the definition of “unbelief” is the act of sinning. No biggie.

bene7:

I’ve always enjoyed and found comforting the words of Christ in His prayer to the Father:

LUK 10:21 “At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said,
"I praise Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these
things from the wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes. Yes,
Father, for thus it was well-pleasing in Thy sight.”

I find it pleasing to me too.

bene7:

God Bless,
Bene

I find great comfort in it also, for I consider all my ramblings the most clumsy form of intellect when compared to His, which, “as high as the heavens are above the earth” is so much above ours.
But it is such a tremendous blessing because, dull as human intellect is, it allows us to know Him and seek Him whom without are hearts remain restless - and in that we can both rejoice.

I wish you the peace of God which surpasses all understanding,

Phil

 

[bene7]

Pax:

Per the King James version, Romans 4:16 actually says:
“Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,” Nowhere in this passage does it say that justification is a one time event, and that we never need to repent of future sin, or that we “are forever justified.” This is eisegesis and you are forcing an interpretation of scripture to fit your doctrine rather than allowing scripture to form your doctrine.

Pax, look at Rom. 4:10 referring to Abraham being declared (reckoned) righteous by God. Paul asks, “How then was it (righteousness) reckoned?” He answers his own question: “NOT while circumcised.” AGAIN!! The offering up of Isaac was done long AFTER Abraham was circumcised. (1) According to Paul (and contrary to your assertion) Abraham could not have been declared righteous by God at the time of offering up Isaac. (2) Nowhere in Gen. 22, which records the account, does it say that Abraham, at that time, was reckoned righteous by God. Even James must quote from Gen. 15:6. (3) It is recorded that He was reckoned righteous by God only ONCE, and that was BEFORE he was circumcised in Gen. 15:6, and this all in accordance with Paul’s argument in Romans four. And Paul remains consistent throughout his letter:

“Therefore HAVING BEEN justified by faith, WE HAVE peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ…” (Rom. 5:1). Not by works of the Law, or “works of grace,” but through our Lord Jesus Christ (His work on our behalf). By no other work can God be JUST and the JUSTIFIER of the one who has FAITH IN JESUS (Rom. 3:26).

God Bless,
Bene

 

[bene7]

Pax:

By offering Isaac upon the altar (a work accomplished through faith) Abraham was justified. Not only that, but there is a “fulfilment” of the reckoning of righteousness spoken of in Genesis 15:5-6. The “fulfilment” means that the reckoning of righteousness is indeed accomplished by Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac through faith because the fulfillment is associated with that event.

Logically, linguistically, and exegetically it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than Abraham being justified on this occassion just as he was justified in Genesis 15:5-6.

You’re stumbling over the word “fulfilled.” James writes, “The Scripture was “fulfilled” that says Abraham beleived God and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.” This word “fulfilled” is deeply significant. There was and always is, the prophetic, as well as the declarative element in justifiction. The moment He (God) declares sinners rightous through faith in Christ alone, they are so, having immediately the standing of being in Christ before Him. What James insists on in his argument in chapter two is that there will be a living walk, a demonstration, fulfilling the Divine declaration that the man truly IS righteous.

When James says, “By works was faith made perfect,” he is expanding the statement, “faith wrought with his works.” As Paul said, “faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6). This is not in reference to his having been declared righteous some 20 years prior. But that saving faith is a living, acting thing as against mere opinion or profession; and this again is what James is insisting on: "Show me…". Works are the result of true faith; but they (works) are not, like faith itself, a condition of salvation or Divine justification. These are bestowed “gift-wise” based on one’s true faith in Christ (Rom. 3:24; Eph. 2:8-9, yes, and 10 too).

God Bless,
Bene

 

[Pax]

bene7:

You’re stumbling over the word “fulfilled.” James writes, “The Scripture was “fulfilled” that says Abraham beleived God and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.” This word “fulfilled” is deeply significant. There was and always is, the prophetic, as well as the declarative element in justifiction. The moment He (God) declares sinners rightous through faith in Christ alone, they are so, having immediately the standing of being in Christ before Him. What James insists on in his argument in chapter two is that there will be a living walk, a demonstration, fulfilling the Divine declaration that the man truly IS righteous.

When James says, “By works was faith made perfect,” he is expanding the statement, “faith wrought with his works.” As Paul said, “faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6). This is not in reference to his having been declared righteous some 20 years prior. But that saving faith is a living, acting thing as against mere opinion or profession; and this again is what James is insisting on: "Show me…". Works are the result of true faith; but they (works) are not, like faith itself, a condition of salvation or Divine justification. These are bestowed “gift-wise” based on one’s true faith in Christ (Rom. 3:24; Eph. 2:8-9, yes, and 10 too).

God Bless,
Bene

Bene,

Many thanks…you have finally looked at this issue of Abraham a little more directly. You have given your interpretation and I respect that. Some of what you have said is close to the mark but your view still fails to connect James use of the word “justify” as it applies to both works and as it applies to Abraham offering Isaac upon the altar. In this account Abraham is “justified.”

According to my protestant bible dictionionaries, justify and to reckon as righteous are synonymous terms.

 

[bene7]

Pax:

Bene,

Many thanks…you have finally looked at this issue of Abraham a little more directly. You have given your interpretation and I respect that. Some of what you have said is close to the mark but your view still fails to connect James use of the word “justify” as it applies to both works and as it applies to Abraham offering Isaac upon the altar. In this account Abraham is “justified.”

According to my protestant bible dictionionaries, justify and to reckon as righteous are synonymous terms.

Yes, they are synonymous, they’re from the same root word in Greek. I’m a little amazed though that you say I “finally” looked at the issue of Abraham more closely. I said nothing “differently” in this post than in previous ones.

But what you must still deal with, Pax, is the Biblical fact that Abraham was reckoned righteous only ONCE, and that BEFORE he was circumcised, not afterward. You must deal with Paul’s argument in Romans four. A man is reckoned (considered) righteous by God, once for all time, the moment he puts his faith in God’s word concerning His Son, apart from works and before any works are performed which demonstrate his true faith.

Peace, my friend,
Bene
.

 

[Philthy]

bene7:

But what you must still deal with, Pax, is the Biblical fact that Abraham was reckoned righteous only ONCE, and that BEFORE he was circumcised, not afterward. You must deal with Paul’s argument in Romans four. A man is reckoned (considered) righteous by God, once for all time, the moment he puts his faith in God’s word concerning His Son, apart from works and before any works are performed which demonstrate his true faith.

Peace, my friend,
Bene

Apparently we have all said our peace. I still don’t see that great chasm that you do, bene7, but I respect your opinion as equally valid. If it would not be too much trouble, and if it is not derailing the thread too much, would you please share your opinion of the significance of “salvation by faith alone apart from works” as it applies to me in a practical way? Please refrain from speaking in the negative: ie, what is not required of me, and try if possible to address in the positive, active sense, what difference it will make for the life of someone who does not “worry” about working as a means of salvation, but one who struggles at times to walk in the good works God has prepared for me. If that is, in your opinion, substantially unrelated to this thread, start another or PM me.

Thanks,

Phil

 

[Sherlock]

bene7:

A man is reckoned (considered) righteous by God, once for all time, the moment he puts his faith in God’s word concerning His Son, apart from works and before any works are performed which demonstrate his true faith.

.

My main objection is with your contention that it is “once for all time”----I take it you are a proponent of “once saved, always saved”? This theory (though very comforting) is not supported by Scriptures as a whole.

 

[bene7]

Sherlock:

Wow, I can’t believe that you ignore what Jesus says in that parable. Of course a parable is not a formal statement of doctrine, but to dismiss what Jesus says because it does not square with your personal doctrine is a bit shocking to me. To focus on a few select verses while ignoring the whole is an unfortunate and poverty-stricken way to approach Sacred Scripture—I hope you will come to see the beauty and power of the whole picture instead of being satisfied with a few small details.

First you agree with me that it is a parable and not to be considered a formal doctrinal statement. But then you treat the parable as if it is a doctrinal statement. Sherlock, based on the clear teachings of Scripture regarding salvation and one’s eternal state, this side of the cross, one cannot derive from this parable that if a true believer UNDER GRACE fails to forgive another his redemption, procured by the shed blood of Christ on the cross, is suddenly taken away and now he must earn his salvation by paying back his original “debt” (Matt. 18:34).

Go back to Matt. 18:21 where the context is presented by Peter asking the Lord how many times he must forgive his brother. Jesus replies, “seventy times seven,” meaning endlessly. Then Jesus compares the “Kingdom of Heaven” with the parable of the unforgiving slave (servant). Please note that Jesus doesn’t say one’s salvation is compared to the parable, but the “Kingdom of Heaven.”

Though you will not receive what I am about to say, because of the way you’re taught as a Catholic (and many Protestants also), the “Kingdom of Heaven” in Matthew’s Gospel almost always refers not to this Church age, this age of GRACE, but the “age to come” when Christ will literally reign upon on this earth for 1000 years from Jerusalem over Israel and the Gentiles nations.

Jesus was born “King of the Jews” (Matt. 2:2) and starting with John the Baptist it was preached to Israel that “the kingdom of Heaven was at hand” (see Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 7:21; 10:5-7). This was the Davidic Kingdom promised to national Israel by covenant (see Lk. 1:32-33), but after Israel’s rejection of their King/Messiah it (the kingdom) was taken from that generation (Matt. 21:43), postponed until the end of this age, and will be ushered in when Jesus returns to this earth in glory (Matt. 19:28: 25:31; Rev. 19:15).

Jesus often spoke to the Jews of His day as their King and according to the rules (i.e, Law) of His Kingdom. This parable, in fact, reflects His “Kingdom Law.” A time on earth when peace and righteousness will reign through Him and be enforced. A major prophetic theme revealed by the writings of O.T., Hebrew prophets.

Please take note that the servant’s master immediately hands him over to the “torturer’s” until the debt he was forgiven is paid. The judgment is implemented immediately, in the servant’s own lifetime. So it cannot refer to Hell or an unbiblical concept like “Purgatory.” The parable reflects life in the Kingdom to come when Christ will rule for 1000 years on this literal earth from His father David’s throne in Jerusalem over the entire earth - and His reign of righteousness is enforced with “a rod of iron” (Rev. 19:15).

We do not live in the “Kingdom” age - which is yet to come. The Church is not the “Kingdom,” and the “Kingdom” is not the Church. Believers can apply a secondary application from this parable on forgiving others (having been forgiven so much through Christ), but its primary application is for those who will be living at the time of Christ’s future, Millennial Kingdom on earth.

I know you will repudiate this interpretation, but unless you understand the Scriptures in this light the Bible is a Book chock full of contradictions. Matthew chapters five through seven are also “Kingdom Law” and cannot be directly applied to this age of GRACE (Rom. 6:14).

Also, if you’re able receive this truth you would come to understand the importance, the tremendous significance, of Israel back as a nation and in its ancient homeland (Rom. 11:24-29). The return of Christ is not all that far away, but He comes for His Church (which He has been building for the past two Millennia) first (1 Thess. 4:14-18).

God Bless,
Bene

 

[Philthy]

bene7:

First you agree with me that it is a parable and not to be considered a formal doctrinal statement. But then you treat the parable as if it is a doctrinal statement. Sherlock, based on the clear teachings of Scripture regarding salvation and one’s eternal state, this side of the cross, one cannot derive from this parable that if a true believer UNDER GRACE fails to forgive another his redemption, procured by the shed blood of Christ on the cross, is suddenly taken away and now he must earn his salvation by paying back his original “debt” (Matt. 18:34).
God Bless,
Bene

Why not? What if such an action, with full knowledge and a lack of repentance constituted “unbelief” in Gods eyes? Why is that impossible? Or, why is it not an indication that the said person never had “saving faith” even though they thought they did?
Why, exactly, would we have Scripture that doesn’t apply to us?
You have started with the conclusion that it cannot be and simply asked how it can be, without demonstrating why it must not be.

Him who you fear,

Phil

 

[bene7]

Philthy:

Why not? What if such an action, with full knowledge and a lack of repentance constituted “unbelief” in Gods eyes? Why is that impossible? Or, why is it not an indication that the said person never had “saving faith” even though they thought they did?
Why, exactly, would we have Scripture that doesn’t apply to us?
You have started with the conclusion that it cannot be and simply asked how it can be, without demonstrating why it must not be.

Him who you fear,

Phil

The parable states NOTHING about faith, lack of faith or salvation. The slave was punished not for unbelief, but for not forgiving as he was forgiven, and was punished in his own lifetime. Not after he’d died.

As I pointed out, Jesus compared the parable to the “the Kingdom of Heaven,” not salvation, or one’s redemption wrought through His shed shed blood on the cross.

As for having Scripture that does not directly apply to us, well, there lots of it. Do you sacrifice according to the instructions in the Book of Leviticus? Do you rest completely on Saturday from your occupation? How many people in your church or family have been put to death because they did not? When/if your wife had/has a baby, did/would she go to Jerusalem and present the proper sacrifice?

I gave you the full reason for my interpretation, Phil. Why do you accuse me of not? The reason I provided is the same for why I do not apply Matt. 6:14 to believers during this Church age, this age of GRACE. Believers today are not under law (legal principle, Mosaic or Kingdom), but under GRACE (Rom. 6:14). In other words, I’m not under Matt. 6:14 but Rom. 6:14. You cannot harmonize the two verses any more than you can directly apply the parable to believers saved by grace through faith in Christ alone.

God Bless,
Bene.

 

[Philthy]

Hi bene7! :yup:

bene7:

The parable states NOTHING about faith, lack of faith or salvation. The slave was punished not for unbelief, but for not forgiving as he was forgiven, and was punished in his own lifetime. Not after he’d died.

True enough, the only question that remains is in what way is the kingdom of heaven(of which entrance requires salvation) like the parable? Im not asking you to answer, just stating a fact. That is, afterall, the point of the parable: to illuminate a reality relating to the kingdom of heaven. “For the kingdom of Heaven is like…”

bene7:

As I pointed out, Jesus compared the parable to the “the Kingdom of Heaven,” not salvation, or one’s redemption wrought through His shed shed blood on the cross.

Agreed, but understanding what it is not relating doesn’t bring us to fully understand what it is relating, which is what I was asking you to share.

bene7:

As for having Scripture that does not directly apply to us, well, there lots of it. Do you sacrifice according to the instructions in the Book of Leviticus? Do you rest completely on Saturday from your occupation? How many people in your church or family have been put to death because they did not? When/if your wife had/has a baby, did/would she go to Jerusalem and present the proper sacrifice?

I get it now, sorry. You don’t think that parable applies to us - right? Except, perhaps, to appreciate the state(Grace through faith) that we are in now. OK - I get it now. I must have missed you saying “This parable does not apply to us, that is why your syllogism doesn’t work, Phil. God does indeed forgive our sins even if we don’t forgive others because Christ was speaking to people prior to the age of Grace which came after the Crucifixion. We are not part of the “you” in Matt 6:14’s 'If YOU dont…”

bene7:

I gave you the full reason for my interpretation, Phil. Why do you accuse me of not? The reason I provided is the same for why I do not apply Matt. 6:14 to believers during this Church age, this age of GRACE. Believers today are not under law (legal principle, Mosaic or Kingdom), but under GRACE (Rom. 6:14). In other words, I’m not under Matt. 6:14 but Rom. 6:14. You cannot harmonize the two verses any more than you can directly apply the parable to believers saved by grace through faith in Christ alone.
God Bless,
Bene.

Forgive me if I accused you of anything wrongly, I am sorry. I told you I was stupid - I must have missed it. Now that I have come to understand your perspective I recall having been exposed to this concept before. It does indeed seem reasonable, like many interpretations. The one nagging question that remains in my mind is why that Scripture would have been recorded at all, since it was recorded well after the Crucifixion,after all those who would benefit from it were likely dead and it would not apply to the people (like us) who do read it. Again, Im not trying to lure you into providing an answer, just expressing my thoughts…

You have been patient with me and I appreciate it. Again I apologize and ask your forgiveness if I did something to falsely accuse you or offend you, that was not my intention. We have some theological differences, and exchanges can get heated, but there is always room for love.

Thanks again-

Phil

 

[Sherlock]

bene7:

First you agree with me that it is a parable and not to be considered a formal doctrinal statement. But then you treat the parable as if it is a doctrinal statement.

Of course it’s a parable and not a case of Jesus making a doctrinal statement. But doctrine is based on God’s revelation, and the parables that Jesus told are powerful revelation for our understanding the Kingdom of heaven; how we are to relate to God and one another; death, judgement, heaven and hell. They are sources for doctrine, as they are God speaking to us. As such, they are not to be dismissed because of their presentation.

bene7:

Sherlock, based on the clear teachings of Scripture regarding salvation and one’s eternal state, this side of the cross, one cannot derive from this parable that if a true believer UNDER GRACE fails to forgive another his redemption, procured by the shed blood of Christ on the cross, is suddenly taken away…"

No, I don’t accept this. It must not be such a “clear teaching” after all—granted, I may be a bit dense, but you are saying that this interpretation of yours is “clear” yet Catholics, the Orthodox, and even many Protestants have a different interpretation. So folks have gotten it wrong for most of 2000 years? Sorry, but that’s a bit much to ask me to swallow…

bene7:

Please note that Jesus doesn’t say one’s salvation is compared to the parable, but the “Kingdom of Heaven.”

I’m well aware of what it says. Your pointing that item out does nothing to change the fact that your interpretation is a novel one. You have simply tried to cram this parable to fit into your pre-existing theology.

bene7:

Though you will not receive what I am about to say, because of the way you’re taught as a Catholic (and many Protestants also), the “Kingdom of Heaven” in Matthew’s Gospel almost always refers not to this Church age, this age of GRACE, but the “age to come” when Christ will literally reign upon on this earth for 1000 years from Jerusalem over Israel and the Gentiles nations. ).

Though you will not receive what I am about to say, because of the way you’re taught as a pre-millenialist, this literal 1000-year reign of Christ is a recent theological fad that has no historical roots in the Church of the Apostles and their immediate followers.

bene7:

Please take note that the servant’s master immediately hands him over to the “torturer’s” until the debt he was forgiven is paid. The judgment is implemented immediately, in the servant’s own lifetime. So it cannot refer to Hell or an unbiblical concept like “Purgatory.”.

Funny how you ignore the main point of the parable (that we are called to forgive others as we have been forgiven) and focus on one small item to take seriously—the time frame. I think you’re swallowing a camel and straining at a gnat. The Master (God) has mercy on His servant, despite his servant’s unworthiness (gives him forgiveness and grace throughout his life). However, he does not extend this mercy to others and his fellow servants complain. Thus, in a final judgement, the servant is sent to prison immediately (at our death, we each receive an immediate sentence, heaven or hell. We may need to spend time in Purgatory, so we go there first. The servant seems to be sent to purgatory, as there are those interesting words about “until the last penny” is paid—indicating that it can be paid). This interpretation also squares with other parables of Jesus. For example, in the parable of the Talents, the servants receive varying amounts of money (read, grace). The servants who go out with their talents and increase them (cooperate with the grace they have received and sharing that grace elsewhere, thereby increasing the harvest of grace) are rewarded with even more talents. The servant who simply received the talent but did not DO anything with it is banished and the talent he had is stripped away (Note well: the grace was initially given by God and received by the individual—given and received. Yet it is what was DONE with that grace that condemned the servant).

bene7:

I know you will repudiate this interpretation, but unless you understand the Scriptures in this light the Bible is a Book chock full of contradictions. Matthew chapters five through seven are also “Kingdom Law” and cannot be directly applied to this age of GRACE (Rom. 6:14).

This is a very, very revealing statement of yours. First off, I don’t accept this interpretation and yet I do NOT see the Bible as “chock full of contradictions”. Why? Because, as a Catholic, I view the Bible as a whole. Your comment tells me that your Protestant view does indeed end up pitting one verse against another, making contradictions where none are: it’s “either/or”, as opposed to the Catholic “both/and”. It’s interesting to see the novel interpretations necessary in order to accomodate the your view.

 

[Pax]

bene7:

Yes, they are synonymous, they’re from the same root word in Greek. I’m a little amazed though that you say I “finally” looked at the issue of Abraham more closely. I said nothing “differently” in this post than in previous ones.

But what you must still deal with, Pax, is the Biblical fact that Abraham was reckoned righteous only ONCE, and that BEFORE he was circumcised, not afterward. You must deal with Paul’s argument in Romans four. A man is reckoned (considered) righteous by God, once for all time, the moment he puts his faith in God’s word concerning His Son, apart from works and before any works are performed which demonstrate his true faith.

Peace, my friend,
Bene
.

Bene,

I will be happy to address the teachings of Paul. The odd thing is that you have not dealt with what James says in terms of the word “justify.” James says Abrabam was justified in offering Isaac on the altar, you merely claim that he was only referring to Gen 15:5-6. I have shown you why this is not so, and you have not logically, exegetically, or linguistically overcome what was said to you. I’ll leave it at that on James.

I have** already ** shown you from scripture that Paul never says that justification only occurs one time. His references to Abraham in Gen 15:5-6 are a proof to the Judaizers that they are not justified by the OT law. This does not translate into a “one time” only event of justification, and Paul does never says that we are justified only once. Moreover, Paul does not say that we cannot possibly lose our salvation. Paul says many things to the contrary. In fact, Paul speaks quite provisionally of our salvation. For example:

Romans 11: 20-21
That is true. They[the Jews] were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.

2 Timothy 2: 11-13
The saying is sure: If we have died with him, we shall also live with him; if we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful-- for he cannot deny himself.

1 Timothy 6: 10-12
For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that **some have wandered away from the faith ** and pierced their hearts with many pangs. But as for you, man of God, shun all this; aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. ** Fight the good fight of the faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called ** when you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

1 Timothy 2:15
Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

Colossians 1: 21-23
And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.

This is but a sampling of the many verses that I can bring to bear on this subject, and they are all from the apostle Paul. Your interpretation of salvation in terms of OSAS is not at all consistent with these and numerous other verses of scripture. Paul simply doesn’t teach what you believe. His argument is with the Judaizers that are clueless about grace and salvation through Jesus. The Judaizers had no problem “adding” Jesus to the Law, but they didn’t grasp the fact that Jesus did what the law could not do. Paul describes the failure of the Jews to fulfill the Law by saying:

Romans 9:32
“Why? Because they did not pursue it through faith, but as if it were based on works.”

Romans 10:3-4
“For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.”

All of this brings us to the issue of grace which I will deal with in my next post.

 

[Pax]

Paul explains why the Jews could not fulfill the OT Law requirements. Paul also tells us that we do not overthrow the moral law because of our faith. Paul asks rhetorically, “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith?” He then answers his question saying: “By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”[Romans 3:31] How can this be? It is simple…it is all by grace.

So what does Paul tells us about the “power” of grace? He says the following:

2 Cor 3:5-6
Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, who has made us competent…

1 Cor 15:58
Therefore, my beloved, be steadfast, immovable, always excelling in the work of the Lord, *because you know that in the Lord * your labor is not in vain.

1 Cor 10:13
God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength, but with the testing **he will also provide ** the way out so that you may be able to endure it.

Eph 3:16
I pray that, according to the riches of his glory, he may grant that you may be strengthened in your inner being with power through his Spirit,

Eph 3:20
Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to accomplish abundantly far more than all we can ask or imagine,

Eph 6:10-11
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his power. Put on the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

Phil 4:13
I can do all things through him who strengthens me.

Col 1:11
May you be made strong with all the strength that comes from his glorious power, and may you be prepared to endure everything with joy

2 Thess 1:11
To this end we always pray for you, asking that our God will make you worthy of his call and will fulfill by his power every good resolve and work of faith, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Thess 3:3
But the Lord is faithful; **he will strengthen you ** and guard you from the evil one.

2 Tim 1:7
for God did not give us a spirit of cowardice, but rather a spirit of power and of love and of self-discipline.

2 Tim 3:2- 5
For people will be lovers of themselves, … lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to the outward form of godliness but denying its power.

In Romans Chapter 6 it is made abundantly clear that we are
under grace, and that we now have** power** to avoid sin and “must” not allow it to enslave us. We must be slaves and servants/instruments of rigtheousness. “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. What then? Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!”[Rom 6:14-15]

God tells us in Isaiah 55:11 that “so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.” So we are justified, and all is new. We are finished with sin because God’s grace prospers within us. We are, now more than ever, the clay in the hands of the potter. We are as Ephesians 2:10 says, “…his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”

That is why Paul says:

Rom 6:6
We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.

Rom 6:14-16
For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. What then? Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

 

[Sherlock]

Sherlock:

Though you will not receive what I am about to say, because of the way you’re taught as a pre-millenialist, this literal 1000-year reign of Christ is a recent theological fad that has no historical roots in the Church of the Apostles and their immediate followers.
.

Ooops, just a clarification: I’m referring to a position that you may not actually hold, that is, the “Rapture” as is taught by some Evangelicals (and popularized by the “Left Behind” series). If this isn’t your view, I apologize.

 

[bene7]

Philthy:

True enough, the only question that remains is in what way is the kingdom of heaven(of which entrance requires salvation) like the parable? Im not asking you to answer, just stating a fact. That is, afterall, the point of the parable: to illuminate a reality relating to the kingdom of heaven. “For the kingdom of Heaven is like…” Agreed, but understanding what it is not relating doesn’t bring us to fully understand what it is relating, which is what I was asking you to share.

It’s simply stating that in the Kingdom to come, during Christ’s literal reign on earth, EVERYONE will be dealt with fairly - no inequities. Unrighteousness will not be tolerated; and the punishment, immediately rendered, reflects the revealed truth that Christ rules His Kingdom “with a rod of iron” (Rev. 12:5; 19:15), in truth and justice. Sin and unrighteousness prevail today, but that will not be the case in the Kingdom to come: “Thy will be done ON EARTH as it is in Heaven” will find its reality during that glorious time - when the (true) Church will be reigning with Christ in its glorified state.

The one nagging question that remains in my mind is why that Scripture would have been recorded at all, since it was recorded well after the Crucifixion,after all those who would benefit from it were likely dead and it would not apply to the people (like us) who do read it. Again, Im not trying to lure you into providing an answer, just expressing my thoughts…

I’m not exactly sure what you’re driving at here. But the Scriptures, in their entirety, Old and New Testaments, provide us with knowledge of God’s whole plan of redemption through Christ Jesus. This earth which once crucified Him will soon be ruled by Him (literally).

Please refrain from speaking in the negative: ie, what is not required of me, and try if possible to address in the positive, active sense, what difference it will make for the life of someone who does not “worry” about working as a means of salvation, but one who struggles at times to walk in the good works God has prepared for me. If that is, in your opinion, substantially unrelated to this thread, start another or PM me.

ALL of us struggle at times with our walk of faith. That’s why there is much encouragement and exhortation in the N. T. letters to endure (not because we’ll lose what God has freely given). But we have been bought with the price of Christ’s shed blood - we belong to Him (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 1Pet. 1:18-21). There are works that God will do through us during our walk by faith, and these “works” will be rewarded accordingly (see 1 Cor. 3:11-15), but our redemption was already PAID FOR IN FULL by Another (Jesus Christ) so that our salvation and our justification are bestowed on us gift-wise - to His glory - “*that no man should boast.” *

God Bless,
Bene

 

[bene7]

Sherlock:

Ooops, just a clarification: I’m referring to a position that you may not actually hold, that is, the “Rapture” as is taught by some Evangelicals (and popularized by the “Left Behind” series). If this isn’t your view, I apologize.

Thank you for the clarification, Sherlock. Yes, I do adhere to the Biblical truth that Christ will come for His Church before the Tribulation period that comes upon this earth. As for Premillialism, it was the dominate belief for at least the first 300 years of Church history. Amillennialism, in all its forms, was a later development, not from the study of the prophetic Scriptures, but a lack of it.

God Bless,
Bene