The Commandments should not be followed ... Part 2

[mikeledes]

What I find interesting, Catholic Dude, is the internal inconsistencies in the arguments of those who teach faith alone. When you point out James 2:24, they immediately say that James is teaching that genuine faith produces good works. However, when you point out a verse like…

John 15:2

**"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit. **

… many will admit that this is a reference to genuine Christians. So if they are genuine Christians, they must have genuine faith. If they have genuine faith, why haven’t they born fruit? Doesn’t genuine faith automatically leads to good fruit, according to the standard Protestant interpretation of James 2? And if it’s not true in the case of John 15:2, then the Protestant interpretation of James 2 does not hold water because John 15:2 proves that a person can have genuine saving faith without having followed up on that faith with good works. Secondly, we have 2 Peter 1:5-9

5 But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, 6 to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, 7 to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.

Note that Peter does not say, “he who lacks these things (virtue, knowledge, self-control, perserverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, love) never had faith or was never really saved.” He says that “he who lackes these things… has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.” In order for that person to have been cleansed from his old sins, he must have had genuine faith. That makes sense because Peter opens by saying that one must add these things to faith. And he says that we must give “all diligence.” “Diligence” means earnest effort. This again contradicts the standard Protestant interpretation of James 2 because true faith should automatically lead to good works. Consequently, the Protestant once again must address the following question made in James 2:14

**14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? **

The obvious answer is no, hence the popular Protestant mantra “the faith that saves is a faith that works.” However, how do they deal with those in Christ who have not born fruit, thus having a faith that has not worked? And how do you reconcile the salvation of these “unfruitful” Christians with passages like:

Revelation 2:26

26 And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations—

Revalation 2:10

Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.

Galatians 6:7-9

7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. 9 And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart.

Romans 2:6-8

6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath,

John 5:28-29

28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

God Bless,
Michael

:coffeeread:

 

[ryanoneil]

No it isn’t. You’re adding conditions to it. Paul’s doctrinal statement to the Ephesian believers, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, …a gift of God, …not as a result of works” is no different than what he and his companions stated to the Philippian jailer when he asked what he must do to be saved: “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.” And Paul’s doctrinal statement to the Ephesian believers and answer to the Philippian jailer coincides with Christ’s own statement:John 3:16-18

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

God saves the one who believes in Christ. Divine salvation is gifted “through faith” (upon belief in Christ). The Philippian jailer believed in Christ and God saved. Paul didn’t say, “be faithful and hope to be saved.”

In John 3:16 doesn’t the word BELIEVES (“pisteuo” in Greek) includes obedience?

Doesn’t 1 Peter 2:7-8 which also uses “pisteuo” (to obey) and “apitheo” (to disobey) prove it?

Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

To “believe” means to “obey”.

You corrupt this Divine message by turning it away from the Person of Christ to self. From “faith” to “faithfulness.” The former being objective, the latter subjective. The former unequivocal, the latter equivocal. The faith through which God saves is that which turns away from self completely and, as instructed in the gospel message, believes only in Another (someone other than himself).

And that faith is one the believes/obeys.

And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him (Heb. 5:9)

Does this scripture turn away from the Person of Christ to self?

 

[Philthy]

Thank you again for your thoughtful replies.

Faith in what, Phil? That you’ll be good enough to the very end to merit salvation?

Well, that would be hope. My faith remains in Christ my redeemer, but I hope and pray that by the grace of God I will persevere to the end and am brought to the glory of eternal life where Christ will say, “Well done good and faithful servant…why dont you and MD shake hands and get aquainted.” :yup:

You keep veering off. God is the one who saves. We don’t save ourselves. And the basis for His saving has nothing to do with what man does but what Christ has done.

I dont veer off. I deal with practical realities. God saves - we dont save ourselves. We can jeopardize our salvation, however, through out conduct. Christ makes this explicitly clear. Paul makes this explicitly clear. James makes this explicitly clear. You “veer off” by claiming that our actions only affect our rewards and you implicitly suggest that somehow the “rewards” are not a big part of the picture. I will re-ask the question I asked on page one of this thread:
“Would we be eternally happy with a salvation devoid of reward?” If you answer yes, then why did Christ and all the NT writers make such a big deal of our conduct as Christians? Im still waiting for a practical answer that I can use throughout my life. Until then I have to believe that our conduct has a very serious effect on our individual salvation (or that of others).

Then why add “Christian conduct” to the equation?

It remains an important topic - chapters and chapters of NT are written on the very topic. Why? Still waiting for the answer you dont have.

And your problem is that you fail to identify his problem. And the reason you can’t see it is that you both have the identical problem regarding faith."

Perhaps. Then again, perhaps you have a problem and have read more into the dialogue than is actually presented based upon your problem. For example, you claim that the “live” in Christ’s answer didnt correspond to the “eternal life” that the lawyer inquired about. You made reference to Deut to justify this claim. Yet the “live” in Deuteronomy is not “eternal life” that the lawyer asked of, is it? You make Christ out to be less than forthcoming as some are prone to be on this very thread. Yet you fail to grasp that the lawyer didnt ask "What must I do to live ? He asked what must I do to inherit eternal life? God does lie. He does not obfuscate. He gave him the answer. The problem with the answer - for you - is that it contradicts your current concept of faith and how it is related to our lives and how it is related to salvation. The only indication of the lawyer going astray is after the above exchange when the lawyer - attempting to “justify himself” by following the letter of the law and not the law of love - asks, “And who is my neighbor?” And Christ is quick to expand the “law” to include anyone in need. You may have overlooked the entire point of that as well, given your mistaken belief that we are only responsible for loving the faithful.

There wasn’t a lick of sincerity in the man’s questioning, and Jesus knew it.

Problem 1: Scripture doesnt reveal this - you assume it.
Problem 2: Two wrongs don’t make a right - Christ still owes him an honest answer.
Problem 3: The rest of us deserve the honest answer to the question as well, and Christ knew we’d be reading without the benefit of all the hidden details - like the sincerity of the lawyer’s question.

Loving God and your neighbor as yourself (keeping the Law) does not merit any man eternal life. One is merely doing what is expected.

Most of what you wrote makes good sense, but this statement here seems confusing. I say this because the lawyer asks Christ the one question that takes them out of the law. He asks about eternal life - what Christ wants to talk about - not about how to “live” according to the law. Why would the lawyer ask about “eternal life” in the first place?

The moral of the story is that the despised Samaritan proved himself more righteous according to the Law than the lawyer who claimed to be an “expert” of it. In love, Jesus did what He needed to do for the lawyer. Shake the foundation of his self-righteousness. Who knows, maybe after the crucifixion and the Apostle’s gospel message concerning the cross, he finally turned to Christ in faith.

I agree with all of this - it reminds me of the rich young man as well. What Christ asked of him - “sell all your posessions, give the money to the poor and come, follow me” was Christs way of teaching him that he hadnt actually “followed all the commandments” He loved his possessions more than God and he loved himself more than his neighbor in need.
I only disagree in that limiting the exchange to that concept and entirely dismissing Christ’s answer as being somehow disingenuous because the lawyer didnt deserve the correct answer - seems to be making a man of God.

To repent is to turn one’s direction.

Please, try to be practical so that it has meaning. Give an example of how repenting and salvation go together and how taking a left turn at a traffic light(which fits your definition) and salvation have nothing to do with one another. Does it include changing your behavior?

To trust is to “believe in.” As in, “whoever believes in Him has eternal life.” So one repents (turns) from unbelief to belief in Christ.

So to sum it up, trusting is believing, believing is having faith; repenting is turning from unbelief to belief, which is from faithlessness to having faith (not faithfulness!). Faith is faith, repenting is faith, trust is faith and belief is faith. It’s prettty much all faith, Correct? Is forgiving others their trespasses faith? Is persevering to the end also faith? Is believing and being baptized faith? Was offering Isaac faith? Is obedience to God’s will faith? Is obeying the 10 commandments faith? Sorry, had to throw that one in there…

 

[Pax]

I already did. You still need to show me where it is recorded three times: “Then Abraham believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.” I still find it recorded on only one occasion: Gen. 15:6.

You have not done so. Please go back and read my post numbers 34,35, and 37 on this thread. You have never addressed these posts and the scripture and analysis that they contain. You are either woefully remiss in reading and studying that which is presented to you, or you are simply in denial. Until you can refute what is contained in those posts, your claims about Abraham are meaningless. Moreover, if you cannot examine and exegetically refute the material, then your position is untenable.

 

[Pax]

moon,

Does a Christian live by the law of the Spirit or not?

 

[CentralFLJames]

How does the cross “convict” unbelievers?I don’t accept this interpretation. The passage states nothing about a “second chance” salvation.Belief is consent, isn’t it?
So then man didn’t fall by his own free will?
With all your words you still miss the power of the cross. In light of the cross, with our sins being laid on the Substitute, the issue of salvation is not sin but belief. Upon belief ALL sins are forgiven. If “love of both God and man” is the issue, then men are being judged according to LAW, grace (and the cross) is made void.Actually, “trust” is a product of “belief.” When one believes God’s Word concerning the Person and work of Christ on his behalf, trust in God follows. Abraham believed in the Lord and His trust in Him grew.

Belief is sufficient for God to save according to His grace: “Believe in the Lord Jesus and will be saved.” What you don’t believe is the sufficiency of grace.Faith must have an object. The object of salvation faith is the Person and redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Through such faith God SAVES the sinner, perfectly and completely.“Fruit bearing” is for discipleship, not salvation. The saved believer (the branch) is to abide in Christ, the Vine (his Source of power), in order to bear much fruit. The believer is now, positionally “in Christ” and seated with Him in the heavenly (Col. 3:1-3; Eph. 2:6), but he is to volitionally “abide” in Christ during his walk on earth, in order to “bear fruit.” Salvation and discipleship are two different issues.But not FOR salvation. "For by grace you have been saved through FAITH…a gift of God…not as a result of works"One is “reborn” upon faith in Christ. Only believers were/are to be baptized. And the believer is born again into the resurrected Christ, not the suffering Christ. It’s His resurrected LIFE he receives upon belief. That’s what makes it "eternal life."It is God who saves, man does not save himself. “For by grace YOU HAVE BEEN SAVED…” Not, "By cooperation you will be saved…"You still stumble over the cross.Grace doesn’t become accessible to us. It is the means by which God Himself SAVES, completely and perfectly, the one who believes the gospel concerning the Person and work of Jesus Christ.You have made the cross into a mere religious “symbol.” And ultimately men must work their way into heaven. You have described neither the cross nor the power of God toward those who believe because of it. All that you say above is very “pretty,” but it is not "the gospel."Law vs. GRACE. You’re still arguing Law.

No time today to respond to you - will get back tomorrow hopefully.

James

 

[Pax]

moon,

While we are not under the old law, are you claiming that for the believer there is no law or laws at all?

 

[CentralFLJames]

moon,

While we are not under the old law, are you claiming that for the believer there is no law or laws at all?

If I may, I have a theory on all this circular reasoning coming out of the Protestant camp.

You and I see it for what it is - anarchy and a rejection of ecclesial authority. This new lawless interpretation is just the epoch of the most contemporary hope coming out of Protestant’s slow burn realization that they had absolutely no legitimacy in rejecting The Catholic Church’s authority; nor in hijacking, deprecating and reinterpreting scripture in a way that would give them the moral justification. So they need to reiterate the reinterpretation in a way that that ALL law no longer applies. This makes it possible to legitimize the original crime by declaring themselves exempt from the scripture! We both know that this novel interpretation is nothing but moral-relativism and I see it as symptomatic of the same old scrupulosity Luther had.

The single confused principal at the center of all Protestant error is the erroneous belief that if one truly believes in anything real or imagined with enough conviction then that belief must become true for a person with strong enough faith to move a mountain. That makes the penalty of having a millstone placed around one’s neck and sunk to the bottom of the ocean a relatively simple matter to escape. One must only be confident enough to believe that one can escape punishment by simply walking away on water or by dropping the mountain in the ocean to displace the water.

It all sounds like a self-eating watermelon to me. In the limit of ludicrosity the error becomes an expression of faith that makes it a duty to reinterpret scripture in such a way that scripture is seen as just another expression of “law” that need no longer apply for the “saved” Christian. Infinitely regressing on the same original error, if one only “believes” strongly enough and can get people to buy into it and can keep a straight face without blushing - one can make an “honest” living preaching this snake-oil then passing the tithe basket around the circuit to pay for the feel-good therapy.

James

 

[ryanoneil]

I should let MD answer, but this post about the law of faith goes back to our earlier conversation. And my last post about “believe” means to “obey”. (“pisteuo” in Greek)

I’m not a Greek scholar, so can anyone tell me if this is correct?

As you read further along in Paul’s argument we see that the blood of Christ is the ONLY procuring cause for our being accounted righteous before God, and FAITH (alone) the sole condition:Rom 3:22-24 "…even {the} righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all (Jews under the Law; Gentiles, a law unto themselves) sinned (i.e., in Adam) and (continually) fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus (the blood of the cross);"And further, says Paul:Rom 3:27-30 "Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law (Mosaic: Jews; conscience: Gentiles).

Or is God {the God} of Jews only? Is He not {the God} of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also (who did not have the Law), since indeed God who will justify the circumcision (Jew) by faith and the uncircumcision (Gentile) through faith is one".

related to the above scripture, doesn’t John John 3:36 also use “pisteuo”?

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

can anyone confirm this for me?

 

[moondweller]

I’d say this about your above comments. Discipleship FOLLOWS salvation, but Christ will not offer us salvation until we FULLY CONSENT to become lifelong disciples. Thus, salvation is Contingent upon discipleship.

This is a completely false statement! It makes salvation contingent upon the will of man and his promise to God to perform. But most tragic of all, your statement nullifies the cross, the unique work of Christ by which God saves the believer strictly “by grace through faith” in Christ alone.

We are saved “just as we are, without one good work to show for ourselves” … but, with a Commitment [a Covenant] we make to Christ, to be forever Disciples.

Then one cannot be truly saved, BRB, until he has fulfilled the “Covenant.” Please show me (in Scripture) this alleged “covenant” men make with Christ.

Then, Christ certifies/guarantees us to the Father … and the Father will adopt us into his Kingdom.

Please show me where this “adoption into His Kingdom,” based on a covenant men make with Christ, is taught.

Through faith in Christ, there is the believer’s “adoption as sons” (being now in Christ), but I know nothing of your “adoption into His Kingdom.” The believer is transferred into the kingdom of His beloved Son "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins" (Col. 1:13-14). You are presenting strange doctrines.

Christ is our broker. He is the ONLY ONE that can carry us to the Father. We must come to him AT THE CROSS … to find our FREE GIFT of salvation.

I agree with the Catholics that you’re a man of constant contradictions in your theology.

Christ is our Savior, He is not our “broker” before God. Salvation is not some cosmic business deal between the Father and the Son drawn up in some alleged covenant form which men then verbally “sign” and promise to perform.

This is a salvation based completely on works; a salvation according to your imagination, not Divine revelation. In Paul’s words, “a different gospel.”

Its a Continuum spiritual process [Covenant] that will not be abrogated by the Trinity. Unless, we commit satan’s Apostasy.

Salvation is neither a process nor a covenant between man and God.

True, but lets consider WHAT IS man/woman’s part in the spiritual healing process.

H.S. draws us to the Word. We must take action … ‘verbally’ giving ‘free will’ consent to Christ to become our King. We also must ‘verbally’ promise obedience. We must ‘verbally’ pray the salvation prayer to Christ.

Simply put … we must PRAY to the Lord to give us ‘spiritual healing’ and ‘new life’ in Himself’. This is what David did. And this is what the Lord did for David. And, the Lord never abandoned David thereafter.

Simply put, BRB, salvation is not based on a “verbal” contract on man’s part. You are presenting a salvation based on works, completely contingent on man’s performance, not Christ’s.Eph 2:8-9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, {it is} the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

Acts 16:30-31 "Sirs, what must I do to be saved? They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved…”

John 5:24 “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.”

 

[Philthy]

If faith is trust in the work of Christ for salvation, what was the content of Abraham’s faith, being that he was not aware of Christ and His Cross?

God bless,
Michael

I’ll venture that faith this side of the cross is trust in Christ for salvation where as faith on the other side (Abraham’s side) was belief in God and His promises.

 

[Philthy]

moon,

While we are not under the old law, are you claiming that for the believer there is no law or laws at all?

I can answer this! According to MD we are not under any law, but are under grace! For it is by grace that we are saved through the redemtive work of Christ on the cross. It is by faith in Him that we enter into eternal life - instantaneously, completely and irrevocably - at the point in time that we believe.

 

[Thing]

I can answer this! According to MD we are not under any law, but are under grace! For it is by grace that we are saved through the redemtive work of Christ on the cross. It is by faith in Him that we enter into eternal life - instantaneously, completely and irrevocably - at the point in time that we believe.

So MD is in heaven now. Thank you Lord.

 

[CentralFLJames]

So MD is in heaven now. Thank you Lord.

To tell the truth, I think he is hedging his bets on if he has to do anything at all except labor to die in the whole faith-alone (protestant) vs. faith-with-works (Catholic) teaching/debate and is contemplating buying 2 tickets.

He knows the truth that grace is essential but also sees how the word “alone” sounds too absolute, legalistic and God-like when the protestant solas (by-grace-alone and by-faith-alone) are put side to side and compete for the single and prime sola “alone” slot. That paradox and contradiction gives him only one rational avenue of sane escape to heaven - to consider the Catholic perspective of grace with faith and cooperative/demonstrative works of faith.

While he is trying to work up the courage to take the final leap of faith to bypass the perspiration of the cross and get into heaven I think he is secretly hoping Jesus will spare him from having to admit the Catholics might have it right and just rapture him away before he has to commit one way or the other.

Frankly, I think the Protestants are missing yet another sola - “by humility alone”.

James

 

[Philthy]

I think round 1 was interesting. I will say that there are several points which remain unanswered - not because they are difficult, but because those answering them prefer to alter the topic to make a point that they wish to make, rather than simply answering the question. That would seem to be the case with the very simple question, “Should the 10 Commandments be followed by Christians?”
Is there really someone who claims to be Christian who would say that the Commandments should not be followed? No. Basically they all think they should be followed, but for different reasons. Catholics and non-OSAS Protestants believe that our behavior can influence our continued participation in eternal life, while OSAS Protestants believe that although our behavior doesnt influence our salvation, it does affect our rewards in eternal life.
So it would seem that we should all be in agreement that the Commandments should be followed. While at the same time disagree on why they should be. I’m not sure we even got that far in the last thread. Too much baggage, agendas and hostility.
One of the areas never covered in any detail was the notion of rewards in Heaven. It was proposed by the OSAS team that our salvation is not jeopardized through disobedience to the 10C’s, just our heavenly reward. So what I’d like to know from these folks is:
Will we be perfectly happy with a salvation that is devoid of any rewards?
If claiming our salvation isnt jeopardized but that our rewards are - and that compromise turns out to be a very serious, consequential and eternal one - then what is the point of making the distinction? Why not simply affirm the importance of obedience to the 10C’s?

From page 1. I await a meaningful response…

 

[mikeledes]

This is a completely false statement! It makes salvation contingent upon the will of man and his promise to God to perform.

That’s funny coming from someone who believes belief is a matter of free choice, which essentially makes salvation contingent on the will of man (i.e. to chose or not to chose to believe).

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Catholic_Dude]

That’s funny coming from someone who believes belief is a matter of free choice, which essentially makes salvation contingent on the will of man (i.e. to chose or not to chose to believe).

God Bless,
Michael

The same situation arises when Protestants say we don’t cooperate with Justification but we do cooperate during Sanctification…without realizing what they are saying…as if they could fail to cooperate during Sanctification (not be sanctified*) and still go to heaven?

Another knee-slapper is when they say that God controls the will of the Christian, and yet they are stunned when they are asked why a Christian can still sin if God is in control.

*Ironically, I cannot get a straight answer as to when Sanctification is even complete for Protestants.

 

[ryanoneil]

From page 1. I await a meaningful response…

Good question. I don’t know how they would answer because I am not OSAS.

If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. (1 Cor 3:15)

If obedience isn’t necessary for salvation, then why is a man saved (not just rewarded) through fire by a judgment of his works?

 

[Pax]

I can answer this! According to MD we are not under any law, but are under grace! For it is by grace that we are saved through the redemtive work of Christ on the cross. It is by faith in Him that we enter into eternal life - instantaneously, completely and irrevocably - at the point in time that we believe.

Yes…I agree that would be his answer. So let’s proceed as if moondweller had given it.

Scripture does indeed say that we are under grace, but scripture does not say that we are to be "lawless."

If the argument is made that being under grace means that Christians are not under law then “sola fide” advocates have just negated “faith” as a component of salvation.

This unfortunate fact and contradiction within protestant doctrine becomes clear when Jesus admonishes the Pharisees in Matt 23:23 saying:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and** faith**; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.”

So there you have it moon…Jesus himself indicates that faith is part of the old law. Your argument has just collapsed under the words of Jesus himself.

 

[Pax]

You have not done so. Please go back and read my post numbers 34,35, and 37 on this thread. You have never addressed these posts and the scripture and analysis that they contain. You are either woefully remiss in reading and studying that which is presented to you, or you are simply in denial. Until you can refute what is contained in those posts, your claims about Abraham are meaningless. Moreover, if you cannot examine and exegetically refute the material, then your position is untenable.

I’m still waiting.