The Commandments should not be followed ... Part 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter BRB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pax your RC catechism in para 1032 teaches this passage as a proof of the non-existent purgatory—not condemnation, but purgation.
My post was not a denial of the application of this passage to the teaching of purgatory. The Church uses 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 for that purpose, and I completely concur.

My point was to go a little further in the reading and see how verses 16 and 17, which follow the presentation on “fire”, refer to hell. We know that hell is always associated with fire. Likewise, we know that the purging of the work built upon wood, hay, and straw is also burned up by way of fire. These are related things which are a result of God’s judgment when we die.

My comments were not meant to add or substract from the Church’s statements on purgatory or 1 Cor 3:12-15 as they apply to purgatory.

I hope that clears up any confusion that I may have created.
 


There’s only one in heaven who’s perfectly kept the commandments during His earthly life, and His is the only name given by which one must be saved, and His name is not Ten Commandments, but Jesus.
This is an example of making a statement that mischaracterizes all that has been said to you.

When you make a statement like this you neglect the facts of our beliefs. You know very well that we believe that we are saved by Jesus as opposed to being saved by the ten commandments. No where on this thread, and no where in Catholic teaching can you find a statement by us that asserts what you’ve just insinuated.
 
That is what Catholics would call that.

However, I wouldn’t call it that. My justification was final when God declared me righteous in Christ on the basis of faith.
You may very well be in a state of justification at this moment. That, however, could change. Hopefully, that will not be the case. If we are currently justified and continue to be sanctified, let us be thankful to God and pray that God keeps us that way in spite of ourselves. If we are not justified and are not being sanctified, then let us pray that God will bring us into that holy state of sonship now and forever. Amen.

Only God knows for sure, and only God can provide the grace we need.
 
Whether or not justification occurs once is very much a part of the question AFAIC, Phil—you’re position is that justification occurs many times. Keep that in mind.
Yes its part of the thread, but the question at hand, the one that I told MD you werent backing him up on, the one that you claimed to agree with his position on…was whether it was “recorded in Scripture” that Abraham was justified somewhere other than Gen 15.
It clearly is in James 2, though you both claim the justification spoken of there is different than the justification in Gen 15. There is nothing to debate: Scripture records that Abraham was justified when he offered Isaac on the altar, and that by works.
 
Key words those in red. They speak to the visibility of the working faith. Remember James opening of the passage pertains to one who says he has faith, but his lack of action denies that he has faith.
Lack of action denies he has faith??? Must faith act when it has the opportunity? If so, how would anyone know that they have faith apart from their actions?
 
They’re always in my mind to keep them because they are Holy and good.
I knew we could agree on that - thanks! 👍

If Im not mistaken you forgot to answer this one:

Is there an eternal(ie in Heaven), undesirable consequence that results from our failures to follow the 10 Commandments (ie love of God and neighbor)? Y or N

I ask because most Protestants I have interacted with say that our Heavenly rewards are affected, but I wasn’t sure where the MD/Sandy team stood. It directly bears on the thread.
 
40.png
Philthy:
Lack of action denies he has faith??? Must faith act when it has the opportunity?
James 2:14-16
14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?

15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,

16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?I don’t know, Phil. 🤷

What do you think?
 
The unregenerate man is ungodly, however:Romans 5:6

6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
And Paul also says:Rom 4:5 “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,”
But Phil, Pax and Mikeledes would have us believe that God justifies the godly, and that for being faithful.
 
And Paul also says:Rom 4:5 “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,”
But Phil, Pax and Mikeledes would have us believe that God justifies the godly, and that for being faithful.
Over the course of two threads there is not one post that we have made that says what you just stated as our belief.

I will deal with more of your misunderstandings and misleading statements later this evening. My temporal job beckons.

Have a good, holy, and productive day by way of God’s grace!
 
Over the course of two threads there is not one post that we have made that says what you just stated as our belief.

I will deal with more of your misunderstandings and misleading statements later this evening. My temporal job beckons.

Have a good, holy, and productive day by way of God’s grace!
So then you’re saying Abraham was ungodly when he offered up Isaac?
 
Lack of action denies he has faith??? Must faith act when it has the opportunity? If so, how would anyone know that they have faith apart from their actions?
I find that claim very interesting as well, considering that they are the ones who have argued that the branches that don’t bear fruit or fail to abide and lose the vital power to produce fruit are genuine Christians. 🙂

God Bless,
Michael
 
moondweller do not have anything to say

have you finally came to the conclusion as Catholics have that faith includes love and the fathers will includes love

“whoever loves has been **born of God **and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love” (Jn 4:7-8).

John also speaks against loving the world, warning that if one is to do this “the love of the Father is not in him” (2:15)

I wonder if the love of the father has anything to do with the will of the father 🤷

in 1 Corinthians 13:2, Paul writes, “if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” This, beyond all doubt, proves that man cannot be saved by faith without love.

The demons believe God, and they believe in God, but they do not love God, so they do not know God, so they are not justified. This was true also, at least for some time, of Adam and Eve after the fall. Abraham believed God, and he loved God, so he was justified. The same is true of Moses. They were the friends of God.

Im glad you acknowlegs that simply bowing before something does not mean they actually worship Im also glad that you see that mearly confessing with your lips Jesus is lord will gurantee you will enter the kingdom of heaven.

The demons lack love moon

I thought you where the doo-doo covered in snow. Im not doo-doo im a friend of God

Do you know God moondweller?

that is a real question DO YOU KNOW GOD?

So back to

not everyone who calls me lord lord will enter heaven but the one who does the will of my father

If you dont love moon your in deep doo doo because love is the will of the father.

dening the grace of God whos in deep doo doo?

Moon if you choose not to love as Christ loves you are rejecting the fathers will. It has nothing to do with working for a reward
 
And Paul also says:Rom 4:5 “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,”
But Phil, Pax and Mikeledes would have us believe that God justifies the godly, and that for being faithful.
You have completely misrepresented the Catholic position. First of all, when we talk about works, we are talking about the works of the justified, not the works of the “ungodly.” Second of all, it is clear that that passage is referring to the moment when an ungodly is made righteous by God. No Catholic here claims that that occurs on the basis of works prior to that moment. Let me repost what Pax wrote for the benefit of those participating in this thread, especially BRB, since he apparently has not understood what Pax is saying:
You are making the same mistake over and over again. We have told you numerous times that we are not saved by the Mosaic Law and neither was David or any other OT figure. Everyone from both the old and new covenants is saved by Jesus.

You are attempting to paint us as legalists, and this simply will not fly. If you think that David or any other person of the OT that committed grievous sins such as murder would be saved without repentence then you do not have a grasp of the OT scriptures. Try reading Psalm 51 where David asks for God’s mercy and forgiveness.

I will attempt one last time to explain the relationship issue that is crucial to understanding why we cannot engage in sinfulness and expect to be saved. This explanation is something that we partially share with our non-Catholic brothers and sisters, but it is something that is not well articulated or sometines understood on their part.

Catholics do not believe that we are saved by keeping the ten commandments. Please lock that into your consciousness before we proceed.

We are saved by the redemptive work of Christ on the cross. He is the redeemer and we are the redeemed.

God gives us grace to believe and to thus receive the application and benefit of that redemptive work of Jesus as a free gift.

It is by this that we come into the right relationship with God through grace by faith. In other words we become “justified.” Please lock that into your consciousness before we proceed.

We are at that point in time a "new creation in Christ Jesus for good works which the Father prepared beforehand*

We are not a new creation in Christ Jesus for breaking the ten commandments or for any form of evil.

We are now in a family relationship with God as “Abba” Father. Jesus is our brother. The Holy Spirit dwells within us. Sin and God are not compatible with one another.

The law and the decalogue point out sin but have no saving power.

Grace has power and that is why Phillippians 2:12-13 says:

“Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

Paul likewise tells us in Romans “…that we are to be conformed to the image of His Son[Jesus]”

Sin is not the work of God within us, and is not the will and work for the good pleasure of God. Sin does not conform us to the image of Jesus. God’s grace saves us and changes us.

The “royal law” per James, and the “law of Christ” per Paul, are one in the same thing. They have to do with grace and being members of the family of God. They have to do with “being righteous” The apostle John puts it this way:

1 John 3:7
“Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous.”

John doesn’t tell us to break the ten commandments or to sin. Instead, he tells not to sin[see all of 1 Jn 3] Likewise, Paul and James don’t tell us to break the ten commandments either. Instead, they tell us that as Christians living in the Spirit that we actually uphold the law. They say this because loving God and neighbor fulfill the law and righteousness which is the “royal law” and the “law of Christ.”

It isn’t the letter of the law. It isn’t legalistic. It’s all about living in the Spirit, by way of the Spirit, living in Christ, living by grace, doing the works of the Father by way of grace in our new creation in Christ Jesus. Sin is incompatible with this life in Christ.

Legalism is dead but so is our life in sin*. It is in this last point, that we actually uphold the law by faith in Jesus Christ.

The wages of sin is still death[Rom 6:23]. We are finished with sin[Rom 6:2] We are no longer enslaved to sin; we are freed from it. We are freed from breaking the decalogue. We live to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and we do this as adopted sons and daughters, and brothers and sisters in Christ by way of grace.

It is all about relationship. In our family relationship as Christians we cannot be members of the holy household if we live a life of sin. Fornication, murder, thievery and the like are banished and cannot be part of our lives. The prodigal son left the Father’s household in order to live a life of dissipation in the flesh. He could not live that life within the household of grace. He had to turn from the life in the flesh and return to the household in repentence.

That is why James says, “My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.”[James 5:19-20]

That is also why Jesus says, “Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.”[Luke 15:7]

This joy in heaven is in keeping with the feast offered by the father for the prodigal son “who was dead but is now alive.”
 
One of the greatest lies of this age is that the church has replaced Israel and is called “the Israel of God.” An egregious error held to this day by both Catholics and Protestants, causing them to be unable to comprehend large bodies of Scripture.
.
OH MY !!! Moon, you were on a solid streak … til you said this.

Now you have opened the game up big time. This could be a fatal error. Time will tell if they can mount a major rally.
 
There is nothing in Romans 11:17-22 that separates the meaning of national Israel from the individuals that form it. That is the goofiest argument anyone can make. Not every person that was a Jew that were contemporary with the NT writers were cut off. Many were converted to Christianity yet they were still members of the Jewish community. Moreover, the earliest christians still went to synagogue and the temple. Even Paul did. Some were cut off and some were not. This applies to individuals and anything you say to the contrary is pure sophistry. The final proof of this is found in Paul’s reference to the gentiles being cut off. Obviously, not all of the gentile nation(?) could possibly be cut off, but only individual gentiles that fall into that category

.
Oh my, Pax smells blood in the water on this one. A viscious rally is sure to follow.

Moon, you will have to have the strength of old Bambino Ruth … to survive this inning intact.
 
You have completely misrepresented the Catholic position. First of all, when we talk about works, we are talking about the works of the justified, not the works of the “ungodly.” Second of all, it is clear that that passage is referring to the moment when an ungodly is made righteous by God. No Catholic here claims that that occurs on the basis of works prior to that moment.
But you do argue that men are justified on the basis of works AFTER that moment. It is the contention of Catholics on this thread that Abraham was justified (by God) by and at the time of offering up Issac. So, you would have us believe that God justifies the godly.
 
OH MY !!! Moon, you were on a solid streak … til you said this.

Now you have opened the game up big time. This could be a fatal error. Time will tell if they can mount a major rally.
How so?
 
James 2:14-16

**14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? **

15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,

**16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?**I don’t know, Phil. 🤷

What do you think?
I think the doctrine that teaches justification by faith alone is errant and unbiblical.
 
But you do argue that men are justified on the basis of works AFTER that moment. It is the contention of Catholics on this thread that Abraham was justified (by God) by and at the time of offering up Issac. So, you would have us believe that God justifies the godly.
Just to be clear and accurate, my good friend, what you mean to say is that when Catholics adopt your “recorded in Scripture” rule and read James 2 that " Abraham was justified by works" - Catholics maintain that Abraham was justified by God; and likewise, where it is recorded in Scripture that “Abraham was justified…when he offered Isaac on the altar” they understand that to mean exactly what it says - that he was justified by God.
And more specifically they understand the use of the word “justified” in James 2:21 to be identical to the “righteousness” in James 2:23 (and Gen 15) - which appears to be James’ entire point in linking the two verses, whereas you believe the justified
in James 2:23 to be something different than the “righteousness”
in James 2:21 which makes James’ point in linking them so confusing that even a biblical scholar of Luther’s level could not resolve them.
 
40.png
moondweller:
And Paul also says:
Rom 4:5 “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,”

But Phil, Pax and Mikeledes would have us believe that God justifies the godly, and that for being faithful.
It does seem that way. :hmmm:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top