The Commandments should not be followed ... Part 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter BRB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
See my post #642 in which I responded to this statement made by you:

You were the first to mention those issues.

I said:I described his theology as “sacramental,” and said that included the teaching that baptism is a condition for salvation.

From the CCC:

1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. “Sacramental grace” is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.

A red-herring. The issue I raised had nothing to do with Luther, neither did it have anything to do with Calvin, but with Augustine, and his sacramental theology which states that baptism is necessary for salvation (cf CCC para 1129 above).

I did not say that.

You interpret me in the same manner you interpret scripture—wrongly, IMO.

What I said is, baptism is a ***”work of righteousness.”

*** (see my original post #642, and my reaffirmation of that post #660).)

I did not say, ”baptismal regeneration is the equivalent of works righteousness,” as you wrongly say I did.

There’s a big difference between the two wordings.

That should have been evident to you by the Scripture I cited to support my wording: Matthew 3:15. (ISTM that you didn’t read the entire post, but went off at the first point).

Neither do I see that it has anything to do with Augustine, and his sacramental theology.

And I cited Augustine because what he wrote gave a context to the point concerning scripture that I was making to BRB at the time.

So your point is what?** That it’s OK for you** to quote Augustine to give a context, but it’s not OK for me to quote Augustine to give a context?

That’s obvious.
I reaffirm the above the post #671.
 
:rolleyes:

It’s there for everyone to read. I’ll let those reading be the judge. IMO, if you were not saying that baptismal regeneration = works righteousness (i.e. salvation by a work), then I don’t see the point of post # 642. It’s a moot point.

God bless,
Michael
 
For heaven’s sake, BRB, everyone is a dispensationalist in one way or another believing that God has worked in time through various economies.

You believe that God related to man differently before the Fall, than He did after the Fall, and before the Cross (law), and after the Cross (grace); don’t you?

Even the RC refers to this in the CCC:
**SECTION ONE
THE SACRAMENTAL ECONOMY

;)**

Sandusky…

You know the Church doesn’t accept meaning of dispensation like you do.

RCC uses it in the sense of ‘distribution’ … where the other newage group uses it in sense of ‘suspension of’ the Law, Sacrifices, or Time [allowing for various time periods to be set forth].

I’m not saying all ideas in your fundamental based theory don’t have merit …but, to the degree it tosses out Covenantal Theology it is badly flawed.
 
40.png
mikeledes:
It’s there for everyone to read. I’ll let those reading be the judge. IMO, if you were not saying that baptismal regeneration = works righteousness (i.e. salvation by a work), then I don’t see the point of post # 642. It’s a moot point.
Who would know better what I meant, Mike, me, or you?

What you understood me to be saying, is not what I said.

Unless you think, in this particular point, that I’m a liar; do you?
 
Sandusky…

You know the Church doesn’t accept meaning of dispensation like you do.

RCC uses it in the sense of ‘distribution’ … where the other newage group uses it in sense of ‘suspension of’ the Law, Sacrifices, or Time [allowing for various time periods to be set forth].
A rose is a rose is a rose, BRB.

Dispensations differ only what they describe, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re dispensations, viz. the Catholic Church’s fearless use of the word in her catechism. 🙂
 
What you understood me to be saying, is not what I said.
Perhaps what you intended to communicate was not what you understood what you said to mean. Words on a page - so much confusion without a referee to make a call. In such situations a tie goes to the runner. Home plate ump gets the final call.
Unless you think, in this particular point, that I’m a liar; do you?/
Well, technically a lie would require that not only did you purposely miscommunicate but that Mike has the right to know the truth. That doesnt apply here.
There’s also a very good chance that your association with me on the “Commandment Crushers” is not helping your reputation. 😉 One thing I am sure of is that the question indicates that the two of you either need to speak privately (PM) or simply move on.
 
40.png
Philthy:
I dont quite follow you here. Where did the “external” portion of your assessment come from, and why have you limited Baptism to merely the external?
Because one physically goes to a baptistery, or however you refer to it, and either immerses himself in it, or is sprinkled from it.
 
I’m sorry for not responding right away. We moved to a new house, I started a new job, and we had to wait for the internet connection.
To turn grace into works is disobedience, and is devoid of faith.
So is turning faith into something devoid of the good works God has prepared for us.

**For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them. (Eph 2:10) **

I agree with you when speaking of “works of the law.” That was the OT system Paul speaks of so often. (Where they tried to obligate God to owe them something)

We are talking about two different systems here. There is a clear distinction between “works of law” (Mosaic law/legal payment) and “good works” (law of Christ/reward of grace).
It’s right there in the context, ryan. Verse seven:"This precious value, then, is for you who believe
(Gr. pisteuo); but for those who disbelieve (Gr. apeitheo),…"pisteuo: to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ): - believe (-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.
apeitheo: to disbelieve (wilfully and perversely): - not believe, disobedient, obey not, unbelieving.
So if disbelief is not obeying, then isn’t it true that belief is obeying?

and “A stone that will make people stumble, and a rock that will make them fall.” They stumble by disobeying the word, as is their destiny. (1 Pet 2:8)
1 Pet. 2:7 speak of the believer vs. the unbeliever; the believing vs. the unbelieving; the trusting vs. the non-trusting. Jesus was the choice Stone on whom they were to believe.
And doesn’t that also include the obedient vs. disobedient?
You’re trying to pervert “faith” into a works, ryan. Try as you will, Scripture won’t allow it.
Am I?

Faith is faith and works are works. The key is understanding the difference between the two kinds of works. (and their relation to faith)

See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)

It doesn’t sound like either/or to me, it sounds like both/and (in a system of grace).
 
For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them. (Eph 2:10)
.
I wonder if the works God has prepared for us has anything to do with the father wills?

Moon seems to think the only thing the father wills is faith

He has to believe this because I quoted scripture that said not “every one who calls me lord lord will enter heaven but the one who does the will of the father”

You likly want get a response from moon regarding this verse because works God has prepared would mean that the fathers will includes works

Also that is not a father son relationship in his mind doing what God wants of us is somehow not being a good child
 
2 Pet 2:17-22 "These are springs without water and mists driven by a storm,** for whom the black darkness has been reserved.** For speaking out arrogant {words} of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error, promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT,” and, "A sow, after washing, {returns} to wallowing in the mire.“This isn’t speaking of believers, born of the Spirit, Pax. These are those who received “the knowledge” of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, but never went on to true belief in Him. Though influenced for a while they turned again to expose their true nature. They didn’t lose the salvation they never had. Read the whole chapter in context.2 Pet 2:12 But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed,…”
I took the entire context into consideration. Peter’s remarks are candid and very cutting descriptions of those that have fallen away. Once again, you go well beyond the limits of credulity by making another absurd comment that a plain reading of the text does not support.

No one is washed if not justified. No one “receives” the knowledge of the truth of our Lord and Savior unless they are given it by grace. Those that you speak of are those that rejected it from the get go. The ones you speak of never “received” it. The text, as opposed to your contentions would indicate that they believed, but they “turned back.” This is not the language that applies to someone that never believed/received the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. This is the perspicuity of scripture that Protestants like to make much of, until it disagrees with their errant interpretations. You are the one rejecting the context.
 
We discussed this a few months ago; refresh my memory.
I’m not sure I understand what you need. Your posts indicate that you do not believe in baptismal regeneration, and that you believe in “faith alone.” This quote and others would indicate otherwise.

If you want me to post additional quotes supporting the necessity of baptism for salvation, I can do that but it’s clearly tangential to the thread. We have plenty of past threads that explore the issue.

Anyway, if you want to go further with it, that’s cool with me.
 
**Faith is faith and works are works. The key is understanding the difference between the two kinds of works. (and their relation to faith)**No. The “key” is understanding that salvation is not based on works, period: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast” (Eph. 21:8-9). This is the “key” that unlocks the door to salvation.

odell said:
For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them
. (Eph 2:10)
.
I wonder if the works God has prepared for us has anything to do with the father wills?

Moon seems to think the only thing the father wills is faithThe “good works” in that passage are prepared for those who are now God’s workmanship (handiwork), those who are “created in Christ Jesus” (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17). IOW, works are prepared for the SAVED, not for them to BE saved.

The “saved” are “created in Christ Jesus” FOR good works, not BY them. Jump back up to vss. 8-9: Those now “created in Christ Jesus” (vs. 10) were *saved by grace *through faith…as a gift…not as a result of works.

It’s so simple, Odell, you stumble over it. There are works in salvation, but not FOR salvation. Paul’s gospel message and teachings never deviate from Christ’s words: “…that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal (everlasting) life” (Jn. 3:16b).
 
No. The “key” is understanding that salvation is not based on works, period: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast” (Eph. 21:8-9). This is the “key” that unlocks the door to salvation.The “good works” in that passage are prepared for those who are now God’s workmanship (handiwork), those who are “created in Christ Jesus” (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17). IOW, works are prepared for the SAVED, not for them to BE saved.

The “saved” are “created in Christ Jesus” FOR good works, not BY them. Jump back up to vss. 8-9: Those now “created in Christ Jesus” (vs. 10) were *saved by grace *through faith…as a gift…not as a result of works.

It’s so simple, Odell, you stumble over it. There are works in salvation, but not FOR salvation. Paul’s gospel message and teachings never deviate from Christ’s words: “…that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal (everlasting) life” (Jn. 3:16b).
True…until those that were created in Christ Jesus for the good works that the Father prepared beforehand decide to no longer walk in them.

That is rebellion and the quick exit from the household into a life of dissipation in the flesh.
 
I’m not sure I understand what you need. Your posts indicate that you do not believe in baptismal regeneration, and that you believe in “faith alone.” This quote and others would indicate otherwise.

If you want me to post additional quotes supporting the necessity of baptism for salvation, I can do that but it’s clearly tangential to the thread. We have plenty of past threads that explore the issue.

Anyway, if you want to go further with it, that’s cool with me.
I was talking about your belief that 1 Pet 3:21 was about water baptism, but you’re right, this thread busy enough.
 
40.png
Philthy:
I dont quite follow you here. Where did the “external” portion of your assessment come from, and why have you limited Baptism to merely the external?
I realized I didn’t answer the second part of your question in blue.

That’s because baptism is the outward expression of an inward reality; IOW, only those who have repented, and who have been forgiven their sins, and are thereby justified should be baptized—believer’s baptism.
 
True…until those that were created in Christ Jesus for the good works that the Father prepared beforehand decide to no longer walk in them.

That is rebellion and the quick exit from the household into a life of dissipation in the flesh.
So then am I to understand that you believe God un-creates that which He creates? One decides to no longer walk in those “good works” so God un-creates him “in Christ Jesus” and places him back “in Adam,” again dead in trespasses and sins and again in need of salvation?

Can you give men another example where God un-creates that which He created?
 
No. The “key” is understanding that salvation is not based on works, period:
period? That is because you believe in OSAS (a one shot deal).

See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)

So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling. (Phil 2:12)


Salvation is an ongoing process. (justification as well)
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast” (Eph. 21:8-9). This is the “key” that unlocks the door to salvation.
v.8-9 (and 11-16) refer to “works” of the Mosaic law or any works performed in a legalistic sense, where we view God as a debtor to us, and not as our heavenly Father.

It seems we agree the “good works” in Eph 2:10 are not the same works found in v.8-9 or 11-16.

These are the “good works” we must remain in, in order not to lose our salvation. What works/system we are in matters in the end.

who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness. Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek. But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek. (Rom 2:6-10)

You will be hated by all because of my name, but whoever endures to the end will be saved. (Mat 10:22)


Our salvation depends on how we cooperate with God’s grace.
 
So then am I to understand that you believe God un-creates that which He creates? One decides to no longer walk in those “good works” so God un-creates him “in Christ Jesus” and places him back “in Adam,” again dead in trespasses and sins and again in need of salvation?

Can you give men another example where God
un-creates that which He created?
I won’t speak for Pax, but we’ve been over this already. I don’t think anyone has said God
un-creates anything. (except you)

God didn’t un-create Adam (who was a new creation at the time). He fell from grace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top