The Commandments should not be followed ... Part 2

[mikeledes]

Oh no! It would seem that you’ve found something indicating that I’ve changed my position!

Take me out and stone me!

If you look further back in that thread you’ll find me stating with respect to Jn15, and I paraphrase as I haven’t looked for it, that there are verses of such strength and magnitude that they must be favored over those that are obscure. If memory serves me right, those verses are found in Jn 10, Rom 8.

Go look that up.

My basic position remains the same, as I stated in the post that compelled you on your quest to prove that I possess the ability to change my mind.

The elect, those God justifies, will never perish.

Forgive me the apparent inconsistency, however, I think that publishing my “Retractiones,” in light of Augustine already using that title, would not be in keeping with my opinion of my own worth.

(Besides, all I have to do is back you into a corner on another topic, and to get the light off yourself, you’ll do the work of my retractions for me).

Hey, don’t get me wrong. There is absolutely nothing wrong with changing your mind or position. Everyone changes or refines their position as they learn more. I also said that I know that you had not changed your fundamental belief that John 15 is not about loss of salvation:

While it is true that in both cases you believe that it is not about loss of salvation, it would be inaccurate to say that you always believed that they were not genuine branches.

So that was not the issue. The problem is that when I asked you if you had changed your position:

Just a clarification. Are you now saying that the “branches” are not genuine Christians?

You said that you have “always maintained that they are not genuine branches.” I gave you the opportunity to clarify whether you retracted your position or not, and you did not take it. I asked for clarification because I noticed that the day before - I was not online that day - you advocated an interpretation of John 15 different from the one you advocated the last time we discussed this issue. Since Wednesday was a particularly fruitful day in this thread, I had a lot of catching up to do. If I would have been online, I would have asked the question then. So I did not ask the question yesterday because I was “backed into a corner.” I did not feel that way. I asked because I wanted to know the response before I left. I did not expect the response you gave me, so it certainly wasn’t planned.

Anyway, thank you for the clarification. While we still do not agree on the fundamental meaning of John 15, at least you now have accepted the possibility that “cast into the fire and burned” can be a reference to hell and that the one being cast is the “branch,” not the “works.”

God bless,
Michael

 

[BRB]

They were delivered from death by the ark, guanophore, who is Christ, that’s Peter’s point—baptism is not Christ, but the ark—ISTM, you see all kinds of “spiritual things” in the scripture, but you miss Christ.

You see all kinds of “spiritual things,” but you miss Christ…

No He didn’t, He used a dream to show Peter that. He then sent Peter to Cornelius, and when Peter saw that Cornelius and those in his household had received the Spirit “in the same manner as the Jews,” then they baptized.
The significance of baptism, and the connection of the forgiveness of sins to it is this: ***“in the name of Christ”:***Acts 2:38
38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”In the name of Christ,” that’s what they’ve repented to (For they themselves report about us what kind of a reception we had with you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God—1 Thess 1:9), and now believe that the forgiveness of sins is in the name of Christ and confession thereupon.

Baptism didn’t die for the forgiveness of sins—Christ did!

As with Cornelius, so with Paul the reception of the Spirit was prior to baptism—read the account.
QUOTE]

Two successive ‘balks’ by Pax … Sandman scores another run. Game tied.

Indeed, H.S. can preceed Baptism in certain cases. Also, laying on of hands can ‘confirm’ the 3rd Person of Godhead upon a believer. We should never put God in a box, or think he only works in certain Fixed ways.

 

[sandusky]

ryanoneil:

I know I don’t have any authority, but it sure seems like clear apostolic typology to me. Baptism and the flood.

My statements with respect to “those without authority” was not directed to you, but to those without authority who claim authority over the entire sphere of Christendom. Men whose unrestrained typological flights, IMO, led to this:Ineffabilis Deus:

The Definition

Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.IOW, belief in the IC is an addition to the gospel. I don’t see how anyone could see it to be otherwise because, if one even dares to think otherwise, he is condemned, suffers shipwreck of faith (which Catholic’s claim = loss of salvation), and is separated from the Church.

And that addition made by the same man who declared himself, his predecessors, and his successors infallible; correct?

IMO, the elect will reject the IC because the IC has never been, is not now, and will never be a part of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[davidv]

{snip}
IOW, belief in the IC is an addition to the gospel. I don’t see how anyone could see it to be otherwise because,{snip}

How does you inability to “see it” determine the truth?

 

[ryanoneil]

My statements with respect to “those without authority” was not directed to you, but to those without authority who claim authority over the entire sphere of Christendom.

O.K. No problem.

And that addition made by the same man who declared himself, his predecessors, and his successors infallible; correct?

I don’t believe that is accurate. On another thread perhaps.

IMO, the elect will reject the IC because the IC has never been, is not now, and will never be a part of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

On another thread perhaps.

 

[sandusky]

ryanoneil:

O.K. No problem.

I don’t believe that is accurate. On another thread perhaps.

On another thread perhaps.

It is accurate, and, I’m not trying to start another topic, I’ve gone through that already, just wanted to clear up that I was not pointing the finger at you.

 

[BRB]

Yes … leave the IC alone.

That is the final issue of Catholic doctrine that you will accept someday … save that for another day/thread. Mary will need to work on your heart some … to prepare you for the truth on the matter …

 

[ryanoneil]

Two successive ‘balks’ by Pax … Sandman scores another run. Game tied.

Indeed, H.S. can preceed Baptism in certain cases. Also, laying on of hands can ‘confirm’ the 3rd Person of Godhead upon a believer. We should never put God in a box, or think he only works in certain Fixed ways.

Balks by Pax? You quote Sandusky talking to guanophore, who hasn’t had a chance to respond. (make a play)

Beside, who denies that the H.S. can preceed Baptism? Baptism is the ordinary means. Sandusky is far from proving that Baptism does not save.

Acts 2:38
38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

”In the name of Christ,” that’s what they’ve repented to (For they themselves report about us what kind of a reception we had with you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God—1 Thess 1:9), and now believe that the forgiveness of sins is in the name of Christ and confession thereupon.

Baptism didn’t die for the forgiveness of sins—Christ did!

Symbolic non-saving baptism?

Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin, not just to partake of a symbolic ritual.

So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, “Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit.” Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized (Acts 9:17-18)

Paul, even though he was directly chosen by Christ and immediately converted to Christianity, still had to be baptized to be forgiven his sin. This demonstrates the salvific efficacy of water baptism, even for those who decide to give their lives to Christ.

Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name.’ (Acts 22:16)

Was Paul’s acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved? The sacrament of baptism was required.

in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone…And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed." **Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61 (A.D. 110-165). **

 

[ryanoneil]

It is accurate, and, I’m not trying to start another topic, I’ve gone through that already, just wanted to clear up that I was not pointing the finger at you.

No problem!

 

[moondweller]

Yes … leave the IC alone.

That is the final issue of Catholic doctrine that you will accept someday … save that for another day/thread. Mary will need to work on your heart some … to prepare you for the truth on the matter …

I won’t belabor it on this thread, but you’ve just assigned to Mary a divine attribute.

 

[BRB]

Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin, not just to partake of a symbolic ritual.

So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, "Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit." Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized (Acts 9:17-18)

Paul, even though he was directly chosen by Christ and immediately converted to Christianity, still had to be baptized to be forgiven his sin. This demonstrates the salvific efficacy of water baptism, even for those who decide to give their lives to Christ.

Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name.’ (Acts 22:16)

Was Paul’s acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved? The sacrament of baptism was required.

in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone…And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed." **Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61 (A.D. 110-165). **

Sandman struck out when he brought up IC…

The first Cath. teammate coming up to bat hits a homer.

Look at Paul … receives H.S. via hands of God’s annointed.

Sandman … are you listening here. Ananais acting ‘in the person of Christ’ … as his priest, annoints Saul/Paul via HANDS OF GOD.

Then, Paul ACTING in faith, goes for Baptism [in water], and the Lord Baptized him [with Spiritual REBIRTH] and forgiveness of sins.

And Justin Martyr confirms that Baptism confers spiritual illumination to a convert.

 

[BRB]

I won’t belabor it on this thread, but you’ve just assigned to Mary a divine attribute.

God’s H.S. works thru her most especially. She has done many spiritual things for you … which you don’t recognize ---- yet !

In a later thread … we can explain more fully thereof.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I looked at the link, and that explains a lot. That’s from Akin’s debate with James White, and the only thing posted is part of what Akin said, and nothing of what White said. It’s making sense now.

Alright Dude, let’s continue with this.

Akin says that he’s a former-Calvinist, as memory serves me, correct me if I’m wrong. If that’s the case, then he knows that that position posits that those elect to salvation (those foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified) will be just that, as God cannot fail, and He will lose none, as the quotes from the Moody Handbook of Theology stated; did you read them?

At the least, that should have been stated as well, because the way the link reads will confuse people, as you demonstrate.

Though both Calvinists and Arminians were both somewhat uncomfortable with Moody’s position, he nevertheless believed with the Calvinists, that “once in [saving] gracing, always in [saving] grace.” But that’s not brought out in your link.

Be that as it may, with respect to Greek verb tensing, those tenses are in the present, and the Gk present contains within it the idea of continuing action.

Thus, as Moody says, the verse would literally read: My sheep keep on hearing my voice, and I keep on knowing them, and they keep on following me; and I keep on giving them eternal life… etc.,

And, as Moody says, “The verbs are present linear, indicating continuous action by the sheep and by the Shepherd… Someone erroneously inserted the word, “But,” in brackets, marked in “red” above. It doesn’t belong there! I can’t imagine Moody putting it there, because it indicates a contrast between his literal phrasing, when no contrast exists.

Mark what Moody says: “present linear, indicating continuous action.” He doesn’t say continuous action is a requirement for fulfillment, but that the verb indicates a continuous ongoing action is indeed occurring: They keep on hearing…I keep on knowing…they keep on following…I keep on giving…

Moving on, the present is not “conditional,” but “actual”—Jesus and the Sheep do keep on doing the things that are mentioned.

You are given the impression that what it means is this: If my sheep keep on hearing my voice, and if I keep on knowing them, and if they keep on following me…

That’s not the case. Both parties keep doing the action of the verb.

As Scripture, and the Moody Handbook states concerning election: God cannot fail; and He will lose none.

Then why did Moody say things like this:John 10:28 is frequently used as a security blanket by those who ignore many of the New Testament warnings about going back or falling away, but a literal translation of John 10:27-28 . . . hardly needs explanation

The verbs are present linear, indicating continuous action by the sheep and by the Shepherd, not the punctiliar fallacy of the past tense.
The first half of the quote is clearly saying it is an abuse to use this passage as a "security blanket " against falling away. And the last half calls that past tense reading fallacious reasoning.

Either Moody believes in Eternal Security or conditional security, I cannot imagine he holds to both, and the way he talks against Eternal Security on the ever precious OSAS John 10:28 leads me to think he believes in conditional (esp if he is not a Calvinist). If he believes in OSAS then what he said about Jn 10:28 is pure garbage.

EDIT:
I found Moody’s book with LIMITED preview on Googlebooks
books.google.com/books?id=6oTKpc7TPUAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=dale+moody&sig=ACfU3U1sATizLqmdEEEvj2BvkBC4q8nITA#PPA357,M1

The last chapter deals with Christians falling away and Moody is very clear Christians can fall away and spends lots of time refuting OSAS proof-texts.

 

[Philthy]

I have a question for both teams:

Is water baptism a command of the Lord?
A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[ryanoneil]

I have a question for both teams:

Is water baptism a command of the Lord?
A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I have a question for both teams:

Is water baptism a command of the Lord?
A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes (Jn 3:5).
Water Baptism is the ordinary means of receiving sanctifying grace, Desire for Baptism is the extraordinary means.

 

[mikeledes]

Then why did Moody say things like this:

John 10:28 is frequently used as a security blanket by those who ignore many of the New Testament warnings about going back or falling away, but a literal translation of John 10:27-28 . . . hardly needs explanation

The verbs are present linear, indicating continuous action by the sheep and by the Shepherd, not the punctiliar fallacy of the past tense.
​

Hey Catholic Dude! Here are a couple of good links refuting the Calvinist/OSAS arguments regarding some of the “falling away” passages. This is also for Pax. It’s from an Arminian website, but they make good points:

arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-10-tying-up-loose-ends-in-hebrews/

arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-10-tying-up-loose-ends-in-hebrews/

arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-8-what-kind-of-sanctification-is-being-described-in-hebrews-1029/

arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-10-tying-up-loose-ends-in-hebrews/

I also believe, as you do, that passages like Romans 8, John 10, etc. pose no problem to Catholicism, especially since Catholicism teaches predestination. I know I’ve mentioned it before in this thread, but I was having a discussion with a Lutheran member of this forum and he said something that made a lot of sense. Before I quote him, let me be clear and give this disclaimer. I am not endorsing Lutheranism or planning to become a Lutheran. I recognize the differences between Catholicism and Lutheranism. What I have stated in this thread applies to all Protestants and will not change if a Lutheran or a Classic Arminian were involved. I will not give him a free pass simply because I agree with him on this issue or because he is a friend. Of course, there’s nothing personal. When I cite a Lutheran or an Arminian, it is simply because we happen to agree on an issue and I like how he/ she worded his/her argument. Phew… now I can move on. This is what my Lutheran friend said:

Yep, and the justified and fallen away are not those who are predestined! Calvinists look at Rom. 8 and say everyone who is predestined is justified, sanctified, and glorified, and that much is true. But it doesn’t stand to reason that all of those who are justified have been predestined. The fact that Jesus and the apostles say the justified can fall away from the faith means not all of them are predestined.

Bloody Calvinist uber-logic

As the below argument shows, Calvinists believe only the elect will be drawn and be justified, hence, receive saving grace; we say both the elect and non-elect can receive saving grace. Only the elect will persevere (We hold to Augustine’s view on this). The problem enters into that if the Calvinist view of this passage is correct then the Bible and Jesus flatly contradicts itself. Christ states in Luke 8 that there are those who believe for a time and fall away. Obviously, those who fall away are not the same group Jesus is speaking of in John 6. That means there is another group of those who come to faith outside of what Jesus describes in John 6. In 1 Timothy, Paul says there are those who make shipwreck of their faith. This, too, must be a different group than what Jesus describes in John 6.

What he says regarding predestination pretty much corresponds to what the Catholic Church teaches, that’s why I cited him. Passages like Romans 8 are about those who are predestined for glory. Hence, all of the predestined will be called, justified, and glorified. But the fact that some of the just can fall away (John 15:1-6, Hebrews 6, etc.), means that not all of the just belong to this group. So John 15 and John 10 or Romans 8 and Romans 10 complement one another. The idea that all of the just will persevere to the end was not upheld by any early Church Father, especially Augustine who thoroughly covered the doctrine of predestination. Martin Luther held to this Augustinian understanding (i.e. not all of the jusified are predestined, but all of the predestined will be justified). The first one to come up with the idea of perseverance of the saints/OSAS was John Calvin.

God Bless,
Michael​

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Hey Catholic Dude! Here are a couple of good links refuting the Calvinist/OSAS arguments regarding some of the “falling away” passages. This is also for Pax. It’s from an Arminian website, but they make good points:

arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-10-tying-up-loose-ends-in-hebrews/

arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-10-tying-up-loose-ends-in-hebrews/

arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-8-what-kind-of-sanctification-is-being-described-in-hebrews-1029/

arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-10-tying-up-loose-ends-in-hebrews/

BOOKMARKED!

I also believe, as you do, that passages like Romans 8, John 10, etc. pose no problem to Catholicism, especially since Catholicism teaches predestination. I know I’ve mentioned it before in this thread, but I was having a discussion with a Lutheran member of this forum and he said something that made a lot of sense. Before I quote him, let me be clear and give this disclaimer. I am not endorsing Lutheranism or planning to become a Lutheran. I recognize the differences between Catholicism and Lutheranism. What I have stated in this thread applies to all Protestants and will not change if a Lutheran or a Classic Arminian were involved. I will not give him a free pass simply because I agree with him on this issue or because he is a friend. Of course, there’s nothing personal. When I cite a Lutheran or an Arminian, it is simply because we happen to agree on an issue and I like how he/ she worded his/her argument. Phew… now I can move on. This is what my Lutheran friend said:

What he says regarding predestination pretty much corresponds to what the Catholic Church teaches, that’s why I cited him. Passages like Romans 8 are about those who are predestined for glory. Hence, all of the predestined will be called, justified, and glorified. But the fact that some of the just can fall away (John 15:1-6, Hebrews 6, etc.), means that not all of the just belong to this group. So John 15 and John 10 or Romans 8 and Romans 10 complement one another. The idea that all of the just will persevere to the end was not upheld by any early Church Father, especially Augustine who thoroughly covered the doctrine of predestination. Martin Luther held to this Augustinian understanding (i.e. not all of the jusifiedt are predestined, but all of the predestined will be justified).

God Bless,
Michael

:bowdown:

The first one to come up with the idea of perseverance of the saints/OSAS was John Calvin.

I’m sure this is just a typo. Calvinism did not come up with Perseverance of the Saints they ROBBED and TWISTED it from Scripture and Doctors like St Augustine. You’ve quoted St A’s book on this, so I’m sure it was a typo.
Perseverance only makes sense if you can fall, not if the possibility of falling doesn’t even exist.

 

[sandusky]

Catholic Dude:

Then why did Moody say things like this:

John 10:28 is frequently used as a security blanket by those who ignore many of the New Testament warnings about going back or falling away, but a literal translation of John 10:27-28 . . . hardly needs explanation

The verbs are present linear, indicating continuous action by the sheep and by the Shepherd, not the punctiliar fallacy of the past tense.
The first half of the quote is clearly saying it is an abuse to use this passage as a "security blanket " against falling away. And the last half calls that past tense reading fallacious reasoning.

Thanks for the link, however, page 356 is said not to be included in the book preview to which you linked, so I still don’t have the full context. I’m unable to find the lead-in your post above because it’s not on the link.
Catholic Dude:

Either Moody believes in Eternal Security or conditional security, I cannot imagine he holds to both, and the way he talks against Eternal Security on the ever precious OSAS John 10:28 leads me to think he believes in conditional (esp if he is not a Calvinist). If he believes in OSAS then what he said about Jn 10:28 is pure garbage.

With respect to what I’ve put in “red,” without the entire context, neither of us knows for sure what he said leading up to the statements to the initial point of the post.

With respect to what I’ve placed in “blue,” as I said, those statements are in the present tense and are continually happening, without condition.

The conditional particle "ei," is used throughout by John throughout his Gospel, but not in John 10.

 

[sandusky]

Catholic Dude:

The only alternative is that faith, works, everything are purely passive. They go by right in front of the believer’s face while he (passively) watches there in awe. What they don’t realize is they have severed any connection between human operation and God’s operation, thus they can never say they believed because their own operation has no bearing on God’s operation. If their own operation had any role whatsoever it would destroy the idea that God does literally everything.

The Christian life is work, faith is work, but it’s not enough work to save anyone—that’s the issue, and that’s why the work that was required required a worker of infinite value.
Catholic Dude:

For example, any genuine believer should get baptized, yet getting baptized (an outward act) does not mean you are a genuine believer (hidden passive act). So when a Calvinist goes to get baptized the fact is he doesn’t know if it is God leading or his unregenerate person deceiving him.

Neither do you know that. :nope:
Catholic Dude:

So, looking at the Protestant understanding of “God Alone,” logically they have no objective grounds to say they ever believed, nor can they know if they are deceived or not. Their own logic comes back to bite them.

That’s an interesting statement, what does it mean?
Catholic Dude:

The Catholic system does not have this problem because of the belief of objective truth and good and the reality of free will. If you get Baptized that is a objectively good act, in God’s eyes it is always good, and thus someone can point to Baptism as a objective grounds to measure your spiritual growth.

That Protestants don’t believe in objective truth is nothing more than assertion. What proof will offer that Protestants don’t believe in objective truth?