The Commandments should not be followed ... Part 2

[Catholic_Dude]

The MAIN reason why we cannot be justified by the Mosaic Law (in which the 10Cs were one part of it) is because the ML was NEVER designed to justify. The primary reason why Christ could fulfill the ML and WE could NOT is NOT because of our sin, but because the Mosaic Law was literally a foreshadowing of Jesus (who showed what the law was pointing to, eg Passover Lamb).
Gal 2: 21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!
This passage does NOT mean that there are two paths to salvation, one by faith in Christ, and one “on your own” in which if you decide to try and get justified by obeying the law you have made Christ’s death meaningless. It means IF salvation came through the law there was no need for Christ to die in the first place, God’s plan to give us salvation would have been a matter of us just keeping the law.

The Law was to get us thinking differently to serve God the best we could, and Christ was the epitome and fulfillment of showing us how to do this. Now with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we can love as Christ loved and raise our minds above rules and regulations and make it a matter of properly loving from the heart.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I am afraid that if a non-Christian or poorly catechized Catholic came into these forums and read BRB’s and Moondweller’s circular private exegesis they would get totally confused. You guys completely remove “stoney” moral law so no one would have a problem taking the 10 commandments and any other written cannon law as a marker for obsolete and deprecated teaching; then have it used as a red cape to agitate the bull to sin in order to prove you faith and thesis! As best I can make of it, your thesis seems to be along the lines of ‘you can’t sin in the law so sin boldly to prove you believe that sin no longer has a hold on you’.

Forgive me if I have mischaracterized any-one’s true beliefs but this sure sounds like the same ol’ Lutherian scrupulosity merry-go-round to me.

So nonsense guys. Take the Protestant theories and scriptural spaghetti off-site to a non-denom bible christian site and stop confusing those coming into these forums trying to learn the real Apostolic teaching…

James

 

[Mannyfit75]

After a week from the break from these forums, I find those who persist in their erroneous beliefs that the Commandments should not be following are preaching doctrines contrary to the Bible. They should stop preaching this false “Gospel.”

 

[moondweller]

So since the Decalogue has no part in the believers life, they are allowed to murder, steal, commit adultery, etc.?

Paul’s teaching on the Law and the believer went right over your head, didn’t it, Mike?

Based on your reply you’re still under the false notion that the only relationship God can have with man is one based on Law. And the only way man would ever conduct himself properly on earth is with the threat of Divine damnation held over him. That’s not the gospel, Mike.

I also have a question for you, moondweller. Now I know you believe that there are two types of sanctification, a “positional” one and an “experiential” one.

Actually, three. There’s “ultimate” sanctification.

Obvioulsy, the “positional” one must automatically follow justification. My question is regarding the “experiential” one. Does this automatically occur with justification? Do all of the saved persevere in this “experiential” sanctification?

Not all to the same degree. That’s why there’s many exhortations in the Epistles for the believer to walk in a manner worthy of his calling with which which he’d been called (Eph. 4:1; Rom. 12:1-2) And to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18).

Various things can dampen a believer’s experiential sanctification: sin, false teachings, worldly ambitions, lack of knowledge of God’s Word, self-imposing the Law, etc. But, of course, salvation itself is not based on *experiential *sanctification.

 

[moondweller]

To Moondweller: EXCELLENT Use of the Scriptures !! You Couldnt be more Right On.
I want to gaurd though. In that why do you do good?
And How do you know what is good and what is Sin?
Also what is now in your heart?

The entire Law (including the Decalogue) is still a part of the inspired (God-breathed) Scriptures and is therefore profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17). But the believer is not under the domain of that covenant. He can learn from it but cannot be condemned by it (i.e., “mortal sin”).

If the Jewish believer has been made dead to it, discharged from it, put out of the sphere and domain of it (being now joined to Christ), then what presumption for the Gentile believer to claim that he is under it before God!!! Any tradition which states that the Gentile believer is under law must be thrown out. Such a tradition is in opposition to Divine revelation and the gospel of Divine grace.

 

[moondweller]

I am afraid that if a non-Christian or poorly catechized Catholic came into these forums and read BRB’s and Moondweller’s circular private exegesis they would get totally confused. You guys completely remove “stoney” moral law so no one would have a problem taking the 10 commandments and any other written cannon law as a marker for obsolete and deprecated teaching; then have it used as a red cape to agitate the bull to sin in order to prove you faith and thesis! As best I can make of it, your thesis seems to be along the lines of ‘you can’t sin in the law so sin boldly to prove you believe that sin no longer has a hold on you’.

Forgive me if I have mischaracterized any-one’s true beliefs but this sure sounds like the same ol’ Lutherian scrupulosity merry-go-round to me.

So nonsense guys. Take the Protestant theories and scriptural spaghetti off-site to a non-denom bible christian site and stop confusing those coming into these forums trying to learn the real Apostolic teaching…

James

I said nothing about sinning. You too are under the false notion that the only relationship God can have with man is one based on law. And the only way man would ever respond to God is with the threat of eternal damnation held over him. This is not “Apostolic teaching.” Nor is it the gospel.

You know you falsely characterized us. That’s why you apologized in advance. No one here who does not advocate law as the believer’s rule of life advocates a license to sin. As Paul, the great teacher of grace, rhetorically asks:Rom 6:15 “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!”

 

[CentralFLJames]

I said nothing about sinning. You too are under the false notion that the only relationship God can have with man is one based on law. And the only way man would ever respond to God is with the threat of eternal damnation held over him. This is not “Apostolic teaching.” Nor is it the gospel.

You know you falsely characterized us. That’s why you apologized in advance. No one here who does not advocate law as the believer’s rule of life advocates a license to sin. As Paul, the great teacher of grace, rhetorically asks:Rom 6:15 “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!”

No, you did not explicitly say “sin and sin boldly” but your teacher Luther taught you this. But I recognize the same old, many times debunked, anti-apostolic OSAS teachings of the most mentally whacked, foul and uncouth individual ever to wear priestly robes. Go back and read your history. Luther was never an apostle and he came 1500 years after Christ’s resurrection. Nor were ANY of the founders of Protestanism and have taught nothing but new innovations of men. What you are spreading here is non-apostolic nonsense. Context is everything. You can’t possibly know context from reading the bible through your cultural lens without having studied or been taught the apostolic tradition as we Catholics have. We Catholics personally knew Jesus, Paul, Peter and the rest through our direct apostolic teaching. You, Luther, and the gang did not. What most Protestants believe comes to them from the twisted mind of Luther who invented most everything he spewed and conjectured from musing formed while inside a German university while trying to manufacture an excuse to “sin and sin boldly because we must sin and God must forgive”.

I am at least happy to hear that you accept Paul’s teaching and seem to reject the idiocy of Once Saved Always Saved so that you don’t think you can gain grace by sinning! Or are you being coy here in saying this and just trying to wrap the poison of OSAS with a different colored ribbon now?

James

 

[moondweller]

No, you did not explicitly say “sin and sin boldly” but your teacher Luther taught you this.

Don’t be silly!!! This is also a misrepresentation and used totally out of context - and you know it.

But I recognize the same old, many times debunked, anti-apostolic OSAS teachings of the most mentally whacked, foul and uncouth individual ever to wear priestly robes.

Paul was not a priest. He was from the tribe of Benjamin not Levi. And he certainly was an Apostle, and as a workman and writer, probably the greatest of them all. What you get from me is Paul’s gospel of GRACE, not law.

Go back and read your history. Luther was never an apostle

But Paul certainly was.

and he came 1500 years after Christ’s resurrection.

But we have the writings of Paul and the other N.T. writers, and it’s all original, Holy Spirit inspired.

Nor were ANY of the founders of Protestanism and have taught nothing but new innovations of men. What you are spreading here is non-apostolic nonsense.

That the believer, now in Christ, is not under law but under grace is Apostolic teaching from the beginning.

Context is everything.

Then you should regard it, even with Luther.

You can’t possibly know context from reading the bible through your cultural lens without having studied or been taught the apostolic tradition as we Catholics have.

One understands more clearly the context of the Scriptures when free of filters like “tradition.”

We Catholics personally knew Jesus, Paul, Peter and the rest through our direct apostolic teaching. You, Luther, and the gang did not.

You knew none of them personally. You have only what all of us have: God’s Word preserved in Holy Writ.

What most Protestants believe comes to them from the twisted mind of Luther who invented most everything he spewed and conjectured from musing formed while inside a German university while trying to manufacture an excuse to “sin and sin boldly because we must sin and God must forgive”.

Where have I quoted Luther? But if I would I would certainly strive to quote him in context. What I believe comes straight from the theopneustos (God-breathed) Scriptures. And within those Scriptures we have the gospel, which means “good tidings.” Good news that we, believers, are not under law but now, in Christ, under grace. That through the cross God has the power to freely save, forever, those who believe in Christ for salvation. Yes, He actually does SAVE those who believe in Him. And that gifted salvation includes redemption, the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation to God, justification, sanctification and eternal life.

And I must say, those who have spiritual insight understand this better today than did even Luther whose glasses were still slightly stained by “tradition.”

I am at least happy to hear that you accept Paul’s teaching and seem to reject the idiocy of Once Saved Always Saved so that you don’t think you can gain grace by sinning!

One does not “gain” grace, one enters into it through believing. No one ever taught here that grace is gained by sinning, but ratherRom 6:15 "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!

I, however, readily accept and believe Christ’s teaching that the one who believes in Him HAS eternal life, does not come into judgment but has passed out of death into LIFE (His resurrected life, Jn. 5:24). And the Apostolic teaching that therefore there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1).

Or are you being coy here in saying this and just trying to wrap the poison of OSAS with a different colored ribbon now?

Nope. The package of salvation, which includes “ETERNAL” (everlasting) life is always wrapped in the beautiful color of grace - not law.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Don’t be silly!!! This is also a misrepresentation and used totally out of context - and you know it.

Well you are essentially parroting Luther’s teaching of OSAS which we Catholics know to be totally in error.

Paul was not a priest. He was from the tribe of Benjamin not Levi. And he certainly was an Apostle, and as a workman and writer, probably the greatest of them all. What you get from me is Paul’s gospel of GRACE, not law.

Don’t be silly!!! You know I was talking about Luther not Paul. What I am hearing from you is not God’s grace at all but rather a teaching of man. Yes by Grace we are saved but it is up to us to cooperate with that grace.

But Paul certainly was.

Not relevant - I was talking about Luther.

But we have the writings of Paul and the other N.T. writers, and it’s all original, Holy Spirit inspired.

But we have all those things and the apostolic teaching of the Catholic Church. A lay reader of scripture has no authority to interpret scripture except in the way that it was originally taught. You are teaching things that are not apostolic. You think they are but apostolic tradition and history shows us otherwise.

That the believer, now in Christ, is not under law but under grace is Apostolic teaching from the beginning.

As long as the believer stays in Christ and confesses his sins (including the 10 commandments) then God does not hold that sin against him. That is the blessing of grace - it permits us to be forgiven of our sins and for Jesus to take up residence in our soul and make us into a child of God. But this does not mean that we are free to ignore the 10 commandments, nor any capital sin nor any sin that is against the two great commandments to Love God and Neighbor. So if you fornicate, murder, steal, lie, cheat, and do not confess sincerely (intending to avoid these sins) you are going to hell irrespective if you have been baptised and call yourself a Christian. Remember - “not everyone who calls me Lord Lord will enter my kingdom.” Only those who DO what Jesus commands will have eternal life.

Then you should regard it, even with Luther.

I do - why don’t you?

One understands more clearly the context of the Scriptures when free of filters like "tradition."You knew none of them personally. You have only what all of us have: God’s Word preserved in Holy Writ.

This is non-biblical. Scripture tells us to obey tradition and oral teachings of the apostles. No where in scripture does it tell us that we should attempt a “do it yourself” salvation by relying on scripture alone to teach us in the privacy of our own lack of reading comprehension to understand it.

NOTE:
2 Tim 3:14, Timothy is told: “continue in the things you have learned …knowing **from whom **you have learned them.” This verse strongly suggests Apostolic Tradition.

St. Paul actually commands the Thessalonian Christians to hold fast to the Traditions taught by the Apostles, both oral and written:

So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. [2 Thess 2:15; see 1 Cor 11:2]

The bible did not exist in the apostolic age - Christians were taught by the apostles and their successors (e.g. Timothy and the succession of Catholic Bishops and priests).

Another function of the Church is to explain passages in the Bible. St. Peter warns about teachings in Scripture that are difficult to understand:

… as also in all his (St. Paul’s) letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. [2 Pet 3:15-16]

According to the Bible, the disciples had to explain the Scriptures. An example is St. Philip explaining the Book of Isaiah to the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:30-31. Also this function of the Church includes interpreting the Bible:

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation; for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. [2 Pet 1:20-21]

PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS NON-APOSTOLIC!!

Even though the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, it is not the only guiding rule of faith. Both the Bible and Apostolic Tradition are the Word of God. Both are important sources for the Faith. The Catholic Church being the Church founded by Christ preserves both from corruption and uses both to teach God’s Word with guidance from the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:16-20; John 16:12-15).

Where have I quoted Luther? But if I would I would certainly strive to quote him in context. What I believe comes straight from the theopneustos (God-breathed) Scriptures. And within those Scriptures we have the gospel, which means “good tidings.” Good news that we, believers, are not under law but now, in Christ, under grace. That through the cross God has the power to freely save, forever, those who believe in Christ for salvation. Yes, He actually does SAVE those who believe in Him. And that gifted salvation includes redemption, the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation to God, justification, sanctification and eternal life.

And I must say, those who have spiritual insight understand this better today than did even Luther whose glasses were still slightly stained by "tradition.

The problem is you do not realize you are replicating Luther’s teachings. You have a tradition of man but do not recognize it. It takes more in just believing in Jesus - one must demonstrate that belief by walking the walk and taking up one’s cross daily. Salvation is not a matter of belief alone. Is this a new Protestant sola ? Belief is good - but what good is it if one does not act on that faith?

"One does not “gain” grace, one enters into it through believing. No one ever taught here that grace is gained by sinning, but ratherRom 6:15

"What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!

I, however, readily accept and believe Christ’s teaching that the one who believes in Him HAS eternal life, does not come into judgment but has passed out of death into LIFE (His resurrected life, Jn. 5:24). And the Apostolic teaching that therefore there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1).

This is a semantic hair not worth debating. Grace is gained initially by baptism and that grace is ever at work in the believer and requires that we cooperate with it. It is not just a function of just belief. We have many commandments from Christ as well as the apostles that are necessary as well. For example we are commanded to love one another. We are commanded to confess our sins to one another. We are commanded to eat Jesus’ body and drink His blood. But we have Christians who believe that they are saved and do none or few of these things.

Nope. The package of salvation, which includes “ETERNAL” (everlasting) life is always wrapped in the beautiful color of grace - not law.

But Jesus gave us the 2 great commandments to Love God and Love Neighbor. Grace is beautiful but grace profits us nothing if we do not cooperate with grace and obey Jesus. If all we had to do was believe then why are we called to repent as well?

James

 

[ryanoneil]

What “LAW” of the New Covenant?

I’ve only got a few minutes to respond right now. Hopefully I can log on later.

For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified. (Rom 2:13)

This verse is refering to the law of Christ found in

Bear one another’s burdens, and so you will fulfill the law of Christ. (Gal 6:2)

This does not refer to “works of the law” in Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16; 3:2,5,10; and Eph. 2:8-9. The “law of Christ” is faith in Christ and works based on grace (God owes us nothing) and “works of the law” mean no faith in Christ, and legal works based on debt (God owes us something).

Reread Mat 5:17-20. Jesus says

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. . . .

Jesus isn’t blowing smoke here. His fulfillment of the Old Covenant Law perfects and transforms it into His New Covenant Law. The Law of Christ is the one written on our hearts.

The days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers the day I took them by the hand to lead them forth from the land of Egypt; for they broke my covenant and I had to show myself their master, says the LORD. But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD. I will place my law within them, and write it upon their hearts; I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jer 31:31-33)

 

[moondweller]

Well you are essentially parroting Luther’s teaching of OSAS which we Catholics know to be totally in error.

If I am parroting anyone, it’s Paul and the other N.T. writers.

What I am hearing from you is not God’s grace at all but rather a teaching of man. Yes by Grace we are saved but it is up to us to cooperate with that grace.

Then grace is no longer grace.Rom 11:6 "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.Your “it is up to us” boils down to works with the message that salvation, ultimately, is based on what you do, not on what Christ has done. This nonbiblical notion that “Christ did His thing, now we must do ours” is nothing less than salvation by works, not grace, and diametrically opposed to what Paul plainly states in Rom. 11:6 above.

But we have all those things and the apostolic teaching of the Catholic Church. A lay reader of scripture has no authority to interpret scripture except in the way that it was originally taught.

Originally taught? That makes no sense. What we have in the N.T. are the original teachings regarding the faith preserved for us in Holy Writ. What you’re claiming is there’s an original interpretation of the N.T. preserved in Rome somewhere. Hey, James, not even your Magisterium has produced an “official” interpretation (commentary) on the whole N.T.

Notice that there’s only ONE letter addressed to the church at Rome. And it wasn’t from Peter but from Paul. And it’s not addressed to the “official interpreters” in Rome. There was no such thing, never was. And when the church at Corinth received its letters, there is no record of them sending to Rome for an official interpreter. Nor did the Ephesians or the Galatians or the Jewish believers who received letters from Peter, James and the writer of Hebrews. There is absolutely no instruction by any of the writers of the N.T. to appoint official interpreters of Scripture. But instead, the letters and gospel accounts were copied and passed around to all the churches. James, when you receive a letter in the mail do you have an “official interpreter” appointed in your house? Do you have somebody interpret this message of mine for you?

Now it is true the Scriptures need to be studied. But God has raised up within the Body of Christ teachers to facilitate in that matter, many being mere “layman” (the N.T. does not mention priests (Gr. hiereus) in the church, only bishops/overseers (Gr. eposkopos), elders (Gr. presbyteros) and deacons (Gr. diakonos); none of which are called priests (hiereus).

The false separation of “clergy” and “layman” was a later development and has no Biblical support. There is only the general priesthood of believers, who themselves are called “saints.”

No teacher raised up by God teaches a gospel of works. Such are false teachers which Peter warned/predicted would rise up among us (2 Pet. 2:1).

You are teaching things that are not apostolic.

You mean not in conformity to your church tradition.

You think they are but apostolic tradition and history shows us otherwise.

But the Scriptures do not and are the original source."Rom 11:6 "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."Grace (unmerited favor) is the means by which God saves (completely) the believer, not a means by which He assists a believer to work for his salvation. The grace by which He saves, through faith, is sovereign grace. Because of the cross it is His right to save, and He remains righteous (just) when He does. Christ having met all the requirements. What you’re not understanding is the power of the cross:1 Cor 1:18 “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved (through faith) it is the power of God.”

Eph 2:16 "…and might reconcile them both (Jew and Gentile) in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.Now if you look at Eph. 2:16 in context, James, you’ll see the “enmity” between Jew and Gentile is “the Law of commandments {contained} in ordinances.” This, through the cross, says Paul, He abolished and “in Himself” He makes the two (both believing Jew and Gentile) into one new man (Eph. 2:15, called “the church”). All of this has nothing to do with works, and certainly not the Law with its Decalogue.

As long as the believer stays in Christ and confesses his sins (including the 10 commandments) then God does not hold that sin against him.

Acts 10:43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

Acts 13:38 “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,”

Acts 26:18 "to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.’

Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

1 John 2:12 “I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name’s sake.”

"So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. [2 Thess 2:15; see 1 Cor 11:2]

It’s a false assumption, indeed, to think that they taught something entirely differently “by mouth,” from that which they taught “by letter.” And anyway, it is only the Scriptures that are theopneustos (God-breathed). It doesn’t mean they weren’t verbally speaking truth, but theopneustos only refers to the written Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16). And it is impossible to accurately preserve that which is verbally delivered. That’s why God provided us with the God-breathed Scriptures.

But Jesus gave us the 2 great commandments to Love God and Love Neighbor.

No, Moses delivered those to Israel at Mt. Sinai through the covenant of Law. As a Man, a Jew, born under the Law, Jesus fulfilled them perfectly. He Himself actually being another “Adam,” a Federal Head with a posterity, made righteous, now “in Him,” through faith in Him alone.

 

[Philthy]

Moondweller …

Dead on You have picked Paul’s key text on topic.

Christ is the Word, he wrote the Words of Law, in Tables of Stone for the Jews. And, could they keep them ? History tells us they could [would] not.

We must turn from the Law in Stone that cannot save … we must turn to the Law of Love [Christ & his Beatitudes], that supercedes the prior ‘stoney law’ … which was only a shadow of Christ to come.

Do we say the original 10 Laws were not good. NO ! God forbid we trash God’s moral code. But, by Rebirth into Christ … Christ fulfills the Law [of the mind] we cannot keep. But, in Christ we can become lawkeepers [by the spirit], not by our works lest any man boast.

Christ circumcises our hearts, via baptism of H.S., and we receive the keys to the Kingdom. Sealed in Christ by faith and baptism … adopted into the Kingdom, new creations in Christ. Rooted in tree of life … intended for fruitful works befitting of our calling.

Our futures certain … if we remain in the Lord’s care as his elect, keeping tight hold on the keys [Christ & H.S].

IMHO this is impractical blubbering. What does anyone do with the information? Sorry to say so, but you need to get down to day to day existence. The 10 Commandments are a subset of the Law of Love. It is true that we don’t “get saved” by fulfilling the 10 Commandments “on our own” - we need a Saviour and God has provided one. Can we all get past that now? I know you “faith aloners” wish to turn every single topic into a discussion of “faith alone”, but there is more to our spiritual journey than its beginning. So while its true that we all need a Savior, it is also true that once we have access to the Holy Spirit that we have the ability - and responsibility - to “walk in the Spirit” which enables us to live a life of love. Such a life does not violate the 10 Commandments without the potential for eternal consequence. God will not be mocked. Christ, Paul, John, James, and Peter were all EXPLICIT on this. You both seem so eager to obviate the CLEAR teachings regarding particular sins with AMBIGUOUS ones like “walk in th Spirit” and “Law of Love”, “Christ fulfills the Commandments” etc etc. Its pretty sad if you ask me, and most useless.

 

[Pax]

In between this and the last thread, I’ve spent some time in further analysis of Abraham being justified on more than one occasion vs. md’s contention that he was only justified once. I made several posts on the last thread on this issue, and made a challenge for a rebuttal which was not forthcoming.

Since then I have synthesized what I presented into once piece and amplified a few things. This will take several posts to present, but I hope that it will be looked at carefully and I welcome analysis and rebuttal.

Stay tuned…it’s coming up next.

 

[Pax]

Abraham is justified 3 times. (proof)

Instance #1
In Genesis 15:6 Abraham believed God concerning his descendants being as numerous as the stars, and his belief was reckoned to him as righteousness.

Instance #2
Hebrews 11:8 makes reference to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-4, and says, “By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.” We know this is a reference to saving faith because in Hebrews 11:1-2 it says, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old received divine approval.” Divine approval is given for a person’s faith only when it is a saving faith.

Instance #3
James 2:21-23 makes reference to Abraham having faith when he was to sacrifice his son Isaac upon the altar and James says that the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness; and he was called the friend of God.”

We will now examine the instances labeled #2 and #3.

James mentions that Abraham was justified when he offered Isaac upon the altar. The passage reads as follows:

James 2:21-24
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

–The passage clearly shows that Abraham was justified by his works in his obedience to God in offering Isaac upon the altar.

–The passage clearly says that Abraham’s faith had works associated with it and that his faith was completed by works.

–The passage clearly states that this episode fulfills his faith and thus his faith is reckoned as righteousness.

–The passage clearly states that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. The man used as an example was Abraham. Abraham was justified by his works in sacrificing Isaac.

Some non-Catholics attempt to make the claim that James 2:21 uses the word “when” to indicate that Abraham was already justified “when” he was going to sacrifice Isaac, and that this “when” is a reference to Abraham’s justification in Genesis 15:6. They try to substantiate this by saying that James would have otherwise used the word “by.” They will also claim that his later statement in verse 23 that “…the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God,” proves that the justification is only found in Genesis 15:6. This is a case where the doctrine of faith alone and the unbiblical claim that Abraham was justified only once is superimposed on the text in an attempt to make it say something other than what is clearly intended.

Any attempt to make a production out of the word “by” which is not in the text versus the word “when” which is in the text will fail. James asks a rhetorical question saying “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?”

Even a child reading this text will know that the apostle is telling us that Abraham was justified by works at the point in time “when” he offered his son Isaac upon the altar. The word “by” is not necessary to make the Catholic case and the word “when” does nothing to support the opposing view. In fact, either word is fatal to the doctrine of faith alone and to the view that Abraham was only justified on one occasion. The reasons for this are as follows:

1. The non-catholic claim is that only faith justifies. James says otherwise. Moreover, he begins his rhetorical question by indicating that Abraham was justified “by” works. That is the thrust of his argument throughout Chapter 2 of the epistle. It, therefore, wouldn’t matter if it is a “when” or a “by” in reference to the offering of Isaac. The “when” or the “by” still refers to works which is fatal to the argument.
2. Another reason the contention concerning the word “when” is flawed involves the way some attempt to connect it to Gen 15:6. Please note that James makes a complete thought that Abraham was justified in his work of offering Isaac. It is only after making this complete thought that James goes on to say, “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,” Now think about this: Abraham believed God and he was on the verge of sacrificing Isaac. In this, we clearly see the faith and works of Abraham. His faith and trust in God was active along with his works and his faith was completed by his work of willingly offering his son upon the altar.

Once James clearly makes those points he then, and only then, quotes the verse that Paul points out concerning justification. This is deliberate on his part and is designed to clarify misunderstandings that did and could emerge concerning Paul’s teaching. James says, "and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” This verse is chosen by James to indicate that the righteousness that he is talking about is the same righteousness that Paul is talking about. He uses, however, a different instance in Abraham’s life than Paul does and this is crucial. If James was talking about the promise concerning descendents as the only justifying event then he would have used that example as Paul did, but he had an obvious purpose for making the connection using a different instance in Abraham’s life.

1. James is not talking about Abraham already being righteous in the instance of Gen 15:6 by using the word “when.” It is a fatal mistake to assume by way of a doctrine that he must have meant that very thing, when he clearly did not. Point #2 helps to show why, but it is not the only indicator.

The text of James is inspired and the inspired word tramples that assumption by making reference to Rahab. James uses the word “when” in reference to Rahab just as he uses the word “when” in reference to Abraham. The passage on Rahab says:

James 2:25
“And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?”

James uses a rhetorical question in both instances. James says both were justified by works. James uses the word “when” in both Abraham’s and Rahab’s examples. In both cases, the works and the justification are directly tied to the particular events in question. Neither applies to different events in their lives.

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

Now we can be even more certain of these statements about Rahab because in Hebrews 11:38 Rahab is once again mentioned as one of those that “acted” in faith and received “divine approval.” Once again, it is important to point out that Hebrews 11 begins with the following:

“NOW FAITH is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old received divine approval. By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.”(Heb 11:1-3)

The passage then goes on to mention the faith of all of the many holy patriarchs, prophets, and martyrs of the OT including Abraham and Rahab.

In Hebrews 11:4 it says:
“By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he received approval as righteous…” Abraham and Rahab are in the group listed after the statement about Abel, and also received approval as righteous in the instances cited.

Now let’s take a look at something very important.

In Genesis 15:6 we are told that “Abraham believed God concerning his descendants being as numerous as the stars, and his belief was reckoned to him as righteousness.”

The apostle Paul makes reference to this instance in his epistle to the Romans. In this regard he says:

Romans 4:16-25
That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants–not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”–in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations; as he had been told, “So shall your descendants be.” He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead because he was about a hundred years old, or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was “reckoned to him as righteousness.” But the words, “it was reckoned to him,” were written not for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

Here is what we can learn from this:

Paul gives his explanation and narrative about Abraham and then says, "This is why his faith was “reckoned to him as righteousness.” Paul mentions this so that we will examine and understand what the reasons are for this faith to be reckoned as righteousness. The reasons are first of all based on grace, and the promise is “descendents that would be as numerous as the stars and that he would father many nations.” So what are the reasons that Abraham’s faith was reckoned as righteousness?

Paul tells us that:

1. “In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations; as he had been told,”
2. “He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead because he was about a hundred years old, or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb.”
3. “No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised.”

These three points are significant in several ways. Each one of them contains an element of works on the part of Abraham that satisfied and pleased God. It is through these things in faith that Abraham receives divine approval.

The most telling part of this is in reason #2. We have to recognize that Abraham was, as Paul points out, “as good as dead because he was about a hundred years old.” Moreover, Sarah was by this time barren. This combination would normally mean that there would be no children. Yet God promised Abraham that he would be the father of nations and that his descendents would be as numerous as the stars.

By grace, faith, and the power of God Abraham and Sarah gave birth to Isaac. Thus the promise was fulfilled.

A crucial aspect of this is revealed to us by Paul when he says that Abraham was about a hundred years old and as good as dead and that Sarah was barren. Paul is delicately and courteously making it clear that Abraham was too old to sire children. Likewise, he states that Sarah was barren. In Genesis 18:12 we are told that Sarah laughs upon hearing that she and Abraham will bear children.

The passage says: "So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I have grown old, and my husband is old, shall I have pleasure?”

This again is a delicately stated phrase describing the lack of a sex life of this couple at that stage of their lives. Nevertheless, these two people believed God. Moreover, they engaged in marital relations and God blessed them with Isaac and God fulfilled the promise.

The promise would not have been fulfilled had Abraham not had relations with Sarah. Abraham and Sarah were pretty much incapable of marital relations and most certainly child bearing at that stage in their lives, but they believed God and engaged in marital relations. The ability and power to do so were granted to them by way of God’s grace. By grace and faith they begat Isaac.

Without that work or activity on their part the promise would not have been fulfilled by God. If the promise was not fulfilled because of this work/action Abraham would not have been the father of many nations. Abraham would not have been justified because he would not have completed his faith by that action. Abraham’s faith would not have been reckoned to him as righteousness.

The same kind of thing is evident in reading Hebrews chapter 11. Each of the holy figures cited had faith and their faith was associated with something they did. Even Henry’s Concise Commentary, a non-Catholic source, recognizes that Hebrews Chapter 11 is talking about the justifying faith of the patriarchs, prophets, and martyrs of the Old Testament. Henry’s Commentary says:

“Text: - Ver. 1-3 Faith always has been the mark of God’s servants, from the beginning of the world. Where the principle is planted by the regenerating Spirit of God, it will cause the truth to be received, concerning justification by the sufferings and merits of Christ. And the same things that are the object of our hope, are the object of our faith. It is a firm persuasion and expectation, that God will perform all he has promised to us in Christ.”

cont. on next post

 

[Philthy]

Then grace is no longer grace.Rom 11:6 "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.Your “it is up to us” boils down to works with the message that salvation, ultimately, is based on what you do, not on what Christ has done.

How many times have you been corrected on this MD? 50? More? Either you are incredibly dense or you prefer to cling to your own notion of what the Catholic faith is.
No one is saved apart from Grace. Period. We all agree. Although we are FREELY GIVEN access to eternal life, we must also accept it and live in it. That requires SOME effort on our parts. The fact that it does does not obviate the reality that we are still entirely dependent upon God’s grace for salvation. Grace alone is necessary and sufficient; our works alone are necessary YET INSUFFICIENT.
You constantly shoot yourself in the foot with this argument anyhow. According to your logic above, "How is grace still grace if it requires faith?

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior posts.

Hebrews Chapter 11 tells us that:

Verse 4: By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he received approval as righteous,

Verse 5: By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was attested as having pleased God.

Verse 6: And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

Verse 7: By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, took heed and constructed an ark for the saving of his household; by this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith.

Verses 8-10: By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he looked forward to the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

Verses 11-12: By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.

Verse 13.: These all died in faith.

In verse 31, Rahab is also mentioned and we know from James that she was “justified” in that example.

This is righteousness and justification and every example includes faith and the works that completed it. This is made very explicit in Hebrews when the author talks about Abel as his initial example. It is also eminently clear that the faith of these individuals would be meaningless if they defied God and failed to live out their faith in the actions described above. None of them would have received divine approval. All of those mentioned are examples of OT justified saints.

We will now look once again at Sarah. Let’s start with Genesis where Abraham’s faith is reckoned to him as righteousness. This faith pertains to the promise of off spring. At that point in time Abraham was still called Abram and his wife was still called Sarai. God then makes his covenant with Abraham.

In Gen 17:4-8 it says:
“Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come forth from you. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. And I will give to you, and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”

In Gen 17:15-16 it says this:
"And God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her; I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.”

Scripture always speaks through the idea of fatherhood and Abraham is no exception. Even though Sarah is not mentioned as having her faith reckoned as righteousness we can easily see that this is the case. She receives the same blessings and a name change just as Abraham did. This demonstrates God’s favor and approval along with the covenant relationship established with Sarah in the same fashion as it is established with Abraham. Sarah, like Abraham believed God and believed his promise concerning offspring.

Hebrews 11:11 specifically mentions this about Sarah by stating:
“By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised.”

This is exactly the same thing that Abraham did and the connection is unmistakable when Paul says in Romans 4:3-13 that:

“For what does the scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’ … We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness…How then was it reckoned to him?..The promise to Abraham and his descendants, that they should inherit the world, did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.”

Clearly, both Abraham and Sarah were justified by faith and their belief that God would keep his promises concerning them parenting many off spring and many nations, and that kings would come from them. The justification of Sarah in Genesis 15:6 is very obvious. Likewise, this incident is referred to in Hebrews 11:11. Every instance of a patriarch, prophet, and martyr in Hebrews 11 concerns faith and justification. This includes the reference to Abraham’s faith and justification as it pertains to his receiving divine approval for leaving his home land to sojourn to a foreign country by trusting God. This is a reference to instance #2 of Abraham’s justification.

There is one more reference to Abraham’s justification in the NT that does not refer to Genesis 15:6. In Galatians 3:5-9, Paul says the following:

Gal 3:5-9
Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? Thus Abraham “believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the scripture, forseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith. This quote is a reference to Abraham’s justification in Genesis 12:1-4 which says:

Gen 12:1-4
Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves.” So Abram went, as the Lord had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran.

Galatians 3:5-9 makes it clear that the belief that Abraham had in this instance came by way of the Spirit and faith, and that as a result “it was reckoned to him as righteousness” just as his faith was reckoned to him as righteousness in Genesis 15:6. Like James, Paul quite naturally uses the phrase “reckoned to him as righteousness” in referring to an instance of Abraham’s justification other than the instance cited by Paul in Genesis 15:16 where the phrase is found. Moreover, Paul may very well be the author of the Book of Hebrews in which he speaks of Abraham being justified in Genesis 12:1-4.

Abraham was clearly justified on three separate occasions. Moreover, nowhere in scripture does it ever say that someone is justified only once. Such a claim cannot be supported by scripture either implicitly or explicitly, and there is no logical reason to believe that such a thing would be true.

The End

 

[Pax]

How many times have you been corrected on this MD? 50? More? Either you are incredibly dense or you prefer to cling to your own notion of what the Catholic faith is.
No one is saved apart from Grace. Period. We all agree. Although we are FREELY GIVEN access to eternal life, we must also accept it and live in it. That requires SOME effort on our parts. The fact that it does does not obviate the reality that we are still entirely dependent upon God’s grace for salvation. Grace alone is necessary and sufficient; our works alone are necessary YET INSUFFICIENT.
You constantly shoot yourself in the foot with this argument anyhow. According to your logic above, "How is grace still grace if it requires faith?

It is a strawman argument and this has, indeed, been pointed out too many times to count.

md,

Please argue against what we believe if you can, but don’t waste time posting these tired and irrelevant arguments as if they have any place in the discussion.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Good work* Pax!

I’ll have to steal your Rahab Heb 11+James 2 argument for future use.

*Not to be confused with the Rom 11:6 “work,” which unfortunately seems to be all too prevalent.

 

[Tim_in_MI]

I plan on re-reading Jimmy Akin’s “The Salvation Controversy” again soon. In my opinion, it would greatly benefit some of the folks visiting here as well. His arguments are very solid, and he does an exceptional job defining terms used in various verses - especially the word “works”.