S
- Status
B
BRB
Guest
Please !!! Do we need to go back and play the 1st inning over again ?
Sin is ANYTHING that is not pleasing to the Lord. Both thoughts & deeds. Which spawn from our original sin natures … contracted thru First Adam. The law makes us aware and makes firm case that all are quilty before God. The Mosaic Law cannot save us … PERIOD. Only the WORD can.
B
BRB
Guest
Me afraid ?
I love those guys … their knowledge and insights are awesome. Scott is my Protestant … now Catholic tutor in the faith. 
I’d love to have him drop in for periodic visits to CAF … and knock some over the fence for our edification and God’s glory.
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
Is coveting your neighbors goods a sin, is killing, is stealing, is committing adultry? What changed to make doing any of the ten commandments, not sin? Or are they still sin? So the law from God is no longer a list of things that are not pleasing to the Lord? Where is that in scripture or anywhere else of value?
I see no argument claiming that the Mosaic Law saves. You need to move to the ballpark where this game be being played. You’ve been watching batting practice in the wrong ballpark.
Only God’s grace can save. Period!
B
BRB
Guest
What is your point ?
You start off asking me if breaking the Big 10 is a sin … and then you conclude by saying ‘only God’s grace can save’.
I will say that it was/is for the orthodox Hebrews.
Should Catholics also follow the Big 10 ? You will no doubt say “Yes, every dot made, and T crossed”.
Lets look at Deuteronomy 5:8 “You shall not make for yourself a GRAVEN IMAGE, or ANY LIKENESS of ANYTHING THAT IS IN HEAVEN ABOVE, or on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not BOW DOWN to them or serve them; …”
This is clearly Big 10 Law. Do you keep it ? Might I mention all the statues of Mary, & even Jesus, and those icons the monks in middle ages made for sale … which the Church at first forbade … and later allowed after much protest of the monks.
Would not a Jew find it an abomination to enter a Catholic Church … out of concerns Catholics are breaking this Big 10 law ?
So … where does this legalism end ? IN CHRIST !!! … we are freed from the OT laws. We worship Christ alone.
Even your own Church [in its wisdom] has seen that this law doesn’t upset our Lord … when we portray Christ on the Cross, or Mary with the Children of the World in her arms, and provided we don’t worship the images … but, Christ – within our hearts.
Its our intentions of the Heart … that makes all the difference to our Lord. In Christ we are freed from the OT law. He fullfills it FOR US … when we walk in the spirit, in obedience to him.
S
sandusky
Guest
Yes, the choosing of Judas for the apostolate, is described as “election;” however, in what sense is Judas, “elect?”
Is Judas’ election an election to salvation, or an election to something else?
Judas was not elect by the Father for salvation, but was chosen by the Son for service.
In the NT, election to salvation is uniformly ascribed to the Father, while the electing work of the Son is to service.
Jn 6:70 illustrates this:**John 6:70
Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?”**Jesus chose the 12 as apostles, and one of those He chose knowing that one “is a devil.”
(Jesus chose that devil, Judas, in order that the scripture would be fulfilled).
Within that group of 12, are those chosen by the Father for salvation, and given to the Son for safekeeping:**John 17:6
“I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.**Those given by the Father to Christ for salvation have “kept the Father’s word.”
**Will you please explain how Judas kept the Father’s word?John 17:12
“While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished BUT the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.**”BUT” (Gk ei mā), is an adversative conjunction; it separates Judas into another class from the class in which "not one perished."
IOW, Judas never belonged to the group that did not perish—they were sons by adoption—but Judas was THE son of Perdition, and he was that, SO THAT, the scripture would be fulfilled.
Here are a few more verses with adversative conjunctions:**Matthew 12:4
how he [King David] entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, BUT for the priests alone?
**(David was not in the class of priests)
**Acts 27:22
“Yet now I urge you to keep up your courage, for there will be no loss of life among you, BUT only of the ship.
**(The ship is not in the class that will not be lost)
**Revelation 21:27
and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, BUT only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
**(Those whose names are written in the Lambs book of Life are not among the class of unclean, abominable liars who will never enter the kingdom)Furthermore,**John 18:6-9
So when He said to them, “I am He,” they drew back and fell to the ground.
Therefore He again asked them, “Whom do you seek?” And they said, “Jesus the Nazarene.”
Jesus answered, “I told you that I am He; so if you seek Me, let these go their way,”
to fulfill the word which He spoke, “Of those whom You have given Me I lost not one.”**
John is referring to 17:12.
Of those given by the Father to the Son FOR SALVATION, "NOT ONE WAS LOST"
(cf Jn 6:37-40,44).
Moreover,**Romans 9:17
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.”**Notice as well, what God says of Pharoah, and how Pharoah came to be in his humanity, in his position of authority, and God’s purpose for raising up Pharoah.
Pharoah wasn’t simply in the right place, at the right time, but he was in that place by the predetermined foreknowledge of God.**Acts 15:18
“Known to God from eternity are all His works.”**Judas was not elect to salvation.
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
What is your point ?
You start off asking me if breaking the Big 10 is a sin … and then you conclude by saying ‘only God’s grace can save’.
Quote form BRB: The Mosaic Law cannot save us … PERIOD. Only the WORD can.
The point is that God’s grace saves us. “The word” (Christ) comes to us from God’s grace. Just correcting your statement.
Should Catholics also follow the Big 10 ? You will no doubt say “Yes, every dot made, and T crossed”.
No, no… this ballpark…
The question was. Is doing any one of the big 10 still sin? yes or no?
B
BRB
Guest
Hooray … the Sandman is back
P
Philthy
Guest
I didnt need the first inning to begin with - but you definitely need a replay. The purpose of the question is very simple: what are the things which are displeasing to the Lord? I maintain that the 10 Commandments remain a list of those things MOST displeasing to the Lord. Do you agree or disagree? Notice how you remain in the abstract with your response that sin is “anything that is not pleasing to the Lord”. How do we make such a statement practical? How do we know that which is not pleasing to the Lord?
The issue of “being saved” by them is an irrelevant consideration among Christians: no one has ever suggested anything to warrant your reiteration of that reality. The question at hand is whether the unrepentant, wanton disobedience of breaking one of the 10 Commandments by someone who has or had faith in Christ constitutes a rejection of the gift of eternal life. Paul is very clear in this regard: breaking any of the 10 is equivalent to Idolatry and no one who does so will inherit eternal life.
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
The question at hand is whether the unrepentant, wanton disobedience of breaking one of the 10 Commandments by someone who has or had faith in Christ constitutes a rejection of the gift of eternal life. Paul is very clear in this regard: breaking any of the 10 is equivalent to Idolatry and no one who does so will inherit eternal life.
Excellent point!! Idolaty, the sin of pride. The idea that you know better than God, making youself a god or at the very least serving two God’s.
Excellent point!! Idolaty, the sin of pride. The idea that you know better than God, making youself a god or at the very least serving two God’s.
P
Philthy
Guest
You remain an enigma to me…are you a woman?!Me afraid ?
I’d love to have him drop in for periodic visits to CAF … and knock some over the fence for our edification and God’s glory.
P
Philthy
Guest
Sounds pretty Catholic to mewhich solidifies your enigmatic status! Of course you have left the big issues unclear:
What is walking in the Spirit, exactly?
What is “obedience to Him”, exactly?
What is disobedience to Him, exactly?
Please be certain to include as much Scripture in your response as you can.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
You are jumping through every semantic hoop you can to construct a faux truth out of a false premise. No one needs to go to Greek to discern the plain meaning of the word "but’.
By your rationale most everyone on the planet finds themselves on the other side of the “but divide”. Are you are doing the will of God 100% of your life and all of the time since the first moment you attained the age of reason? If not better take a look at :
Matthew 7:21
21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
By your faulty logic if we trip up a single time we all find ourselves in the exclusion class through an a-priori declaration of man. But everyone knows that one of the principal things Jesus taught is that heaven can be gained through seeking forgivness of our sins and through repentance. There is no preordained hell.
While you are digesting that please also refresh your memory of scripture to see what side of the “but divide” you personally stand with Mark 16:16. Are you trying to teach us that a person who starts off in the “not believing and not baptised” class can not later become a believer and become baptised?
Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned
Clearly there is a temporal aspect of salvation and salvation is not a predestined thing nor is it a certain thing. One must “walk the walk” and do certain things.
And finally, here is direct scriptural contradiction that proves your personal theory is wrong about the word “but” forcing somone into an inescapable class that is not saved. In Matthew 5:19 we see we have a range of classes of saved (a hiearchy) that has at a minimum at least two general classes of saved - “least” and “greatest”.
Matthew 5:19
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven
So, if you still insist against all evidence that your depressing false theory about an inescapable preordained exclusion class is scriptural then you must also accept that scripture clearly tells us that if you are truly saved at all then you will find yourself among the “least in the Kingdom” for teaching invalid doctrine.
Still want to teach personal opinion as fact?
James
T
Thing
Guest
So you believe that the unborn, the infants, toddlers, mentally handicapped, and just about everyone in the world who was not fortunate enough to have somebody tell them the Good News are all condemned? …says Jesus.
Or would you see the difference between unbelief and disbelief?
Next question to you is back to the point; hypothetically, what reason would I have to tell someone with your theology to be afraid of going to hell?
R
ryanoneil
Guest
We are saved “under grace,” not “under the law.”
We are no longer under the Old Testament laws, but we must still uphold the Old Testament principles.
Can anyone be faithfull to the new command (John 13:34) if they are braking one of the 10c’s?
I agree!
We are no longer under law from a legal standpoint, but we must still follow their godly principles, including the moral precepts of the Ten Commandments. This is why Paul can say “the doers of the law will be justified” (Rom. 2:13) and “the law is holy” (Rom. 7:12). Paul is referring to the principles of the law, not the letter of the law.
Remember "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Mat 5:27-28)
Christ is upholding the principle of the law (thou shalt not commit adultery), but He is perfecting it in His New Covenant of grace, which is not concerned with the legal stipulations, but with the heart of man. He retains what is holy in the Sixth Commandment, and perfects it.
If we approach God as a debtor, we will be judged under the Old Covenant laws, and we will be condemned, because under the old laws, there was no mercy, and we would have to be perfect in order to be acquitted.
For whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it. (James 2:10)
But in the New Covenant, if we approach God with faith in Jesus Christ, we are in a system of grace (“not under the law”), and God will reward us for being faithful.
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access (by faith) to this grace in which we stand, and we boast in hope of the glory of God. (Rom. 5:1-2)
“under the law” the Jews began to view God in a legalistic sense, like a debtor who owed them for their works, rather than a Father who owed them nothing, but would save them if they were faithful. When we DON’T approach God as our loving Father through faith in Jesus Christ, we convert our relationship with God from a covenantal to a contractual one. Thus, our works become based on law (contract), not grace (covenant).
P
Pax
Guest
You either fail to understand anything that I have presented or you cannot muster an argument against, or perhaps both. Moreover, there is absolutely nothing in this post that refutes anything pertinent to my points made on this thread.
P
Pax
Guest
Sandusky,
Thanks for posting this. While you and I disagree, I want to commend you for taking on statements that I have made with thoughtful consideration and plausible arguments.
Please be advised that my prior posts stand as my main stay on this issue but I will make a few comments. I disagree with your contention that:
John 17:7-12 says, “Now they know that everything that thou hast given me is from thee; for I have given them the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from thee; and they have believed that thou didst send me. I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine; all mine are thine, and thine are mine, and I am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled. Notice the reference to Judas. Judas is in the same group given to Jesus by the Father."
Judas is clearly part of the group of twelve and enjoys all of the benefits that were imparted to each and every apostle. He becomes the son of perdition when he begins the process of betraying Jesus. It is not 100% clear when he decided to do this, but it is probably just before Jesus gave the discourse on the bread of life. The people wanted to make Jesus king and to have him rule as a secular leader, but he fled from that when they wished to take him by force to enthrone him.[John 6:15] It is generally believed that Judas wanted Jesus to be an earthly messiah as did many disciples including most of the twelve. When he discovered that this was not what Jesus would do, he turned on him and betrayed him.
This is an example of salvation in the hand and then tossed aside.
Judas was a believer and worshiped Jesus as the son of God. That is a crucial fact backed up by scripture. That fact makes him in the same group as the rest of the twelve and all other Christians that have been brought into relationship with Jesus.
What you and I disagree on is the breaking of the relationship. You can look at John 17 and make the claim that Judas never belonged, but our claim that he did and then turned from Jesus is simply more plausible. Scripture calls him a betrayer when he lifts his heal against his savior and Lord. Scripture does not say anything negative about Judas until late in Jesus 3 years of ministry.
Peter committed a serious sin in denying Jesus. Jesus even tells us that “whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.”[Matt 10:33] Such a turning from Christ brings condemnation. Fortunately, Peter came back with a Godly grief that produces a repentence that leads to salvation. Judas had what Paul says is a “worldly grief that produces death.” 2 Cor 7:10] If Judas had done what Peter did, he would have been forgiven and restored. He would have been like “the prodigal son who was dead and then made alive again.”
P
Pax
Guest
This is the kind of statement that makes it difficult for me to respond with charity. Please note that we have told you over and over in this and the previous thread that salvation is a gift and that we do not save ourselves.
It is simply rude and dishonest for you to continue making these kinds of remarks.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Very good commentary and analysis - I agree.
Sandusky needs to meditate on the plain fact that is is entirely impossible for somone to “betray” a group that they never belonged to. Impossible. Betrayal is one of the most personal and hurtful of sins since it comes from within the inner intimacy and trust of the family. It is utterly sinister and evil to the core.
As an aside I think Judas actually believed in Jesus as “the messiah” but did not agree with his passive approach by example. I think Judas was blinded by his zealot underpinnings that saw power and might as the principal means fore securing the Jews back to power and glory. I speculate that Judas let his personal vision for what he thought the messiah “should be” blind him to the gravity of what he was doing. I really think Judas fell victim to the common human error of “the ends justifies the means” mentality. It is entirely possible that Judas was role playing some scripture (the highly educated Sanhedrin had to see the events unfolding as incredibly scriptural). He may have intended to force Jesus’ hand to get him arrested and assumed Jesus would use His divine powers to prevent his persecution and thereby publicly reveal his powers and authority to unseat the corrupt Sanhedrin and Jewish King. But of course Jesus was no ordinary human and it all backfired in Judas’ face and he could live with the reality of what he had done and despaired rather than sought forgivness as Peter had done.
James
- Status