- Status
P
Pax
Guest
I think you’re on to something.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
" he presents as something that happened “once” and the believer was “washed,” “sanctified,” and "justified."Yeah…it’s called Baptism. One time is all it takes.
Yeah, I know he does.
But you still don’t.
Why don’t you call him up and ask him about it?
Oh…that’s right…you don’t really want him to clarify what he said because it will definitely contradict your opinion of his sermon, and then where would all your rhetoric and argument be?
Enjoy the wishful thinking moondweller.
M
moondweller
Guest
Did you call him?Yeah…it’s called Baptism. One time is all it takes.Yeah, I know he does.
But you still don’t.
Why don’t you call him up and ask him about it?
Oh…that’s right…you don’t really want him to clarify what he said because it will definitely contradict your opinion of his sermon, and then where would all your rhetoric and argument be?
Enjoy the wishful thinking moondweller.
M
moondweller
Guest
This has to do with national Israel and Gentiles in general being either grafted in or broken off from the blessings of Abraham.
This is a whole new paragraph, Pax. A change of thought which has nothing to do with the former.
Interpreting out of context is a major problem with you and Scripture.
S
sandusky
Guest
Justification occurs only once. Thus Paul says:**Romans 5:1Sure you do.Thanks for clearing that up. Please dont feel compelled to return to satisfy your “interest”.
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,**If the RC view of justification were correct, I think Paul would have to say something more like the following:Perhaps after all of your justifications you might have peace with God, I don’t know, because it would be presumptuous of me to say that you could ever know for sure.
Continuing, to James, as Paul teaches that salvation is a gift from God, so too James teaches that salvation is a gift from God in the first chapter of his epistle.**James 1:17-18
Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father…[who] in the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.**One can’t earn a gift, Phil, so that can’t be James’ point in chapter 2.
When James says that “Abraham was justified when he offered up Isaac,” he was in fact justified, long before he offered up Isaac, in fact, long before Isaac was born.
I think that’s the reason that God declared Abraham righteous in Gen 15, and not in Gen 12—Abraham didn’t believe to justification at that point (Gen 12), but he was inwardly questioning God. When he voices his concerns to God in Gen 15, and God expands upon His promises, then Abraham believes to righteousness. (Paul confirms this at the end of Rom 4:16-25).
James point in chapter 2 is that the justified faith outwardly manifests itself by its works. IOW, Abraham’s justified faith didn’t further justify him by its works, its works simply confirmed that God’s justification of Abraham in Gen 15 was right, thus James’ reference to it.
S
sandusky
Guest
Pax your RC catechism in para 1032 teaches this passage as a proof of the non-existent purgatory—not condemnation, but purgation.
B
BRB
Guest
Guys … we are all adults. All here are passionate about our beliefs. Some of us are even Militant zealots. Thats fine and admirable.Why don’t you call him up and ask him about it?
Oh…that’s right…you don’t really want him to clarify what he said because it will definitely contradict your opinion of his sermon, and then where would all your rhetoric and argument be?
.
I think we all love the pursuit of wisdom, knowledge … but, especially the discovery of Truth. None of us has all the answers. Even if the Church does, in that ‘deposit of faith’, … if will take the ‘fullness of time’ for us to fully appreciate.
Who would not love to have Scott H., or Karl K., or Father C.
drop by and enlighten our minds ? These guys are our heros. We may not be able to get them to post here … but, there are plenty of other outstanding minds here on CAF that might.
I keep waiting for FCEGM to register his comments. I know he is following this thread … but, of yet, he has stayed Neutral.
I think he is waiting to see if we can resolve the issue for ourselves.
Pax, Philthy, Mike, Militant, Cn.Fl.James, etc … all you Hebrew Legalites … we salute you !!!
Now, take some batting practice … and come out swinging
B
BRB
Guest
I’ll quote briefly from Karl Keating’s chapter on Practical Apologetics.
“…you should not presume the worst on the part of Protestants, don’t not get into the habit of swallowing everything said or done by Catholics. It may astonish some to learn that on occasion individual Catholics have been wrong, their Protestant opposition right — the Catholics having missed the truly Catholic position on an issue, the Protestants having ‘stumbled’ across it. What is more, the number of canonized saints is small, and with good reason. Even with all the spiritual wellsprings found in the Church, many of its members fare poorly, at least in comparison to their hopes and everyone else’s expectations. We are consistently off the mark — but we would be lost entirely if it were not for the Church.”
and Ronald Knox [catholic author/historian] studied life of John Wesley extensively and ended up admiring Wesley, much to his surprize. K. Keating then says about Wesley and his ilk, " these are, in the main, good people, and grace has not passed them by."
Don’t you just love openminded Catholics ?
… score a H.R. for Karl & team
“…you should not presume the worst on the part of Protestants, don’t not get into the habit of swallowing everything said or done by Catholics. It may astonish some to learn that on occasion individual Catholics have been wrong, their Protestant opposition right — the Catholics having missed the truly Catholic position on an issue, the Protestants having ‘stumbled’ across it. What is more, the number of canonized saints is small, and with good reason. Even with all the spiritual wellsprings found in the Church, many of its members fare poorly, at least in comparison to their hopes and everyone else’s expectations. We are consistently off the mark — but we would be lost entirely if it were not for the Church.”
and Ronald Knox [catholic author/historian] studied life of John Wesley extensively and ended up admiring Wesley, much to his surprize. K. Keating then says about Wesley and his ilk, " these are, in the main, good people, and grace has not passed them by."
Don’t you just love openminded Catholics ?
… score a H.R. for Karl & team
B
BRB
Guest
Right you are !!!Specify "our."You’ve already got Sandusky and Moondweller. What more do you need?
No need for me to switchhit for the Legalites, and award them unearned runs …
They need to ‘step up’ their game … and ‘Work’ for those wages.
M
mikeledes
Guest
You’re right, context is important. What are those pronouns referring to? Gramatically, pronouns serve as substitutes for nouns - person or thing - previously specified. Therefore, pronouns refer to the specified subject of a sentence. Who or what is the subject of John 15:6?
6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
The specified subject of the verse is the branchWhy the plural prounouns? Note that Jesus begins with a general “anyone”, which means that, numerically speaking, He does not have only one specific person in view. Since Jesus is describing the fate of all (i.e. plural) those branches that are thrown away and consequently wither, He uses plural pronouns in the second half of the verse.
Dried up branches do not produce fruit because they are dead, lacking the vital power to produce them. Do these “dead” works that you refer to fall under the category of “good works?”
Secondly, you have yet to explain how a person can lose the vital power to produce fruit and yet still have life within them, considering that it is life that is the power? Moreover, without this vital power, how can they progress and persevere in their “experiential” sanctification, considering that Hebrews 12:14 states:
14Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord.
2 Timothy 2:12
12If we endure, we will also reign with Him;
If we deny Him, He also will deny us;
Revelation 2:10
Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.
And Romans 6:19
19I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.
If a Christian lacks the vital power to bear fruit, their “experiential” sanctification is stagnated. There are no moral vacuums in the spiritual realm. If by the Spirit you are not presenting your members as slaves of righteousness, then your members will be subject to sin, for Galatians 5:16 states:
16But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.
A person who lacks the vital power to bear fruit cannot walk by the Spirit, because walking by the Spirit automatically results in good fruit.
Neither does He make empty threats to disinherit them when He knows that can never happen:Revelation 22:19
19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
Romans 11:20-22
… Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
God Bless,
Michael
B
BRB
Guest
This person would be an Apostate or a Prodigal son ?
Regarding the WARNINGS in Bible: We must never think of them as ‘idle words’, as words not intended to be taken deadly serious. Christ and authors of sacred scriptures left us plenty of Danger/Stop signs … to stop us short of committing Apostasy.
M
mikeledes
Guest
The following quote from a Classic Arminian website and points to how illogical this interpretation is:
Calvinists have traditionally tried to resolve the difficulty in one of two ways. The first way is to say that the branches do not represent individuals, but nations. The broken off branches represent the nation of Israel, and the engrafted branches represent the Gentiles as a people group. The problem with this interpretation is that Paul is speaking of individual branches that have been broken off and grafted in to the true Israel of God. The branches clearly represent individual Jews, for the entire nation has not been rejected. There are believing Jews [the remnant] who have remained in the olive tree. The grafted in branches represent individual Gentiles as only believing Gentiles have come to enjoy the favor and election of God. It is only believing Gentiles that can be called spiritual descendants of Abraham, and it is beyond argument that not all Gentiles have embraced Christ.
arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/search?q=olive+tree
It is also quite clear that the warning about being cut off does not apply to Gentiles as a whole (believers and unbelievers), but to believing gentiles only:
**19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”
20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. **
Since we just had a discussion regarding the use of plural pronouns, how do you explain the use of plural nouns and pronouns in reference to those who were broken off (branches, they). How many Jewish nations are there? Secondly, what does Paul say to the Gentiles? He says “you stand by faith.” In other words, he only has believing Gentiles in view, not Gentile nations (belivers and unbelievers) as a whole. And what he says regarding being cut off exclsuively applies to Gentile Christians:
but you stand by YOUR FAITH Do not be conceited, but fear
Who is Paul speaking to when he says they should not be conceited, but fear? To those who believe, because Gentile pagans cannot have faith. And what does he say to Gentile believers, why must they fear?
**21FOR if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. **
To reinforce the fact that Paul is speaking to Gentile believers, he says that they must continue - the Greek word is a variant of the same word used in John 15 - in His kindness, which can only mean he is speaking to individual Gentile Christians, not nations in general. And the warning to them is that if they do not continue in His kindness, they will be cut off, suffering the same fate as unbelieving Israelites.
God bless,
Michael
S
sandusky
Guest
Right you are, BRB.
God’s warnings give His true saints pause, while causing the uncommitted, or not fully committed more to consider.
However, God’s promises give His true saints comfort.
His promises include His protection of His saints:**1 Peter 1:3-5
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.**One cannot be any safer than that, BRB, wouldn’t you agree?
Warnings vs Promises.
His are secure based upon His promises.
B
BRB
Guest
ABSOLUTELY !!!
and, our brother Pax still wants to send us 65 items of Proof text … disproving election and OSAS
What could possible ‘trump’ the First Pope Peter’s support for bornagain REBIRTH, SALVATION ASSURANCE, & OSAS ??
Sandusky … might we say those scriptures above are INFALLIBLE [with regards to faith & morals …
]A Homerun for you … scored for Paul - PETER’s team
P
Philthy
Guest
Two things:
- The question at hand is not whether justification occurs only once - it’s whether it’s “recorded” in Scripture that Abraham was justified at any other time other than Gen 15. Please try and keep up.
- Beginning your argument with an unsubstantiated conclusion rather than arriving at that conclusion based upon your arguments is rather weak. If you expect people to not turn a “deaf ear” then you might wish to reconsider your approach. We do not all have the confidence in your opinions that you do.
Or there would be other Scripture which, when taken in its entirety along with Paul, would reveal the full truth.
And I suppose you allow yourself the luxury of such speculation when you reject Catholics arguing that if salvation were by faith alone then James would never have said “You see a man is justified by works and not by faith alone”? That doesnt give you pause for thought??? Deaf ears are not one sided.
- Excuse me? Is this your attempt at demonstrating that it’s not “recorded in Scripture” that Abraham was justified in Gen 22? Any literate moron can see that that is exactly what it says. And that is why it remains ridiculous to argue otherwise. What you mean to say is that "Although it is recorded in Scripture that he was justified “by works” and “when he offered Isaac” that it MEANS SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT IT SAYS. Correct? MD has not conceded that point, and you appear to be doing the same thing. * It is recorded* that he was justified “by and when” offering Isaac, but you believe it to mean something different than what it literally says.
- You did not properly quote James above, did you? Here I’ll get it for you: NASB
“Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?”
Sorry, but this doesnt even begin to explain James’ choice of words and ideas. All of this is simply a result of your initial erroneous assumption that justification is “once and forever”. Without that assumption it is perfectly clear what he’s saying.
He talks about faith alone being dead. He talks about faith being completed or perfected by works. Why would he ever say such things if complete, irrevocable justification were by “faith alone, apart from works” The answer is simple: He wouldnt!
M
mikeledes
Guest
Again, BRB, how does a warning serve it’s purpose? God has no need to engage in threats that can never happen in order for us to recognize the gravity of sin or the need to be fully committed to Him, particularly if you believe that this is an inevitable and ineherent product of being regenerated or saved. If OSAS/ perseverance of the saints were true, the earthly consequences of sin in a person’s life, the “loss of rewards” frequently mentioned by OSAS/ Perseverance of the saints, divine chastisement, experiencing the goodness of God, His promises, and the fate of the wicked should be sufficient to encourage Christians and motivate them to be fully committed to Him. God saying “If you do this, I will strike you dead” would be far more effective than saying, “If you do this I will take away your inheritance” because the believer knows that in the case of the former, God will back up his words and this will certainly motivate them not to do what God has warned against.
In other words, OSAS makes a warning like Revelation 22:19 absolutely unnecessary and vain. Why must God warn the Christian that He will take away his inheritance in order to teach a lesson on the gravity of sin and the necessity of full commitment when there are so many other means that would be far more effective in accomplishing that purpose? That’s like a parent telling their child “If you don’t do your homework, I am going to disinherit you,” knowing that she would never do that. Must the warning be that drastic in order to accomplish it’s purpose. Can’t the mother say “If you don’t do your homework I will take away your video games or T.V. time?”
Then what is the purpose of God making such a drastic warning to believers in Revelation 22:19 when there are other means to get the same result using other methods based on truth, on something that can really happen. How effective is a warning that is all bark but no bite? If a teacher were to tell a student that “If you fail this test, you will fail the class” - the purpose being to encourage the student to study - and then say "Don’t worry, I will make sure you never fail this class? " How does that warning accomplish it’s purpose (i.e. the student studying), when the student knows that passing the class is inevitable? Similarly what is the purpose of a warning involving loss of an inheritance when you have absolute certainty that it is inevitable that you will enjoy that inheritance? How is that warning suppose to motivate you? It doesn’t. And I don’t hear OSAS/ Calvinist preachers warning believers that if they do or practice such and such, their inheritance will be taken away - the purpose being to encourage or motivate them. Why? Because they know that they would completely undermine their message.
If their preachers can figure that out, I think Paul and God would have figured that out too.God Bless,
Michael
B
BRB
Guest
They will cause us to study that text especially close … with eyes wide open, with attention to context, and other scriptures on same topic.
They will cause us to pose our questions on the topic to our Lord … since we desire to find how those verses apply to us directly.
And, if we are living the Prodigal Son/Daughter life at that moment … they demand we promptly repent and confess of our err.
One can only run so many Stop signs at high speed before you have a Fatality.
- Status