The Commandments should not be followed ... Part 2

[savedsinner]

In reality, neither do you.

In reality the bishop of Rome was either St. Pius I (140-155) or St. Anicetus (155-166) when St Justin wrote this interpretation of Malachi 1:10–11 in the year 155, and it was either St. Eleutherius (175-189) or St. Victor I (189-199) when Irenaeus also interpreted the same passage to reflect the sacrifice of the Mass in the year 189.
Who was the bishop of your church at that time?

 

[BRB]

Do you know God moondweller?

that is a real question DO YOU KNOW GOD?

Anyone following these two threads Part 1 & 2} … clearly should be able to tell MD is passionate in his Faithfulness to Christ.

And, if he knows Christ … he knows the Father. Christ ALWAYS presents his own to the Father.

MD has a ‘burden’ to make sure that Catholics put FAITH before works. The way some of you word your apologetics … causes him valid concerns in this regard.

Pax has clearly borne testimony to his full / clear understanding of message Paul is giving us on problems legalism presents. Pax has a sweet pitch … that communicates effectively to Protestants on Paul’s message.

I’d bet you all would be amazed to know of the fruitful works MD has to support his faith. Indeed, he probably has more than all the rest of us here.

MD … tell them you have many, many fruitful works … so they won’t be so worried about your salvation They then might even want to call you Catholic, and invite you to the weekly Celebration of our Lord.

Well, you might have to meet the Priest first and get grilled on some doctrines/dogmas

Seriously MD … all Catholics would love to have you drop by for a Mass. Sit in the back if you must … but, right down front is where all the Mysterys are in full force.

Just take it all in … listen, watch, see what Catholics really do and say at Mass. It’s really amazing. The liturgy is fabulous. Protestant events can’t touch it. God is in the HOUSE.

 

[sandusky]

In reality the bishop of Rome was either St. Pius I (140-155) or St. Anicetus (155-166) when St Justin wrote this interpretation of Malachi 1:10–11 in the year 155, and it was either St. Eleutherius (175-189) or St. Victor I (189-199) when Irenaeus also interpreted the same passage to reflect the sacrifice of the Mass in the year 189.
Who was the bishop of your church at that time?

Reality seems a bit fuzzy for you.

 

[savedsinner]

Reality seems a bit fuzzy for you.

Sorry, It was my college days (daze) that affected me so.

I don’t know the exact day and month these letters were written, so I have to go by the year, and on both of those years there was a change in the bishop of Rome.

I don’t consider it being fuzzy, not being able to narrow it down to the day and month.

 

[Philthy]

Are all of the Gentiles, including abortionists, gays, atheists, in every place offering incense to the glory of God? No.

Are all of the Gentiles, including abortionists, gays, atheists, in every place offering a grain offering to the glory of God? No.

Are all of the Gentiles, including abortionists, gays, atheists, in every place celebrating the Lord’s Supper? No.

No? Why is this not like the “all” in Romans where all doesnt actually mean all, but means all without distinction, but not all without exception? I dont have deaf ears…

 

[Philthy]

I did answer you, Phil, but it seems my answer went by you.

OK, lets role the tape…here’s the question:

Is there an eternal, negative consequence experienced in Heaven for those who willfully chose to disobey the 10 Commandments (love of God and neighbor)? If so, what is it?

And here is you “answer”

Sandusky:

I’ll restate my answer: there will be no human in heaven, except for one, who has not, many times, willfully chosen to disobey the 10 commandments.

Please notice how it lacks the basics of an answer to my question: Does it address whether there are any eternal consequences? No it does not. It doesnt begin to answer my question, though it apparently answers the question, “Is there anyone in Heaven who never sinned?” I try to point this out to you with reasonable charity, in the interest of dialogue, and how do you respond?

Just want to personally acknowledge that I’ve read your post, Phil.

Well I would like to personally acknowledge that I am disappointed in you here. I dont get it…

 

[Pax]

The issue of Abraham being justified on more than one occasion cannot be determined by forcing the examination through the eisegetical extrusion device employed by the non-Catholics on this thread. It doesn’t matter what our doctrinal positions happen to be. We must first let scripture tell us if he was or was not justified on more than one occasion. If a person is not willing to do this, or cannot do so, then that person cannot arrive at the truth.

Please go back and read my post numbers 34,35, 37, and 305 on this thread. I have requested that this be done several times, but no one has been willing to try to refute the scriptural presentation made in those posts on Abraham.

In the interest of looking at what scripture really says about Abraham it is necessary to look at the material I presented. Ignoring it will not alter the truth, but examining it carefully will illuminate it.

I believe that those posts prove beyond any doubt that scripture definitely indicates that Abraham was justified on more than one occasion.

At this point in the discussion it would be helpful not to bring up doctrines or the implications of whether or not he was justified more than once. It isn’t even important to determine why he may have been justified only once or more than once.

The first thing to do is to figure out what scripture says. Was Abraham justified only once, or was Abraham justified on more than one occasion. Forget the doctrines and simply focus on the factual data of scripture. That is what I presented in the posts listed above.

There has yet to be a non-Catholic response to the scriptural data that I presented. I make the challenge again for the sake of the truth. Read the posts that I listed. Think carefully about the scriptures presented and the attendant explanations that make the connections to Abraham’s justification. Treat it honestly and objectively. If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong. If the data is there then we must take the data which is the inspired word of God for what it is. We must take it as true regardless of the ramifications and the possible impact on our personal beliefs.

Let the biblical data speak to you. Ignoring it precludes the truth.

 

[Pax]

Something rather obvious struck me only now after more than 540 posts on this the second of two threads entitled:

Re: The Commandments should not be followed

Moon has stated categorically that the ten commandments should not be followed. His reason for saying this is that we are “not under law period.”

***Moon…if I misrepresented you please correct me.

I believe this to be an error because scripture clearly says that we are under the “law of Christ” as expressed by Paul. James calls it the “royal law.” Both indicate that the law of Christ/royal law is written on the hearts of the Christian.

We have made a every attempt to explain all of this, but alas we are constantly accused of being legalists. Please note that if we are thus properly called legalists then so must be Paul and James.

It would seem that what is lost in our message is that grace, regeneration, justification, sanctification, and the life in the Spirit are all totally incompatible with sin. Sin and God are incompatible. The born again Christian has all of these things and knows full well that his/her new life in Christ and adoption are incompatible with sin.

One must leave the household of God to live a life of dissipation in the flesh. This can and has happened. Only a sincere repentance and God’s lavish love and mercy restore a sinner that has wandered from the truth.

The ten commandments are not followed as if they save us. That would be legalistic. By the same token we do not break the ten commandments because we are led by the Spirit, we are holy, we love God, we are adopted sons and daughters in the household of God, and because the Holy Spirit dwells in us.

Sin is not compatible with the Christian life in grace.

The ten commandments are compatible with the Christian life in grace.

Moreover, there is an unbreakable connection between the commandments and salvation that cannot be ignored even by those that teach the doctrine of sola fide.

The first commandment says:
“I am the Lord your God…You shall have no other gods before me.”[Exodus 20:2-3]

Everyone knows that we must have faith in order to be saved. If we do not believe in God then we cannot be saved. Now, isn’t that a coincidence! The first of the ten commandments which is a law and part of the OT law, is a necessary ingredient for salvation.

This coincidence doesn’t place us under a legalistic set of rules. The legalistic set of rules of the OT “pointed” the Jews toward the truth. Everything in the OT points to God and to the divine plan of salvation in Jesus. The truth is that we must, indeed, believe in God. The Christian believes in God and has faith in Jesus the only son of God. This belief comes by way of God’s grace.

God’s grace and the Christian life are at home with the commandments. God’s grace and the Christian life simply do not treat belief in God and our savior Jesus Christ as a legalistic set of rules.

Every Christian knows that we must place our faith and trust in Jesus our savior. This is a requirement but it is not legalistic. Our belief and trust in God and Jesus, his divine son, is based on** relationship** and not on law. This relationship is incompatible with the sins that violate the ten commandments.

Sin is not part of grace. Sin is not part of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Sin is not part of loving God. Sin is not part of sonship. Sin is not part of being led by the Spirit. Sin is not part of justification. Sin is not part of sanctification. Sin is not part of being conformed to the image of Jesus. Sin is not part of loving God above all things. Sin is not part of loving your neighbor as yourself. Sin is not part of the law of Christ. Sin is not part of the royal law.

Sin has no place in our Christian walk and in our relationship with God. It is our relationship with God that naturally incorporates the spirit of the commandments. It is the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law that is written on our hearts.[2 Cor 3:3]

I hope this helps.

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

Please notice how it lacks the basics of an answer to my question: Does it address whether there are any eternal consequences? No it does not. It doesnt begin to answer my question, though it apparently answers the question, “Is there anyone in Heaven who never sinned?” I try to point this out to you with reasonable charity, in the interest of dialogue, and how do you respond?

As I said, Phil, your question jolts me.

Scripture is quite clear that the sin issue has been dealt with as far as the believer is concerned—there is no condemnation for him (Rom 8:1 etc.); therefore, there is no eternal consequence with regard to sin whatsoever.** Hebrews 9:24-28

24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;

25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.

26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,

28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.**For the believer, Christ’s return has no reference to sin, there is no eternal consequence
to sin for him.

You should know this, ISTM however, that your tradition is getting in the way.

 

[steve_b]

That’s what both moondweller and myself have been saying; thanks for your support.

I was taking exception to moon’s post. How do you see I was in support?

 

[Pax]

As I said, Phil, your question jolts me.

Scripture is quite clear that the sin issue has been dealt with as far as the believer is concerned—there is no condemnation for him (Rom 8:1 etc.); therefore, there is no eternal consequence with regard to sin whatsoever.** Hebrews 9:24-28**

24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;

25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.

26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,

28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.For the believer, Christ’s return has no reference to sin, there is no eternal consequence
to sin for him.

You should know this, ISTM however, that your tradition is getting in the way.

It’s amusing that you would even choose to quote from Hebrews which says so much about judgment and punishment for sin.

What you have quoted is only applicable to those that remain faithful.

 

[Philthy]

Sandusky:

As I said, Phil, your question jolts me. Scripture is quite clear that the sin issue has been dealt with as far as the believer is concerned—there is no condemnation for him (Rom 8:1 etc.); therefore, there is no eternal consequence with regard to sin ***whatsoever. ***

What you keep forgetting is how stupid I am! This, however, is an answer even I understand - thank you! As I said, I basically agree with it (for those in Heaven), and Im not aware of Church teaching contradicting it as you imply. My intellect suspects that rather than confining your comments to those in Heaven, however, you have also included those who are still among the Church Militant. We have some disagreements there, of course, as I am not an OSAS adherent. But that is “off topic” for now. I raised the issue of “eternal negative consequences” because of the concept of “rewards” in Heaven (separate from salvation) introduced to me by Protestants. Again, thank you for answering directly, and I hope my tenacity in seeking an answer wasn’t too obnoxious.

Sandman:

For the believer, …there is no eternal consequence to sin …

You should know this, ISTM however, that your tradition is getting in the way.
Well, all I can say is that most Protestants I have interacted with believe that our “rewards” in Heaven are affected by our behaviour during our earthly life. To a dolt such as myself, I would think that more rewards are somehow better than less rewards and in this sense there is an eternal, negative consequence to our choices. Im pretty sure MD holds this view, for example, but I wont presume to speak for him. For you, however, I would ask why do you think Christ, Paul and the other Apostles included so many admonitions regarding proper Christian conduct into their letters? If, in fact, conduct has no negative eternal consequence, dont you think it would have been better to say nothing in this regard to avoid confusing the Gospel message?
I assume your reference to “tradition” is a reference to the doctrine of Purgatory? I would tend to agree with Lewis in describing it as a “harmless”. Then again, perhaps you are simply referencing the Church teaching that it is possible to sin and lose salvation, but that, again, is off topic.

 

[runandsew]

As I said, Phil, your question jolts me.

Scripture is quite clear that the sin issue has been dealt with as far as the believer is concerned—there is no condemnation for him (Rom 8:1 etc.); therefore, there is no eternal consequence with regard to sin

I don’t think Romans is saying that the sin issue has been dealt with as far as the believer is concerned - For it says “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

I think there is a difference between what you might consider a “believer” to be and what I consider “one who is in Christ” to be.

Paul is writing to “believers” and is warning them that they must remain in Christ by living according the the Spirit, not to fall back into sin by living by the flesh. He goes on to speak of the sanctifying grace we receive through the spirit to help us live in Christ. Keep in mind it is only by God’s grace that we can accomplish this, we absolutely can not do it own our own power
Paul is telling us to walk according to the spirit, and not to fall back into walking for the flesh. We walk according to the spirit, by conforming our life to God’s will and God’s law. This would be by obeying the 10 commandments which he later in Romans tells us – “The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” --, not that the 10 commandments will save us, since they can not do so, but by obeying them we are submitting ourselves to God and becoming his slave. We need God’s sanctifying grace to do accomplish this, since we are drawn to sin by our flesh. And remember Paul tells us that love is greater than faith.

If you read Romans, you will see that Jesus conquered sin and death, but we must walk with him through the spirit to belong to him.
It is kind of the “talk the talk - walk the walk” mentality. But it is God that gives us the strength to walk the walk.

Romans 8:1-14
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you. So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh – for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

 

[mikeledes]

It’s amusing that you would even choose to quote from Hebrews which says so much about judgment and punishment for sin.

What you have quoted is only applicable to those that remain faithful.

Hebrews 2:1-3

1We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that (i.e. purpose) we do not drift away. 2For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, 3how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation?

Hebrews 12:25

** 25See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven?**

God Bless,
Michael

 

[BRB]

what is lost in our message is that grace, regeneration, justification, sanctification, and the life in the Spirit are all totally incompatible with sin. Sin and God are incompatible. The born again Christian has all of these things and knows full well that his/her new life in Christ and adoption are incompatible with sin.

One must leave the household of God to live a life of dissipation in the flesh. This can and has happened. Only a sincere repentance and God’s lavish love and mercy restore a sinner that has wandered from the truth.

The ten commandments are not followed as if they save us. That would be legalistic. By the same token we do not break the ten commandments because we are led by the Spirit, we are holy, we love God, we are adopted sons and daughters in the household of God, and because the Holy Spirit dwells in us.

Sin is not compatible with the Christian life in grace.

The ten commandments are compatible with the Christian life in grace.

Moreover, there is an unbreakable connection between the commandments and salvation that cannot be ignored even by those that teach the doctrine of sola fide.

The first commandment says:
“I am the Lord your God…You shall have no other gods before me.”[Exodus 20:2-3]

Everyone knows that we must have faith in order to be saved. If we do not believe in God then we cannot be saved. Now, isn’t that a coincidence! The first of the ten commandments which is a law and part of the OT law, is a necessary ingredient for salvation.

This coincidence doesn’t place us under a legalistic set of rules. The legalistic set of rules of the OT “pointed” the Jews toward the truth. Everything in the OT points to God and to the divine plan of salvation in Jesus. The truth is that we must, indeed, believe in God. The Christian believes in God and has faith in Jesus the only son of God. This belief comes by way of God’s grace.

God’s grace and the Christian life are at home with the commandments. God’s grace and the Christian life simply do not treat belief in God and our savior Jesus Christ as a legalistic set of rules.

.

Paul couldn’t of pitched it any better … to our 21st century teammates. Pax scores a HR … for all participants.

Let all proclaim :

"The Law of Love, HE is Good and his WORD is to be obeyed. HE is essential for our beginning – since the WORD fullfills and justifies us in himself.
Everthereafter, we are able to satisfy the Commandments in Christ ALONE.
Not Faith Alone, or Works First … but, Christ ALONE & ever FIRST "

 

[mikeledes]

The issue of Abraham being justified on more than one occasion cannot be determined by forcing the examination through the eisegetical extrusion device employed by the non-Catholics on this thread. It doesn’t matter what our doctrinal positions happen to be. We must first let scripture tell us if he was or was not justified on more than one occasion. If a person is not willing to do this, or cannot do so, then that person cannot arrive at the truth.

Please go back and read my post numbers 34,35, 37, and 305 on this thread. I have requested that this be done several times, but no one has been willing to try to refute the scriptural presentation made in those posts on Abraham.

In the interest of looking at what scripture really says about Abraham it is necessary to look at the material I presented. Ignoring it will not alter the truth, but examining it carefully will illuminate it.

I believe that those posts prove beyond any doubt that scripture definitely indicates that Abraham was justified on more than one occasion.

At this point in the discussion it would be helpful not to bring up doctrines or the implications of whether or not he was justified more than once. It isn’t even important to determine why he may have been justified only once or more than once.

The first thing to do is to figure out what scripture says. Was Abraham justified only once, or was Abraham justified on more than one occasion. Forget the doctrines and simply focus on the factual data of scripture. That is what I presented in the posts listed above.

There has yet to be a non-Catholic response to the scriptural data that I presented. I make the challenge again for the sake of the truth. Read the posts that I listed. Think carefully about the scriptures presented and the attendant explanations that make the connections to Abraham’s justification. Treat it honestly and objectively. If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong. If the data is there then we must take the data which is the inspired word of God for what it is. We must take it as true regardless of the ramifications and the possible impact on our personal beliefs.

Let the biblical data speak to you. Ignoring it precludes the truth.

While they’re at it, perhaps they can also respond to the following questions I have made myself:

1. How do they reconcile fruitless genuine Christians (John 15:2, 2 Peter 1:8-9) with their view of James 2?
2. If “wither” in John 15:6 refers to the loss of vital power to produce fruit and this vital power is identified with life (“Life is the power in the Vine”), how is loss of power not a loss of life?
3. If these branches experience a loss of power to bear fruit, does that not mean they also experience a loss of power to resist sin and progress in that sanctification without which no one will see the Lord? Which means they end up living a sinful lifestyle, since there are no vacuums in the spiritual realm?
4. I have a new question. If salvation from beginning to end is through faith alone…

James 2:5

**5Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? **

John 14:23

23Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word…

John 8:51

51"Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death."

1 Corinthians 7:9

9but just as it is written,
"THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD,
AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN,
ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM."

… then what’s love got to do with it, got to do with it?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Paul couldn’t of pitched it any better … to our 21st century teammates. Pax scores a HR … for all participants.

Well it’s about time out team scored!

God Bless,
Michael

 

[moondweller]

Philthy:

Just to be clear and accurate, my good friend, what you mean to say is that when Catholics adopt your “recorded in Scripture” rule and read James 2 that " Abraham was justified by works" - Catholics maintain that Abraham was justified by God; and likewise, where it is recorded in Scripture that “Abraham was justified…when he offered Isaac on the altar” they understand that to mean exactly what it says - that he was justified by God.

So when God, supposedly, justified Abraham in Gen. 22, was he (Abraham) in a godly state or an ungodly state? Did he offer up Isaac in a state belief or unbelief? Was he, at that time, in a justified or unjustified state?

 

[moondweller]

BRB:

God has always had his remnant thru the ages. And it has included gentiles as well as Jews.

Biblically, “remnant” is not a word associated with Gentiles, but Israel only.

Good source on Covenant vs Dispensational [sensational] viewpoints. Certainly Jews will get a dramatic second chance reexposure to Christ.

That article expresses the opinion of its author only.

Thus, the best way to read the Apocalypse … is the way the Church does. John’s vision/testimony to the Mass. The perpetual ‘pure’ sacrifice of wine/bread … and the power unleased within by the body/blood/ H.S. of Christ in the ‘transformed’ host.

This is what I mean by your not being able to understanding large bodies of Scripture. The Book of Revelation, especially, being one of them.

MD … tell them you have many, many fruitful works … so they won’t be so worried about your salvation.

I’m far more concerned with their basing their salvation (that of “being saved” and "hope to be saved) on their works.

They then might even want to call you Catholic, and invite you to the weekly Celebration of our Lord.

Been there many times!

Well, you might have to meet the Priest first and get grilled on some doctrines/dogmas

Been there, too.

Seriously MD … all Catholics would love to have you drop by for a Mass. Sit in the back if you must … but, right down front is where all the Mysterys are in full force.

Been there, too. I witnessed no mysteries taking place.

Just take it all in … listen, watch, see what Catholics really do and say at Mass. It’s really amazing. The liturgy is fabulous. Protestant events can’t touch it. God is in the HOUSE.

My faith rests not in what I see, but in what God has revealed concerning His Son in Holy Writ. I rejoice in that historical, once for all, substitutionary, blood sacrifice of God the Son, for the forgiveness of ALL my sins, not an “unbloodly” one. I really do enjoy being with those who acknowledge and praise God for His mercy, not with those who plead for it. In the latter my joy is not made full.

 

[moondweller]

steve b:

The beginning Church was 100% Jewish. The founder and new covenant maker, God incarnate. Son of God, son of David, son of Mary, the one all the prophets pointed to as the fulfillment of revelation. The Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ, is the New Isreal.

According to your opinion only, not divine, written Revelation. Can you show me in Scripture where any church is called “the new Israel?”