The Commandments should not be followed ... Part 2

[moondweller]

Now the moral law, the 10 commandments are just part of the natural law which applies to everyone, even pagans. Thus the Law of the Gospel did not abolish the moral law.

And of course, the Church teaches we receive this grace that frees us from the slavery to to sin though the sacraments. First baptism. But since baptism does not remove all of our inclination to sin, Jesus gives us other sacraments, especially the Eucharist, which more fully frees us from the slavery to sin. That is why the mass is so important. It continues and makes present the work of salvation, the work of the cross, in which Jesus gives us more of the grace of salvation to free us from the slavery of sin.

But, while this grace frees us from the slavery of sin, it does not do so entirely. We still have some inclination to sin. We can remove most of this inclination through the sacraments and prayer, especially daily mass. But we still need to fast, perform mortifications, use private prayers such as the rosary, etc. to further free us from this slavery to sin. That is why Paul exhorts Christians to pray, “mortify the deeds of the flesh”, fast, etc.

Thanks, dc. Your whole post does confirm what I said:

Originally Posted by moondweller
Catholic soteriology [in theory only) teaches salvation by grace through faith, but then condemns its people based on Law: Transgression of the 10, which it calls “mortal” sin.But you do teach that they must be followed so as not to condemn you. Thus, placing Catholics right back under the Law. This is the inconsistency of Catholic soteriology. And for this reason Catholicism emulates the Law by employing its own priesthood (connected to its sacramental system) and sacrifice.

[/quote]

 

[BRB]

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

.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.

Been there, too.Been there, too. I witnessed no mysteries taking place.My faith rests not in what I see, but in what God has revealed concerning His Son in Holy Writ. .

MD …

#1 above /// All faithful gentiles in the Lord BECOME the new Israel. We become adopted chosen Hebrews.
This doesn’t preclude God from giving the circumcised Hebrews apart from him … a second chance in the end days. They are the Jewish chosen by birth … we by adoption.

#2 above /// Each time I read the Apocalyse with my own Protestant understandings, I see a different potential meaning. However, when I view it from the Catholic perspective … I see the Mass in full Revelation. Heaven has come down to earth … via the Eucharist.
The Eucharist is the HOLY MANNA … as enjoyed in days of Moses. The food of God to the faithful. It heals us, it inspires us. It is the Golden Sacrament … a 10 on the realitivity scale. By comparison, the Silver sacrament of ‘personal’ confession [the one both Protestants & Catholics enjoy] is a 9 on the 10 scale.

#3 //// Thats because you used your biological eyes. You were looking to see actual Blood and Flesh. They were there, but not in a form you [or a Catholic] can see. You must take their presence in the bread and cup on FAITH my brother. Christ gives ALL of himself … Body, Blood and H.S.
Go back and read Christ’s discussion to the disciples on the Eucharist. First he gives us his physical presence in the hosts, then he gave the spiritual presence of himself in the hosts [to those who had not left him already in horror]. So we get BOTH the physical and spiritual Christ.
What we get is BOTH Christ’s Calvary & Arisen Body. The one that suffered and the one that is Eternal. Only Catholics clearly understand the true Eucharist as taught by Christ. Only they have the Manna.

This is beyond dispute, although you may wish to debate. You need to become Catholic if for no other reason than to be able to receive the True Manna of God on regular basis.

Go for GOLD … open those spiritual eyes, and believe.

 

[moondweller]

Scripture records that Abraham was justified by believing God
Scripture records that Abraham was justified by works.
Scripture records the two events occuring at different times.
I dont need to say anything, but I can understand your confusion.

I know this, and I know that you know it as well.
The problem has been two-fold:

• you attempted to defend your justification stance(and entirely dismissed Pax’s thoughtful stance) entirely on your false “What’s recorded in Scripture?” standard.
• you denied - ooops! let me change that - you failed to admit that what you were really relying on was your interpretation of Scripture, not merely what was recorded…

Is this your new standard now that you can no longer pretend to hold the “recorded in Scripture” standard that has exposed your hypocrisy? Why does quoting vs paraphrasing change anything? Does a quote somehow alter the “context” that you referenced above? It changes nothing, of course. Unfortunately, this question reveals that you continue to return to square one.
I’ll offer you my answer to your question. They both quote it, but for different reasons.
Paul quotes it to make the point that justification requires faith, not merely works. This was a difficult message for the Jews and Paul is pointing out Abraham - the father of the Jews - was justified prior to the revelation of the Law
to Moses. If that happened how could justification be completely dependent on the works of the Law? That’s his point.
James quoted it because some Christians had misinterpreted Paul and the other Apostles. They apparently were of the opinion that once they were “saved” that their conduct no longer mattered. They believed that believing in their own faith - in their hearts and minds - was good enough, and they could always point to Abraham as being perfectly, completely and irrevocably justified before God by “belief”. Some had grown lukewarm and complacent. Some had actually embraced a sinful lifestyle as the ultimate testimony of their “faith” in Christ’s atoning sacrifice which covered their sins past, present and future. They were saying things like, “Shall we cower in fear of retribution for sin? No! Let us sin boldly so that grace may abound all the more!” James corrects them by revealing that our works justify us and that apart from doing good no one has any reason to believe that they have faith. He brings up the issue of Abraham offering Isaac and “quotes” Gen 15:6 to unequivocably link the two events as being one with respect to justification. He did this so that they could no longer deny that faith requires action when it is offered the opportunity. He did it to clarify that action flowing from faith justifies us whereas faith, if it is alone, is incomplete, dead, unjustifying and wont save you. As further support for my interpretation, Paul himself delivered exactly the same message when he told believers “Do not be deceived…” and went on to list the behaviors that are incompatible with the kingdom of God.

The truth is, Phil, Paul and James both quote Gen. 15:6 because it is only there that it is recorded that God reckoned Abraham’s belief in Him to him as righteousness. It is there that God justified Abraham based on faith alone. You will never be able to get around it. God has no need to justify the godly, but the ungodly through faithRom 4:3-4 "For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,"This being the core of the gospel. Read the Epistles in this light (especially Paul’s) and you’ll grasp the message of salvation by grace through faith alone.:newidea:

 

[Philthy]

Hi MD!

Thanks for responding. I hope your weekend was blessed.

Rewards are based on a Christian worker’s labors, i.e., how he builds upon the foundation of Jesus Christ (directly associated with one’s doctrines). Those works will be examined and their quality revealed (gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw) at the judgment seat of Christ (covered in 1 Cor. 3:10-15). Even the motives will be considered (1 Cor. 4:5).

OK, so there are “rewards” that are based on a “Christian worker’s labors”, and these rewards pertain to our afterlife since they occur at the “judgement seat of Christ”. Yes?
I presume that rewards are a good thing and that the more the better. Yes? I ask this apparently simple question because you didn’t explicitly state what happens after our works are revealed as to quality - how it relates to the rewarding and what, if any, impact it has on the individual. I’m wondering if having more rewards is somehow better, or more desireable than having fewer rewards. Will those who labored more diligently(more gold) somehow be more fulfilled or whatever? I know that this is definitely the case during our earthly lives, and I would be tempted to impose that understanding into a discussion of eternal life as well since this rewarding takes place in eternity. Such an imposition of understanding would seem necessary, otherwise using the word “reward” - when it means something different than it always means would be meaningless.

One is not rewarded for “good behavior.” That’s simply expected.

I can only assume that the distinction between “Christian labors” and “good behavior” is important for you, otherwise I cant make any sense of why you would start out saying, "Rewards are based on Christian workers labors and then finish with “One is not rewarded for “good behavior”…it’s simply expected”. I can only conclude that Christian workers labors and good behavior are not synonyms in your mind. I think this is merely a difference of semantics - you can assume that by “good works” or “good behavior” I am referring to “quality Christian…labors” that you referenced above. I assume that is because even non-Christians can do “good” but their doing “good” does not earn any rewards before God. Right? Perhaps if you could give me two examples of Christian labors that would earn a reward and two examples of “good behavior” that earn nothing that would clear everything up.
If it turns out that identical actions are distinguished exclusively by who performs them - a Christian vs a non-Christian - then just say so and we’ll be on the same page.

 

[mikeledes]

Read the Epistles in this light (especially Paul’s) and you’ll grasp the message of salvation by grace through faith alone.:newidea:

Read the epistles in light of the entire New Testament…

James 2:12-16

12So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.
13For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.
14What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
15If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,
16and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?

1 John 3:17-18

**17But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?
18Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth. **

Matthew 5:7

7"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.

John 8:51

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

John 14:23

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

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?

… and you end up with Fides Caritate Formata (faith formed by love).

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Philthy]

The truth is, Phil, Paul and James both quote Gen. 15:6 because it is only there that it is recorded that God reckoned Abraham’s belief in Him to him as righteousness. It is there that God justified Abraham based on faith alone. You will never be able to get around it. God has no need to justify the godly, but the ungodly through faithRom 4:3-4 "For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”

Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,"This being the core of the gospel. Read the Epistles in this light (especially Paul’s) and you’ll grasp the message of salvation by grace through faith alone.:newidea:

Thanks Moon! I suppose I could say to you as well, "Read the epistles, the Gospels, all of Scripture in light of *my *comments and you’ll grasp the message of salvation by grace through faith -a faith which is never alone… :newidea: Im sure your response parallels mine! But I still like you…:yup:
Dont miss my “rewards” follow up stuff - we were posting simultaneously and you have to go back to find it…

 

[Thing]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing
Apocalypse 21

8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

Matthew 19

18 He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Matthew 18

3 And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

3 Matthew 7

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.

4 Matthew 19

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 9

46 And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out. It is better for thee with one eye to enter into the kingdom of God, than having two eyes to be cast into the hell of fire:

29 Mark 10

24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus again answering, saith to them: Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches, to enter into the kingdom of God?

30 Mark 10

25 It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

31 Luke 18

25 For it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Galatians 5

21 Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.

How many of the commandments can you break and still enter the kingdom of heaven - indeed not only can you not break them if you expect to enter but you must positively do something - become as little children, or you will not enter - far less receive any reward.

So breaking a commandment excludes you from heaven? Explain.

---

Sandusky

Yes, [see above], …unless ‘the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.’ is your idea of heaven.

 

[BRB]

Catholic soteriology in theory only) teaches salvation by grace through faith, but then condemns its people based on Law: Transgression of the 10, which it calls “mortal” sin.But you do teach that they must be followed so as not to condemn you. Thus, placing Catholics right back under the Law. This is the inconsistency of Catholic soteriology. And for this reason Catholicism emulates the Law by employing its own priesthood (connected to its sacramental system) and sacrifice.

So … we finally have it here. This is the crux issue for MD.

MD … you talk like the priesthood is a Catholic conspiracy w/o any biblical support in scriptures.

Lets look at some Typology in OT & NT to prove that God planned to have his Church based upon prior OT structure.

Isaiah 22:19-24 … about Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. Recall that Jeremiah was also a son of Hilkiah.

words like “clothe him with your Robe”, “bind him with your girdle”, “commit your authority to his hand”, “father of the inhabitants of Jerusalem”, “place on his shoulder the KEY of house of David”, “HE SHALL OPEN, AND NONE SHALL SHUT; AND HE SHALL SHUT, AND NONE SHALL OPEN” “I WILL FASTEN HIM LIKE A PEG IN A SURE PLACE, AND HE WILL BECOME A THRONE OF HONOR TO HIS FATHER’S HOUSE”, THEY WILL HANG ON HIM THE WHOLE WEIGHT OF HIS FATHER’S HOUSE, THE OFFSPRING AND ISSUE, EVERY SMALL VESSEL, FROM THE CUPS TO ALL THE FLAGONS".

Now, compare the OT language here with what Christ tells Peter in … Matthew 16:13-19

without question Christ was establishing Peter in same fashion to rule over his Church of faithful.
This is a slam dunk verification that Peter had full power over the Church.

 

[Odell]

Lets rewidnd here and see why moondweller cant answer my questions

I quoted scripture “not everyone who calls me lord lord will enter heaven but the one who does the will of my father”

here is what moon had to say

Originally Posted by moondweller
You don’t think that the Father’s will is that men believe in the Son?

And we all know to believe in the son is the fathers will but moon seems to think he addressed the issue

I asked why cant love be the fathers will as well?

what do you know I got no response

so here im going to quote myself a third time this is the only explaination I got for moon egnoring my post

moondweller do not have anything to say

have you finally came to the conclusion as Catholics have that faith includes love and the fathers will includes love

“whoever loves has been **born of God **and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love” (Jn 4:7-8).

John also speaks against loving the world, warning that if one is to do this “the love of the Father is not in him” (2:15)

I wonder if the love of the father has anything to do with the will of the father

I wonder if moon can answer a question?

in 1 Corinthians 13:2, Paul writes, “if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” This, beyond all doubt, proves that man cannot be saved by faith without love.

moon goes on to say

If you don’t know, or are unable to comprehend the difference between demonic belief and salvation faith, then you are in deep doo-doo, my friend

my response that did not get a responce

The demons believe God, and they believe in God, but they do not love God, so they do not know God, so they are not justified. This was true also, at least for some time, of Adam and Eve after the fall. Abraham believed God, and he loved God, so he was justified. The same is true of Moses. They were the friends of God.

The difference is there is no love I wonder who is influencing moon to say we need no love? Could it be Christ or could it be the main demon the father of all lies?

I also asked moon

Do you know God moondweller?

He cant answer the question because if he says no then who are we to listen to him. He would understand if he knows not God he would absolutly have no place in the kingdom of God and would not be born of God.

If moon says yes he would then be traped because scriptures says the one who loves knows God and is born of God. But that cant be possible moon dosnt know God because he loves he is not born of God because he loves

Moon knows God and is born of God because he believes

Moon I will repeat if you do not Love you are no different than the demons and if you choose not to love as Christ loves you are rejecting the fathers will. It has nothing to do with working for a reward

Please explain to us how you can have saving faith without having the love of God, without fulfilling the Law of Christ?

mike I would not count on him responding to this he cant:coffeeread:

 

[BRB]

Moondweller & Sandusky …

Don’t you two realize the Beatitudes [Law of Love] which you both accept as Key for us, was first taught in remote OT times ?

Now, if this be true [and it is] … how can you two ever justify your claims that Christ no longer desires us to keep the OT Covenant/Commandments ?

 

[mikeledes]

Moondweller & Sandusky …

Don’t you two realize the Beatitudes [Law of Love] which you both accept as Key for us, was first taught in remote OT times ?

Now, if this be true [and it is] … how can you two ever justify your claims that Christ no longer desires us to keep the OT Covenant/Commandments ?

Christ doesn’t desire us to keep the Old Covenant because Christians are no longer under “The Law.” However, Paul makes it quite clear that Christians are not without the law of God:

1 Corinthians 9:20-21

20To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;
21to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

The law of God is now expressed in positive form in the Law of Christ. Hence when we love, we fulfill the commandments against murder, adultery, etc.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Pax]

Why does that amuse you?

You mean those whom He foreknew and whom He also predestined and whom He also called and whom He also justified and whom He also glorified—anyone who is justified is also glorified (I read a Catholic on the forum refer to that as the “eternal present” with respect to the “sacrifice” of the Eucharist).

Kind of makes one wonder about the “justification of baptismal regeneration.”

Unfortunately, you still make the mistake of thinking that everyone that is justified will forever be justified. We’ve been over this and we have presented ample evidence to the contrary. If you remain unpersuaded, then that is fine. There is little point, however, in going over all of that again. I suspect that we will all make the same points we’ve made before.

My amusement is the product of everything else said in Hebrews that denies your interpretation of the verse that you happened to cherry pick, and thus misapply to your doctrinal position.

 

[moondweller]

OK, so there are “rewards” that are based on a “Christian worker’s labors”, and these rewards pertain to our afterlife since they occur at the “judgement seat of Christ”. Yes?

Yes. But there could be a whole discussion on what happens after this life (eschatology).

I presume that rewards are a good thing and that the more the better. Yes?

Yes, I would think so as well. But rewards don’t make the person “better” (in comparison to other saints).

I ask this apparently simple question because you didn’t explicitly state what happens after our works are revealed as to quality - how it relates to the rewarding and what, if any, impact it has on the individual.

Scripture doesn’t go into those fine details, and for good reason, I’m sure. They’ll be experienced by the individual at the time they’re given.

Will those who labored more diligently(more gold) somehow be more fulfilled or whatever?

I don’t think it has to do with “diligence.” It’s based on what you build upon the foundation, not on how hard you sweat.1 Cor 3:11-12 "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is {to be} revealed with fire"You’ll notice that Paul states that the foundation he laid was Jesus Christ, not law. So rewards are based on labors that are compatible with the Foundation he laid. That’s why I said one’s doctrinal message (purity) plays an important role at that judgment.

I know that this is definitely the case during our earthly lives, and I would be tempted to impose that understanding into a discussion of eternal life as well since this rewarding takes place in eternity.

I don’t think rewards have anything to do with being “more fulfilled.” Every true believer has been “made complete” in Christ (Col. 2:10).

Such an imposition of understanding would seem necessary, otherwise using the word “reward” - when it means something different than it always means would be meaningless.

Not necessarily. The fact the man understands the basic definition of the word “reward” is suffice. The rewards themselves have to do with another life, another age, with incomparable glories in respect to this life in this fallen world (Rom. 8:18). And I’m sure for this reason the H.S. has not provided us with the details. Apart from personal experience we would not comprehend.

I can only assume that the distinction between “Christian labors” and “good behavior” is important for you, otherwise I cant make any sense of why you would start out saying, "Rewards are based on Christian workers labors and then finish with “One is not rewarded for “good behavior”…it’s simply expected”. I can only conclude that Christian workers labors and good behavior are not synonyms in your mind.

That’s why I asked for your definition of “behavior.”

I think this is merely a difference of semantics - you can assume that by “good works” or “good behavior” I am referring to “quality Christian…labors” that you referenced above. I assume that is because even non-Christians can do “good” but their doing “good” does not earn any rewards before God. Right?

The difference is that no unbeliever, unredeemed, unsaved person can, is able, to build upon the foundation which is Jesus Christ. They can’t build upon whom they’ve never believed.

The believer, however, receives rewards only for those labors which are compatible with the Foundation Paul laid, “which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). That’s why doctrinal purity and conformity to Paul’s gospel is very important in respect to future rewards for the believer.

However, many “Christians” are guilty of laying a foundation other than the one which Paul laid. That “other” foundation being LAW/works: “For by grace you have been saved…gift of God; not as a result of works…” If such a “Christian” is in fact a true believer (but deceived either by self or by men), then his work will be burned up, “he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved…” (1Cor. 3:15). That’s because his salvation is not based on works (performance) but FAITH in Christ alone. But if such a one is a “Christian” in name only, then the whole discussion of “rewards” doesn’t matter to him. Rewards have to do with and pertain to the age to come and he won’t be there to enjoy the glories of it.

Perhaps if you could give me two examples of Christian labors that would earn a reward and two examples of “good behavior” that earn nothing that would clear everything up.

Behaviors that would not receive reward are not stealing, not coveting, not bearing false witness against one’s neighbor, keeping the Sabbath day, having no other gods before Yahweh, not bowing before idols, not taking the Lord’s name in vain, honoring your parents. These are only expected.

Those that would receive reward would be preaching grace and not law. Encouraging fellow believers in the grace in which they now stand (Rom. 5:1-2), having been justified through faith alone, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:24). Such labors build upon the Foundation Paul laid, “which is Jesus Christ.”

 

[Pax]

The truth is, Phil, Paul and James both quote Gen. 15:6 because it is only there that it is recorded that God reckoned Abraham’s belief in Him to him as righteousness. It is there that God justified Abraham based on faith alone. You will never be able to get around it. God has no need to justify the godly, but the ungodly through faithRom 4:3-4 "For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,"This being the core of the gospel. Read the Epistles in this light (especially Paul’s) and you’ll grasp the message of salvation by grace through faith alone.:newidea:

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.

I am still waiting for an intelligent response and rebuttal to my posts on the issue of Abraham and justification. So far you have not given it.

Therefore you position has no credibility.

 

[Pax]

Christ doesn’t desire us to keep the Old Covenant because Christians are no longer under “The Law.” However, Paul makes it quite clear that Christians are not without the law of God:

1 Corinthians 9:20-21

20To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;
21to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

The law of God is now expressed in positive form in the Law of Christ. Hence when we love, we fulfill the commandments against murder, adultery, etc.

God Bless,
Michael

Could scripture lay this out any more clearly? I don’t think so, but don’t expect everyone to believe it and accept it.

 

[Pax]

Moondweller & Sandusky …

Don’t you two realize the Beatitudes [Law of Love] which you both accept as Key for us, was first taught in remote OT times ?

Now, if this be true [and it is] … how can you two ever justify your claims that Christ no longer desires us to keep the OT Covenant/Commandments ?

Agreed, but these things are kept not because they are part of the OT Law. They are kept in a non-legalistic sense by living by and in the Spirit. Sin is incompatible with life in the Spirit, and living in the flesh is incompatible with living in the Spirit. Living in the divine life of love under grace gives full expression to the beatitudes. Breaking the moral law expressed in the ten commandments is life in the flesh. This isn’t a matter of legalism either. It is, instead, a matter of slavery.

Freedom is life in the Spirit where we are no longer slaves to sin, and we no longer live a sinful life style. We cannot do this on our own. God’s grace enables us and propels us forward in our Christian walk. If we are led by the Spirit and walk in the light we do not sin. If we prefer the darkness and turn from the light and the Spirit, we profane the blood of the covenant by which we were justified and made holy. Peter says this about those that do this:

“It has happened to them according to the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire.”

 

[mikeledes]

The believer, however, receives rewards only for those labors which are compatible with the Foundation Paul laid, “which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). That’s why doctrinal purity and conformity to Paul’s gospel is very important in respect to future rewards for the believer.

However, many “Christians” are guilty of laying a foundation other than the one which Paul laid. That “other” foundation being LAW/works: “For by grace you have been saved…gift of God; not as a result of works…” If such a “Christian” is in fact a true believer (but deceived either by self or by men), then his work will be burned up, “he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved…” (1Cor. 3:15). That’s because his salvation is not based on works (performance) but FAITH in Christ alone. "

The problem with this argument is that the works that are 'burned up" are described having been built upon Christ the foundation:

1 Corinthians 3:11-12

11For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Unfortunately, you still make the mistake of thinking that everyone that is justified will forever be justified. We’ve been over this and we have presented ample evidence to the contrary. If you remain unpersuaded, then that is fine. There is little point, however, in going over all of that again. I suspect that we will all make the same points we’ve made before.

My amusement is the product of everything else said in Hebrews that denies your interpretation of the verse that you happened to cherry pick, and thus misapply to your doctrinal position.

I was having a discussion with a confessional Lutheran member of this forum - and confessional Lutherans have a very high view of predestination (unconditional election, monergistic view of faith, etc.) - and he said something very enlightening:

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

Bloody Calvinist uber-logic.

It also contradicts what Augustine said, who Calvinists often cite when discussing the history of their doctrine:

In chapter 21 of The Gift of Perseverance, Augustine wrote:

**Of two pious men, why to the one should be given perseverance unto the end, and to the other it should not be given, God’s judgments are even more unsearchable. . . . had not both been called and followed him that called them? And had not both become, from wicked men, justified men and both been renewed by the laver of regeneration? **

He also states in chapter 1:

Therefore it is uncertain whether any one has received this gift so long as he is still alive. For if he fall before he dies, he is, of course, said not to have persevered; and most truly is it said. How, then, should he be said to have received or to have had perseverance who has not persevered? For if any one have continence, and fall away from that virtue and become incontinent,— or, in like manner, if he have righteousness, if patience, if even faith, and fall away, he is rightly said to have had these virtues and to have them no longer; for he was continent, or he was righteous, or he was patient, or he was believing, as long as he was so; but when he ceased to be so, he no longer is what he was.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[BRB]

Agreed, but these things are kept not because they are part of the OT Law. They are kept in a non-legalistic sense by living by and in the Spirit.

."

Isaiah makes the OT call for us. Here is what he says on True vs False worship.

Chp.66:1-2
Heaven is my throne and the earth my footstool; what is the house which you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest ? All these things my hand has made, and so all these things are mine, says the Lord. But, this is the man to whom I will look, he that is HUMBLE AND CONTRITE IN SPIRIT, and TREMBLES AT MY WORD.

Doesn't Christ tell us the same in N.T. ?   And Paul, when he teaches us to work out our salvations with fear and trembling.

Chp. 66:3-4
He who slaughters an ox is like him who kills a man; he who sacrifices a lamb, like him who breaks a dog’s neck; he who presents a cereal offering, like him who offers swine’s blood; he who make a memorial offering of frankincense, like him who blesses an idol. These HAVE CHOSEN THEIR OWN WAYS, and their soul delights in their abominations; I also will choose afflictions for them, and bring their fears upon them; because, when I called, no one answered, WHEN I SPOKE THEY DID NOT LISTEN; but they did what was evil in my eyes, and chose that in which I did not delight".

Here we see that the ‘required law sacrifices’ of the faithful weren’t the PROBLEM, rather, it was the ones making the offering. Clearly they were flagrant sinners who did not confess thereof. They did not listen to the scriptures nor desire to follow God’s spirit. They were ‘protestants’ of sorts … making up their own rules

The law was good, but man took the ‘spirit’ out of the law … and followed only the ‘letter’ of the law. Man did not delight in the Creator, but in the creation. Thus the Law became a form of Idol worship for them. They made false worship of the rules, and ignored the Ruler.

 

[BRB]

I

Of two pious men, why to the one should be given perseverance unto the end, and to the other it should not be given, God’s judgments are even more unsearchable. . . . had not both been called and followed him that called them? And had not both become, from wicked men, justified men and both been renewed by the laver of regeneration?

I think the answer lies in which of the two really loved the Lord.

There are many who are pious, and believe themselves God’s elect. Only God knows who truly had been redeemed, and is eternally grateful to his/her Lord, and will rest forever in their Salvation and King.

One of the two really loved his Lord and desired to please the Son … the other made a pretense @ love and discipleship. Its hard for us to tell the difference … thus, we are never to judge anothers heart.

IMO, God’s elect are secure in him. But, since we can never truly know another’s heart … OSAS is such an enigma for us to conceptualize.