The Commandments should not be followed ... Part 2

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

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

Perhaps you should become Lutheran.

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

Unfortunately, you still make the mistake of thinking that everyone that is justified will forever be justified.

That’s what the scripture says, Pax.

Here’s Paul’s statement:**Romans 8:30

and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.**Following is your understanding of Paul’s statement: and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and some of these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Pax:

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.

Explain.

 

[sandusky]

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

It sure does.

 

[mikeledes]

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.

You make a very good point here. Christ perfectly contrasts the legalism of the Pharisees with His law when He said:

Matthew 9:13

13"But go and learn what this means: 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,'

Legalism is a sterile and rigid observance of the letter of the Law. In this system, motive is not important. In fact, the legalistic Jews viewed their relationship with God as one between and employee and an employer. An employer cares little about motive. As long as the work is done, he could care less if that work was done with the right or wrong motive. The empolyee did the work he was supposed to do and expected be paid. Jesus constantly contrasted the Pharisees actions with their motive:

Luke 11:39-42

**39But the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the platter; but inside of you, you are full of robbery and wickedness.
40"You foolish ones, did not He who made the outside make the inside also?
41"But give that which is within as charity, and then all things are clean for you.
42"But woe to you Pharisees! For you pay tithe of mint and rue and every kind of garden herb, and yet disregard justice and the love of God; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. **

Matthew 25:28

**28"So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. **

Now there were righteous Jews that observed the precepts of the Mosaic Law. Luke 1:6 says the following about Zechariah and Elizabeth:

**6They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord. **

What was the difference between the observance of the Law by righteous Jews like Elizabeth and Zechariah and the observance of the Law by the legalistic Pharisees? It all lies in motive. Elizabeth and Zechariah’s observance of the Mosaic Law was rooted in faith and love. The Pharisees’s observance was merely external.

So when Paul contrasts being “under the Law” and being “under the Law of Christ,” he is essentially making a contrast in motive. The Christian observes the law of God, but the motive is love. Hence, love visibly translates into not killing, not stealing, not committing adultery, etc. The same cannot be said about those “under the Law.” Like faith, true love is primarily directed towards one who is outside oneself and must manifest itself in righteous deads. Hence, true love can never be arrogant, selfish, ambitious, or self-centered. It recognizes it’s total dependence of God, who is Love.

So despite all of the righteous deeds of the Pharisees, Jesus said that they disregarded the love of God because these deeds were not rooted in love of God, but a disordered love of self. They were not for the glory of God, but for the glory of themselves. This is demonstrated by their boasting before God. They really thought highly of themselves and this contradicts true love (1 Corinthians 13:4-5). That’s why He told them to learn that God desires compassion - a form of love - and not sacrifice (mere external observance).

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

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

Have you ever broken any of the commandments?

 

[mikeledes]

Perhaps you should become Lutheran.

If I were a Protestant, I’d be a Lutheran. Though I agree with them on this issue - and their view on it reflects that of Augustine and the other early Church Fathers - I see no reason to become one.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

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.

The problem is that Augustine identifies those who haven’t persevered as having been called, having followed that call, being justified and renewed by the laver of regneration. That can only refer to a true Christian, not a false professor.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[BRB]

I]:

Now there were righteous Jews that observed the precepts of the Mosaic Law. Luke 1:6 says the following about Zechariah and Elizabeth:

6They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.

What was the difference between the observance of the Law by righteous Jews like Elizabeth and Zechariah and the observance of the Law by the legalistic Pharisees? It all lies in motive. Elizabeth and Zechariah’s observance of the Mosaic Law was rooted in faith and love. The Pharisees’s observance was merely external.

So when Paul contrasts being “under the Law” and being “under the Law of Christ,” he is essentially making a contrast in motive. The Christian observes the law of God, but the motive is love. Hence, love visibly translates into not killing, not stealing, not committing adultery, etc. The same cannot be said about those “under the Law.” Like faith, true love is primarily directed towards one who is outside oneself and must manifest itself in righteous deads. Hence, true love can never be arrogant, selfish, ambitious, or self-centered. It recognizes it’s total dependence of God, who is Love.

So despite all of the righteous deeds of the Pharisees, Jesus said that they disregarded the love of God because these deeds were not rooted in love of God, but a disordered love of self. They were not for the glory of God, but for the glory of themselves. This is demonstrated by their boasting before God. They really thought highly of themselves and this contradicts true love (1 Corinthians 13:4-5). That’s why He told them to learn that God desires compassion - a form of love - and not sacrifice (mere external observance).

Over the fence, run scores … can’t lay a glove on this apologetic hit.

Game is all tied up. Dead even @ 7th inning stretch.

 

[mikeledes]

You make a very good point here. Christ perfectly contrasts the legalism of the Pharisees with His law when He said:

Matthew 9:13

13"But go and learn what this means: 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,'

Legalism is a sterile and rigid observance of the letter of the Law. In this system, motive is not important. In fact, the legalistic Jews viewed their relationship with God as one between and employee and an employer. An employer cares little about motive. As long as the work is done, he could care less if that work was done with the right or wrong motive. The empolyee did the work he was supposed to do and expected be paid. Jesus constantly contrasted the Pharisees actions with their motive:

Luke 11:39-42

39But the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the platter; but inside of you, you are full of robbery and wickedness.
40"You foolish ones, did not He who made the outside make the inside also?
41"But give that which is within as charity, and then all things are clean for you.
42"But woe to you Pharisees! For you pay tithe of mint and rue and every kind of garden herb, and yet disregard justice and the love of God; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.

Matthew 25:28

28"So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

Now there were righteous Jews that observed the precepts of the Mosaic Law. Luke 1:6 says the following about Zechariah and Elizabeth:

6They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.

What was the difference between the observance of the Law by righteous Jews like Elizabeth and Zechariah and the observance of the Law by the legalistic Pharisees? It all lies in motive. Elizabeth and Zechariah’s observance of the Mosaic Law was rooted in faith and love. The Pharisees’s observance was merely external.

So when Paul contrasts being “under the Law” and being “under the Law of Christ,” he is essentially making a contrast in motive. The Christian observes the law of God, but the motive is love. Hence, love visibly translates into not killing, not stealing, not committing adultery, etc. The same cannot be said about those “under the Law.” Like faith, true love is primarily directed towards one who is outside oneself and must manifest itself in righteous deads. Hence, true love can never be arrogant, selfish, ambitious, or self-centered. It recognizes it’s total dependence on God, who is Love.

So despite all of the righteous deeds of the Pharisees, Jesus said that they disregarded the love of God because these deeds were not rooted in love of God, but a disordered love of self. They were not for the glory of God, but for the glory of themselves. This is demonstrated by their boasting before God. They really thought highly of themselves and this contradicts true love (1 Corinthians 13:4-5). That’s why He told them to learn that God desires compassion - a form of love - and not sacrifice (mere external observance).

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Philthy]

Thank you for your thoughtful, expedient reply!
moondweller;:

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

.Scripture sort of leaves it hanging - I agree.

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)…
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.

I guess when you say that rewards dont relate to fulfillment yet also say that doctrinal purity is important with respect to rewards I have no idea what a reward is in the context you have explained it. A reward is the opposite of a penalty and is something pleasurable. I thought I was following along well until this point. If everyone is “made complete” *equally - regardless of rewards - *then the notion of increased rewards as a function of “doctrinal purity” becomes meaningless. In fact, the whole notion of gold, silver, straw etc, becomes sort of meaningless if - despite the degree of doctrinal purity - everyone will be recieving the same reward. Something is not quite adding up - definitely could be me…

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 suppose, but what’s the point of exposing us to the concept then? I had always thought that the concept of “rewards” in Heaven was a reasonable approach, even though I didnt embrace it at the time. Now it seems like there’s really no beef to it. From what I’m hearing it doesnt sound like anyone will be receiving a “different” reward than anyone else.
A LOT of the NT is directed at Christian behavior. I dont quite understand why there would be such a disproportionate focus on it if it werent important. Without question, as we have seen on this thread and many others, such comments by the NT authors have opened many doors to distorting the “faith alone” message - if, in fact, that was the fullness of the message. That certainly doesnt prove anything but it is peculiar in my mind.

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

This is a better way of articulating what we were both talking about. I didnt make this distinction because the original question was in reference to Heaven, which, limits the discussion to the saved.

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.

So what has he lost then? Something or nothing? How does that relate to fulfillment in heaven? Related or unrelated? If unrelated, who cares - honestly?

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.”

Thank you for this direct answer. I know there is some truth here but I still cant quite reconcile it entirely with all the types of behavior that are discussed throughout the NT and the strenghth of the admonitions directed at those who live in sin. I’ll continue to give it more thought.

 

[BRB]

Perhaps you should become Lutheran.

Sandman …

Take heart, you are only one left turn off the true path. Retrace your steps Pilgrim. Then you will be making Progress.

 

[mikeledes]

It recognizes it’s total dependence of God, who is Love.

Just a correction. I meant “on God.”

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Philthy]

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.

“Faith alone” is no better! As I continue to say, “What do you do with it?”

 

[BRB]

Just a correction. I meant “on God.”

God Bless,
Michael

Too late to recall. Its out of the ballpark … God’s souvenir.
Either word works well.

A reward coming to you someday … no doubt. Perhaps the Hall of Fame !

 

[BRB]

“Faith alone” is no better! As I continue to say, “What do you do with it?”

I don’t follow you. Restate question in different format.

 

[Philthy]

That’s what the scripture says, Pax.

Here’s Paul’s statement:Romans 8:30****and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
.

Simple. You keep ignoring the fact that Paul’s comments are contained within a subset of the saved: those whom he “foreknew”.

Rom 8:29-30 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined {to become} conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. "

In addition, It sounds to me like these folks have already completed their earthly life and are in heaven.
Paul later reveals who “those who he foreknew” were - the Israelites.

Rom 8:11
“I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in {the passage about} Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?”

 

[BRB]

Unfortunately, you still make the mistake of thinking that everyone that is justified will forever be justified. .

Pax …

Lets grant you that Abraham was justified 3 different times … for sake of further discussion.

Does that necessarily prove that multiple justifications are needed ? How do we know that our inital salvation justification in Christ is not sufficient to see heaven ? It certainly was for the thief on cross, and would be for someone with an initial ‘deathbed’ confession.

 

[mikeledes]

Pax …

Lets grant you that Abraham was justified 3 different times … for sake of further discussion.

Does that necessarily prove that multiple justifications are needed ? How do we know that our inital salvation justification in Christ is not sufficient to see heaven ? It certainly was for the thief on cross, and would be for someone with an initial ‘deathbed’ confession.

Catholics don’t believe that it isn’t sufficent.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[BRB]

The problem is that Augustine identifies those who haven’t persevered as having been called, having followed that call, being justified and renewed by the laver of regneration. .

“Many are called, few are chosen” … teaching of Christ. How do we know at what point the chosing occurs. How does Augustine define it ?

It might seem for Paul … it would be the ‘glorified’, last step.

 

[Thing]

Have you ever broken any of the commandments?

Have you, Sandusky? can you murder me and go to heaven? Catholics can. Is very strange. …Whats the point of a Christ if theres nobody to save from hell. Whats the point of a hell if theres no such thing as mortal sin? How do you free yourself from the mortal sin of murdering me if your Christ died 2000 years ago and 5000 miles away? How do you avoid hell if you don’t believe in mortal sin, or even that you could do wrong to murder me? According to some of the ideas here it doesnt matter if a person murders me it has no effect on them, maybe they’ll prove me wrong, who knows?