The Commandments should not be followed ... Part 2

[Philthy]

This isn’t speaking of believers, born of the Spirit, Pax. These are those who received “the knowledge” of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, but never went on to true belief in Him. Though influenced for a while they turned again to expose their true nature. They didn’t lose the salvation they never had. Read the whole chapter in context.

Without embracing your assessment above I will note that the only way to determine their faith - according to what you have posted, what Scripture records and how you have interpreted it - is by their works. Yet you and Sandusky continue to preach the message of salvation by “faith alone”. It remains confusing to me how this message is to be applied. I presume you preach it so that, ultimately, people can be saved. However, in determining whether I have salvific faith, am I to judge my faith interiorly or exteriorly - by the conduct which “exposes my true nature” or both? What use is it to claim one has faith and is saved by this faith if that one does not have works as evidence of that faith? (cf James 2) It does not seem particularly useful to James and me.

 

[mikeledes]

MD … tagged out, while trying to steal 3rd.

Moon… come now, clearly the sow had ‘been washed —baptised’. Most probably a case of a Prodigal Son … leaving the Father after an adoption.

Here’s a good explanation from an Arminian website why his interpretation of that verse is wrong:

arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-4-again-entagled-in-corruption/

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

I guess Luther did not hold to biblical theology either, since he believed in baptismal regeneration, as do modern-day Lutherans. So much for unity on fundamentals when in comes to faith alone. I also guess no one held to biblical theology for the first 1, 500 years of Christianity until John Calvin finally figured it out, since all of the early Church Fathers believed in baptismal regeneration. And this was clearly upheld by the Council of Orange, which Calvinists also love to cite to give their doctrine a historical pedigree:

Again, Mike, perhaps you should become a Lutheran.

mikeledes:

So much for unity on fundamentals when in comes to faith alone.

As sedevacantism and anti-sedevacantism speaks to unity with regard to the last valid pope?

What’s your point?

According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him.

Oh, and now that I’m on the Council of Orange, here is its exegesis of John 15 in canon 24:

CANON 24. Concerning the branches of the vine. The branches on the vine do not give life to the vine, but receive life from it; thus the vine is related to its branches in such a way that it supplies them with what they need to live, and does not take this from them. Thus it is to the advantage of the disciples, not Christ, both to have Christ abiding in them and to abide in Christ. For if the vine is cut down another can shoot up from the live root; but one who is cut off from the vine cannot live without the root (John 15:5ff).

reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_orange.html

Baptism is not a work that posits a merit. It is the means ordained by God through we He has chosen to confer His gift. Or do you believe that because God uses a means to confer a gift - and one uses that means to receive it - that what is received is no longer a gift? That is definitely not true:

2 Timothy 1:6

** 6For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God **which is in you through the laying on of my hands.

So because Timothy allowed Paul to lay his hands on him, that what he received was no longer a gift? And the Bible states the following regarding baptism:

38Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Augsutine did not base his teachings on predestination on his sacramentology. He based his teachings on sacramentology and predestination on what was taught by Christ and His apostles.

While covenantal theology is interesting, I’m a dispensationalist. You might as well be quoting from an Arminian source.

So your post doesn’t apply to me, and certainly has nothing to do with my statement to which it responds:

Of course Augustine would say that. His theology was sacramental, and it includes the teaching that baptism is a condition for salvation.

ISTM that you’re again resorting to obfuscation in the form of red-herrings with all of the above.

Your qualification concerning the sacramentalist Augustine is noted; however, Augustine remains a sacramentalist.

 

[sandusky]

Of course Augustine would say that. His theology was sacramental, and it includes the teaching that baptism is a condition for salvation.

Those who hold to Biblical theology, understand that the condition for salvation is faith (John 3:16, 36; 5:24; Acts 16:31; Rom. 1:17; 4:5).

Baptism, however, is a work, an external work, an external “work of righteousness” (Matt. 3:15), and the Bible makes it clear that we are not saved by works of righteousness (Rom. 4:5; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7).

I reaffirm what I said above. :extrahappy:

 

[sandusky]

Hmm…Peter specifically says:

“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”[1 Peter 3:21]

This is not the only verse of scripture that indicates that baptism saves, but it’s a start. That’s biblical theology.

We discussed this a few months ago; refresh my memory.

 

[sandusky]

Yes, it is the “dog” that returns to his own vomit, and it is the “sow” who after being washed wallows in the mire again. IOW, they act according to their true nature. These were never saved, never regenerated by the Spirit, never born again in Christ Jesus. Their true nature came forth. I’ve seen it happen many times.

That’s right.

 

[BRB]

Re: the Dogs & Sow question

Picirilli in GRACE, FAITH, FREE WILL [pg. 232]; says thusly on 2 Peter 2:22

“Those who attempt to mitigate Peter’s teaching by suggesting that the real nature of the sow or the dog had not been changed, and that this implies that these apostate false teachers were never regenerated, are pressing the illustrations beyond what they are intended to convey. Indeed, the proverb must be interpreted by the clearer words that precede them and not the other way around. The previous paragraphs express precisely what the proverbs were intended to convey”

 

[sandusky]

Re: the Dogs & Sow question

Picirilli in GRACE, FAITH, FREE WILL [pg. 232]; says thusly on 2 Peter 2:22

“Those who attempt to mitigate Peter’s teaching by suggesting that the real nature of the sow or the dog had not been changed, and that this implies that these apostate false teachers were never regenerated, are pressing the illustrations beyond what they are intended to convey. Indeed, the proverb must be interpreted by the clearer words that precede them and not the other way around. The previous paragraphs express precisely what the proverbs were intended to convey”

That’s amazing!

An Arminian interpretation by an Arminian.

Will wonders never cease?

 

[mikeledes]

Again, Mike, perhaps you should become a Lutheran.

As sedevacantism and anti-sedevacantism speaks to unity with regard to the last valid pope?

What’s your point?

While covenantal theology is interesting, I’m a dispensationalist. You might as well be quoting from an Arminian source.

So your post doesn’t apply to me, and certainly has nothing to do with my statement to which it responds:ISTM that you’re again resorting to obfuscation in the form of red-herrings with all of the above.

Your qualification concerning the sacramentalist Augustine is noted; however, Augustine remains a sacramentalist.

Red herrings and obsfucation?!! Who was the one that brought up the issues of baptism and sacramentalism? Who was the one who claimed that Augustine’s teachings were based on his sacramentology? I am responding to *your *challenge. If you believe that believing in baptismal regeneration is not holding to biblical theology, then the same applies to faith alone Martin Luther who believed in it as well. You claimed that believing in baptismal regeneration is the equivalent of works righteousness and I pointed out how God can use means to confer His gift without making those means a work that posits merit - the case of Timothy receiving the gift of God through the laying on the hands of Paul being an example. So I don’t see how this or quoting from the canons of the Council of Orange - found in a number of respectable reformed/ Calvinist websites - has anything to do with covenental theology. I wasn’t quoting any Calvinist covenental theologian.

Regarding Augustine, the first one to cite him in this thread was you. I cited Augustine because what he wrote gives historical context to the issue being discussed. My point was that Augustine believed what he believed regarding predestination and sacramentology because he believed that that was what Christ and the apostles taught. Whether you agree with his conclusions or not is inconsequential.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[BRB]

That’s right.

Nope …

They RETURNED to their FORMER natures. It can happen to any ‘babe’ in Christ.

This is why we are instructed by Paul to grow up to maturity.

To get past the need for milk, and weened onto solid spiritual food. Without developing spiritual discernment … the many pitfalls and temptations of satan will take many down with him.

 

[Odell]

I reaffirm what I said above. :extrahappy:

Reaffirm all you want

You didn’t answer the question asked what makes you think baptism is external?

If you did I apologise but show me where

 

[Odell]

That’s right.

Trying to steal third as well you underestimate my arm

Ill ask you the same what is it the dog is returning to?

What is your definition of nature and how do we know that they returned to there nature?

 

[savedsinner]

Jesus fulfilled the law for us I’m confused of why love fulfills the law.

Or why does the bible talk of love at all it dosnt matter if one loves

These passages will go ignored

1 John 4:7-8
Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and he who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God; for God is love.

1 John 4:16
So we know and believe the love God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.

1 John 4:20
If any one says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

 

[Odell]

Without embracing your assessment above I will note that the only way to determine their faith - according to what you have posted, what Scripture records and how you have interpreted it - is by their works. Yet you and

This is why I don’t expect them to answer what is the vomit that the are returning to

Sandusky continue to preach the message of salvation by “faith alone”. It remains confusing to me how this message is to be applied. I presume you preach it so that, ultimately, people can be saved. However, in determining whether I have salvific faith, am I to judge my faith interiorly or exteriorly - by the conduct which “exposes my true nature” or both? What use is it to claim one has faith and is saved by this faith if that one does not have works as evidence of that faith? (cf James 2) It does not seem particularly useful to James and me.

What I gather from sandusky moondweller theology is whoever if and when returns to vomit and there true nature shines wasn’t saved in the first place

Whoever dosnt go back to vomit is saved

I recon if I have an alter call I really don’t know I’m saved but I can know if I’m condemned if my true nature shines then I cando the whole alter call again

Confusing

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

Red herrings and obsfucation?!! Who was the one that brought up the issues of baptism and sacramentalism?

See my post #642 in which I responded to this statement made by you:

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.

You were the first to mention those issues.

mikeledes:

Who was the one who claimed that Augustine’s teachings were based on his sacramentology?

I said:

Of course Augustine would say that. His theology was sacramental, and it includes the teaching that baptism is a condition for salvation.

I described his theology as “sacramental,” and said that included the teaching that baptism is a condition for salvation.

From the CCC:

1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. “Sacramental grace” is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.

mikeledes:

I am responding to your challenge. If you believe that believing in baptismal regeneration is not holding to biblical theology, then the same applies to faith alone Martin Luther who believed in it as well.

A red-herring. The issue I raised had nothing to do with Luther, neither did it have anything to do with Calvin, but with Augustine, and his sacramental theology which states that baptism is necessary for salvation (cf CCC para 1129 above).

You claimed that believing in baptismal regeneration is the equivalent of works righteousness and I pointed out how God can use means to confer His gift without making those means a work that posits merit - the case of Timothy receiving the gift of God through the laying on the hands of Paul being an example.

I did not say that.

You interpret me in the same manner you interpret scripture—wrongly, IMO.

What I said is, baptism is a ***”work of righteousness.”

*** (see my original post #642, and my reaffirmation of that post #660).)

I did not say, ”baptismal regeneration is the equivalent of works righteousness,” as you wrongly say I did.

There’s a big difference between the two wordings.

That should have been evident to you by the Scripture I cited to support my wording: Matthew 3:15. (ISTM that you didn’t read the entire post, but went off at the first point).

mikeledes:

So I don’t see how this or quoting from the canons of the Council of Orange - found in a number of respectable reformed/ Calvinist websites - has anything to do with covenental theology. I wasn’t quoting any Calvinist covenental theologian.

Neither do I see that it has anything to do with Augustine, and his sacramental theology.

mikeledes:

Regarding Augustine, the first one to cite him in this thread was you. I cited Augustine because what he wrote gives historical context to the issue being discussed.

And I cited Augustine because what he wrote gave a context to the point concerning scripture that I was making to BRB at the time.

So your point is what?** That it’s OK for you to quote Augustine to give a context, but it’s not OK for me to quote Augustine to give a context?**

mikeledes:

My point was that Augustine believed what he believed regarding predestination and sacramentology because he believed that that was what Christ and the apostles taught.

That’s obvious.

 

[savedsinner]

Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.

 

[BRB]

While covenantal theology is interesting, I’m a dispensationalist.

.

Sandman …

I thought you started out Catholic, and were perhaps Lutheran now. But, I’m not aware of any Lutherans believing in Dispensational - sensational ideas of Tim LaHaye and Jerry Falwell, etc. Many baptist churches and fundamentalist churches are big into Dispensational beliefs.

I’ve been there and looked at those ideas … thats a blackhole. There is no way to have all the detail in that Theology … from what we find in OT & Revelations.

Christ gave us the New Covenant … in his blood/body. The New Testament is clearly covenantal theology. Please don’t go off the deepend … with this newage sensationalistic hype.

I’ve been there … and pulled back from the abyss.

 

[mikeledes]

See my post #642 in which I responded to this statement made by you:You were the first to mention those issues.

The issue was Augustine’s teaching regarding loss of salvation, not baptism.

I said:

I described his theology as “sacramental,” and said that included the teaching that baptism is a condition for salvation.
​

From the CCC:
​

1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. “Sacramental grace” is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.

And I explained in what sense.

A red-herring. The issue I raised had nothing to do with Luther, neither did it have anything to do with Calvin, but with Augustine, and his sacramental theology which states that baptism is necessary for salvation (cf CCC para 1129 above).

The implication that you made was that baptismal regeneration is incompatible with justification by faith. I brought up the example of Luther because he obviously did not see a contradiction.

I did not say that.

You interpret me in the same manner you interpret scripture—wrongly, IMO.

What I said is, baptism is a ***”work of righteousness.”

*** (see my original post #642, and my reaffirmation of that post #660).)

I did not say, ”baptismal regeneration is the equivalent of works righteousness,” as you wrongly say I did.

There’s a big difference between the two wordings.

That should have been evident to you by the Scripture I cited to support my wording: Matthew 3:15. (ISTM that you didn’t read the entire post, but went off at the first point).

Let’s actually look at what you said:

Of course Augustine would say that. His theology was sacramental, and it includes the teaching that baptism is a condition for salvation.

Those who hold to Biblical theology, understand that the condition for salvation is faith (John 3:16, 36; 5:24; Acts 16:31; Rom. 1:17; 4:5).

Baptism, however, is a work, an external work, an external “work of righteousness” (Matt. 3:15), and the Bible makes it clear that we are not saved by works of righteousness (Rom. 4:5; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7).

First you said that Augustine believed baptism was a condition for salvation. Then you said that the condition for salvation is faith. Then you identified baptism as an “external work of righteousness” and then went on to say that “we are not saved by works of righteousness.” That sounds like “baptismal regeneration = works righteousness” to me. So what was your point? Are you saying that baptismal regeneration is compatible with justification by faith? That believing in baptismal regeneration does not mean we believe we are saved by a “work of righteousness?” BTW, Matthew 3:15 refers to the baptism of John, which is different from Christian baptism.

Neither do I see that it has anything to do with Augustine, and his sacramental theology.

The Council of Orange was heavily influenced by Augustine and, like Augustine, it reaffirmed baptismal regeneration, hence his sacramental theology

And I cited Augustine because what he wrote gave a context to the point concerning scripture that I was making to BRB at the time.

So your point is what?** That it’s OK for you** to quote Augustine to give a context, but it’s not OK for me to quote Augustine to give a context?

Now you are going beyond what I stated. I never said it was not okay for you to quote Augustine. If you want to quote him, no one is stopping you.

That’s obvious

At least we agree on something.

God Bless,
Michael​

 

[sandusky]

BRB:

Sandman …

I thought you started out Catholic, and were perhaps Lutheran now. But, I’m not aware of any Lutherans believing in Dispensational - sensational ideas of Tim LaHaye and Jerry Falwell, etc. Many baptist churches and fundamentalist churches are big into Dispensational beliefs.

I’ve been there and looked at those ideas … thats a blackhole. There is no way to have all the detail in that Theology … from what we find in OT & Revelations.

Christ gave us the New Covenant … in his blood/body. The New Testament is clearly covenantal theology. Please don’t go off the deepend … with this newage sensationalistic hype.

I’ve been there … and pulled back from the abyss.

For heaven’s sake, BRB, everyone is a dispensationalist in one way or another believing that God has worked in time through various economies.

You believe that God related to man differently before the Fall, than He did after the Fall, and before the Cross (law), and after the Cross (grace); don’t you?

Even the RC refers to this in the CCC:**SECTION ONE
THE SACRAMENTAL ECONOMY

1076** The Church was made manifest to the world on the day of Pentecost by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.1 The gift of the Spirit ushers in a new era in the “dispensation of the mystery” the age of the Church, during which Christ manifests, makes present, and communicates his work of salvation through the liturgy of his Church, "until he comes."2 In this age of the Church Christ now lives and acts in and with his Church, in a new way appropriate to this new age. He acts through the sacraments in what the common Tradition of the East and the West calls “the sacramental economy”; this is the communication (or “dispensation”) of the fruits of Christ’s Paschal mystery in the celebration of the Church’s “sacramental” liturgy.

It is therefore important first to explain this “sacramental dispensation” (chapter one). The nature and essential features of liturgical celebration will then appear more clearly (chapter two).If you’re that fearful of dispensationalists, be careful backing away from one so that you don’t fall into another.

 

[sandusky]

The issue was Augustine’s teaching regarding loss of salvation, not baptism.

And I explained in what sense.

The implication that you made was that baptismal regeneration is incompatible with justification by faith. I brought up the example of Luther because he obviously did not see a contradiction.

Let’s actually look at what you said:

First you said that Augustine believed baptism was a condition for salvation. Then you said that the condition for salvation is faith. Then you identified baptism as an “external work of righteousness” and then went on to say that “we are not saved by works of righteousness.” That sounds like “baptismal regeneration = works righteousness” to me. So what was your point? Are you saying that baptismal regeneration is compatible with justification by faith? That believing in baptismal regeneration does not mean we believe we are saved by a “work of righteousness?” BTW, Matthew 3:15 refers to the baptism of John, which is different from Christian baptism.

The Council of Orange was heavily influenced by Augustine and, like Augustine, it reaffirmed baptismal regeneration, hence his sacramental theology

And I cited Augustine because what he wrote gave a context to the point concerning scripture that I was making to BRB at the time.

Now you are going beyond what I stated. I never said it was not okay for you to quote Augustine. If you want to quote him, no one is stopping you.

At least we agree on something.