The Commandments should not be followed ... Part 2

[Philthy]

I realized I didn’t answer the second part of your question in blue.

That’s because baptism is the outward expression of an inward reality; IOW, only those who have repented, and who have been forgiven their sins, and are thereby justified should be baptized—believer’s baptism.

Thanks for getting back to me Sandman!

I totally understand your position, but IMHO I feel it flows from the “faith alone first” mentality and does not naturally follow from Scripture.
We already have the “Baptism…now saves you” verse - which is about the stupidest thing to say if Baptism somehow were no different than, say, wearing a cross around your neck to proclaim you are Christian. Its particularly stupid if the whole Gospel message is “We are saved by Grace through faith alone”
In addition Peter clearly links Baptism accomplishing the forgiveness of sins and *accomplishing *the reception of the gift of the holy Spirit in Acts 2:

Peter {said} to them, "Repent, and …be baptized … for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Christ includes it as his last instruction on how to “make” Christians in Matt 28:

“…make disciples of every nation baptizing them…”

It simply makes no sense to put so much writing of the NT about something which is completely incidental. In addition, we have the benefit of the witness of the early Church (those who knew the Apostles and the language of the original NT) in this regard as well and it differs with your opinion.
Scripturally and historically your position is less than objective IMHO and therefore a tough sell.

 

[moondweller]

I won’t speak for Pax, but we’ve been over this already. I don’t think anyone has said God
un-creates anything. (except you)

God didn’t un-create Adam (who was a new creation at the time). He fell from grace.

What do you think it means to be “created in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:10)?

 

[guanophore]

Been through this with you already.Gen 15:6 “Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.”

Acts 16:31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved,…"Salvation was and always is through faith. This side of the cross it’s “Believe in the Lord Jesus…” Why is it you find this so difficult? Is it because you cannot fathom God saving/justifying apart from any works but through faith alone?

I think there are several reasons why this is difficult. I think Paul wrote so much about this concept because even Pagans have the intuitive sense that we are responsible for our behavior before our creator, and that our actions have consequences.

The Reformed notion is difficult (well impossible, actually for those who have received the Apostolic faith) because we clearly see “faith in Christ” inseparably connected to the Jewish notion of faith =obedience.

Thirdly, and this has been well explained on the threads here, “reckoned” to us means that what is “credited” is actually present. I called my credit card company about a fraudulent charge on my bill yesterday. They “credited” the amount to my account. They did not just say they would account it to me, then leave the debt, but they actually posted the value as an addition. The Reformed traditions imply that the righteousness is not really present, that all of our righteousness is reckoned to us in Christ. We beleive that, but we believe it means that we actually BECOME the righteousness of God, in Christ, rather than just being “declared” that way when it is not true.

 

[guanophore]

Pisteuo: "to believe, also to be persuaded of, and hence, to place confindence in, to trust, signifies, in this sense the word, reliance upon, not mere credence.Even the translation you’re using translates “pisteuo” as “believe.” The translation of “apistousin” is what is in question. Here’s how the NASB translates it:1 Pet 2:7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe (pisteuousin); but for those who disbelieve (apeithousin)…,"The latter means to wilfully disbelieve. To wilfully disbelieve is a state of disobedience.

The proposition of the gospel message is to believe in the Lord Jesus. 1 Pet. 2:7 is to be understood in the context of Christ’s own words:John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

I think this is consistent with the Apostolic teaching. In fact, this is one of the main reasons that all those who have received it baptize infants. We understand original sin to place man in separation from God, and that we are already condemned.

However, I think this verse is not really the best one to demonstrate our perception of faith/obedience. I like this one better:

John 3:36
36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

You SAY your faith remains in Christ your redeemer but then you deny that He’s even redeemed when you say that you “hope” and “pray” that you’ll finally gain approval by persevering to the end (of what, your life?) and by your perseverance be brought “to the glory of eternal life.” This is works (merit) on your part; salvation and eternal life being based on personal merit.

This is not an accurate rendering of the Catholic experience or theology. Our Hope does not negate our present state of redemption. We have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved. It is also not “finally gain approval”, as we were approved at baptism, are approved daily as we are made into the image of Christ, and will be approved on that Last Day. Furthermore perseverance is not based on our own works, but upon the grace of God. the church teaches that no one can inherit eternal life based on merit. If you think this, then you do not understand Catholic soteriology.

Contrary to Divine revelation, you deny that they’re both gifted by God (Eph. 2:8; Rom. 6:23). You also deny Christ’s own words where He states that whoever believes in Him HAS eternal life (Jn. 3:15-18; 5:24).John 3:12 “If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?”…says Jesus.

The life is eternal. our participation in it is not necessarily. Eternal life will continue, whether someone chooses to partake of it, or not. The nature of the life does not change, just because someone spurns it.

Obviously the unbeliever has no assurance that he “HAS” eternal life, therefore, he only “hopes” and “prays” in the end it will be rewarded him.Not according to what you clearly state above.

Probably because Catholics do not “clearly” think according to this rendering.

You save yourself through your perseverance.Then you were never truly saved to begin with. Only potentially, and the reality of it will be based on your conduct.

The first statement is a clear misunderstanding. Salvation is based on grace, through faith, not of works. Furthermore, one can only persevere by that grace. The Source of perseverance is in God, not the person. the person is a recipient/participant.

This statement also reflects a misunderstanding of salvation. It is not something that happens once in time, for all time. It has a beginning, is in process,and will be completed. Since the completion does not occur in this life, it is erroneous to say “never truly saved”. also a concept not found in scripture, I note.

There would be no salvation if it was rewarded rather than gifted by grace alone. The believer, saved by grace" will be, for all eternity, a personal demonstration to all powers and principalities (the angelic host) of God’s infinite attribute of GRACE.

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

Will men be “happy” with a salvation devoid of rewards, ABSOLUTELY!! In fact, nothing will give him greater joy because grace glorifies the Lord Jesus Christ, and when Christ is glorified those whom are His (redeemed by His blood) are satisfied.

Well, I am sure everyone saved will be happy. But Jesus is clear that there are degrees of happiness, and degrees of suffering, and that these are based on our conduct.

However, though salvation itself is all of grace, the saved will still enjoy rewards for their labor (1 Cor. 3:10-15).Because the true believer is to glorify Christ, who redeemed them, by their conduct. Conduct is not FOR salvation but glorification, and that of the Redeemer’s.

1 Cor 6:20 “For you have been bought with a price (i.e., redeemed): therefore glorify God in your body.”
​

Gracious, you are sounding more Catholic all the time.

red to put Jesus to the test (according to the Law). Jesus answered Him according to the Law and then proceeded to show him (after he tried to justify himself) that not even he, an “expert” on the Law, lived up to the standard required by it.

Eternal life is based on the principle of grace, not law.None of it is faith in Christ if (as you teach) it is FOR salvation and the ultimate “reward” of eternal life.

Here you answer all your objections. Eternal life is based on the principle of grace. That does not change when one cooperates with the grace, and allows the HS to work in the soul to produce sanctification and glorification. It is all based on the principle of grace, not merit.​

 

[guanophore]

You save yourself through your perseverance.

This is such a preposterous notion. Perhaps you need to go back and read how Pelagianism was defeated as one of the earliest heresies?

Catholic teaching has not changed since the first sermon of our first Pope:

Acts 2:40-41
40 And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”

Surely you don’t propose that the Apostle meant that we could, by some merit of our own, be in right standing with God?

The context is clear this is not what he meant.

Acts 2:41-42
" So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers."

What did those who received the Word do? they entered into an act of grace (baptism), washing away their sins, then devoted themselves in obedience to a lifestyle that befits repentance. I can assure you that the apostles’ teaching includes following the commandments.

Yes. But he is not saved by that law, nor “the law of Christ,” nor “the law of liberty.”

One is neither saved nor justified by (the principle of) law - period.

How is it you can see that this principle exists, yet not see that this is the principle upon which salvation, perseverance, and obedience are based? What compels you to continuously falsely assert that it is NOT based on grace?

 

[Odell]

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast” (Eph. 21:8-9). This is the “key” that unlocks the door to salvation.The “good works” in that passage are prepared for those who are now God’s workmanship (handiwork), those who are “created in Christ Jesus”

What makes you think I thought otherwise please show where I said this pasage is for those who are not in Christ

But you avoid the obvious these works are what God wills he is the one who perpaired them that we SHOULD do

What happens if you don’t do the fathers will?

Not every one who calls me lord lord will enter heaven but the one who does the WILL of the father

That is your stumbling block moon

Without love you are no differnt than the demons

It’s so simple, Odell, you stumble over it. There are works in salvation, but not FOR salvation. Paul’s gospel message and teachings never deviate from Christ’s.that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal (everlasting) life" (Jn. 3:16b).

Even the demons believe and trimble

Your believe and mine are two differnt believes

 

[Odell]

True…until those that were created in Christ Jesus for the good works that the Father prepared beforehand decide to no longer walk in them.

That is rebellion and the quick exit from the household into a life of dissipation in the flesh.

Some father son relationship you got there Pax.

Did you have a curfew?

 

[savedsinner]

Originally posted by St. Paul

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

St. Paul, what are you talking about, didn’t you read what sandusky and moondweller have written here on this thread, we don’t have to follow the commandments to inherit the kingdom of God. You really need to go back and rewrite your first letter to the Corinthians, since you are talking about a works based salvation here, and we are saved by faith alone.

 

[Pax]

So then am I to understand that you believe God un-creates that which He creates? One decides to no longer walk in those “good works” so God un-creates him “in Christ Jesus” and places him back “in Adam,” again dead in trespasses and sins and again in need of salvation?

Can you give men another example where God un-creates that which He created?

Simply read the parable of the Prodigal Son. The son was a member of the household. The son left the household to live a life of dissipation. The father said that his son was dead but was alive again upon returning to the household in repentence. There is plenty of more scripture that says the same kind of thing.

As you like to put it…“it really is very simple.”

 

[moondweller]

Simply read the parable of the Prodigal Son. The son was a member of the household. The son left the household to live a life of dissipation. The father said that his son was dead but was alive again upon returning to the household in repentence. There is plenty of more scripture that says the same kind of thing.

As you like to put it…“it really is very simple.”

Was the son ever not his son? Or are you saying God will cast some of His sons into Hell? How do you know, then, that you won’t be one of them? Based on your interpretive application of the parable and Catholic soteriology, you don’t, do you? Evidently, God will have many Catholic “sons” in Hell.

I believe the “Prodigal Son” parable is about national Israel and has nothing to do with personal salvation through faith in Christ (or damnation, for that matter). It coincides beautifully with the present condition and prophetic promises concerning the future of that nation. This you might understand if the Catholic hermeneutic wasn’t to allegorized the Scriptures.

It’s impossible, however, for the believer, born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to squander that which is imperishable and undefiled, will not fade away and is reserved in heaven for him; and he, himself, being protected by the power of God (1 Pet. 1:3-5). An inheritance so very different from that in the story of the prodigal son, isn’t it?

Can you believe it Pax, upon true belief in His Son, God actually saves the believer from the penalty of sin? I guess you can’t. That worries me because, “For by grace you have been saved through faith…”

 

[BRB]

And BRB hits a “foul” ball.

HA, HA …

if the ump ever backs down on a call, the team coaches will make you pay.

MD … I still back you up on Salvation Assurance, Judas not being a true son of God, & OSAS [for the TRUE BELIEVERS]. But, Apostasy [FREE AGENCY] is allowed by God’s rulebook, for those who are disloyal to the TEAM.

 

[guanophore]

True believers, the redeemed, cannot go to hell.

This is true, but it is because redemption is not complete until we are safe in heaven, and between heaven and hell a great chasm is fixed, and one cannot move from one to the other. Until that time, we are working out our salvation with fear and trembling, and persevering until the last day. We do this by His grace, which is the basis of our salvation.

This attitude is the one that Paul describes as “mature”:

“Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13 Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14** I press on toward the goal for the prize **of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us who are mature be thus minded; and if in anything you are otherwise minded, God will reveal that also to you. 16 Only let us hold true to what we have attained.” Phil 3:12-16

What is it in this passage that makes you think Paul believed he had already arrived?

Forgive me as I am behind on the postings. If y’all prefer, I will not try to catch up this way.

Read what I’ve posted again; you’ll notice that Henry refers to those discarded and burned branches as those "who pass for branches in Christ,” and Henry says of them, "Were they really united to Christ by faith, they would bear fruit;” IOW, he doesn’t believe that they are “truly united to Christ," but that their tie is a mere "outward profession,” of faith. Finally, he sums up concerning them in this way, they are, “Unfruitful professors are unfaithful professors; professors, and no more."

There are couple problems with this. For starters, I will acknowledge that the persons you and Henry describe in this manner do exist. But Christ is referencing “every branch in me”, and we know what is necessary to be found “in Christ”.

The other problem will be easy to understand by anyone who has kept fruit trees or vines. there are many branches that are connected, growing, and appear healthy that do not bear fruit. It is these that are often pruned, to make the other parts of the tree or vine more productive. However, the vinekeeper will also prune off productive branches for the sake of the whole good.

Henry’s position is that God does not “unjustify” those He has justified.

Indeed, those who are marked in salvation are permanently sealed. This is why, if they spurn the Son of God afresh, their last state is actually WORSE than the first.

The nature of sin does not change. Sin separates us from God. Jesus death on the cross did not change the nature of sin, only provided us the means to be free from it. God does not remove us from the right standing He has provided. But,when we choose to sin, we are no longer in right standing with God.

 

[Odell]

Was the son ever not his son? Or are you saying God will cast some of His sons into Hell?

Are you saying we can’t deny our father?

Can you believe it Pax, upon true belief in His Son, God actually saves the believer from the penalty of sin? I guess you can’t. That worries me because, “For by grace you have been saved through faith…”

Why then does God still punishes his children even when
He has paid the price
What kind of a father son relationship is that

 

[Odell]

Was the son ever not his son? Or are you saying God will cast some of His sons into Hell?

Are you saying we can’t deny our father?

Can you believe it Pax, upon true belief in His Son, God actually saves the believer from the penalty of sin? I guess you can’t. That worries me because, “For by grace you have been saved through faith…”

Why then does God still punishes his children even when
He has paid the price
What kind of a father son relationship is that

 

[moondweller]

Are you saying we can’t deny our father?

Does a Holy Father deny His sons for whom Christ died?John 1:12 “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, {even} to those who believe in His name,”

Why then does God still punishes his children even when He has paid the price What kind of a father son relationship is that

I think you confound discipline and punishment. What father, of any worth, doesn’t discipline his children?Heb 12:7 "It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom {his} father does not discipline?

 

[moondweller]

HA, HA …

if the ump ever backs down on a call, the team coaches will make you pay.

MD … I still back you up on Salvation Assurance, Judas not being a true son of God, & OSAS [for the TRUE BELIEVERS]. But, Apostasy [FREE AGENCY] is allowed by God’s rulebook, for those who are disloyal to the TEAM.

No, you don’t back me up on salvation assurance.

Men are “saved by grace through faith,” not their perseverance in “loyalty” or obedience. Salvation is “gifted” to the believer because of the obedience of Another - even death on a cross.

Ultimately, you believe salvation is based on the performance of man rather than the finished work of the Son of Man. Wrong gospel my friend. You’re believing in self. The message of salvation is to “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.”

 

[sandusky]

savedsinner:

St. Paul, what are you talking about, didn’t you read what sandusky and moondweller have written here on this thread, we don’t have to follow the commandments to inherit the kingdom of God. You really need to go back and rewrite your first letter to the Corinthians, since you are talking about a works based salvation here, and we are saved by faith alone.

Those folks will not inherit the kingdom; that’s not the issue.

The issue is whether or not those people have been justified by God. Those justified by God will never perish (cf Jn 10; Rom 8:28ff).

God has never been an “Indian Giver.” His promises, by His nature, are always true, and irrevocable.

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

I totally understand your position, but IMHO I feel it flows from the “faith alone first” mentality and does not naturally follow from Scripture.

I understand Phil; only Catholics are free of all presupposition.

Philthy:

We already have the “Baptism…now saves you” verse - which is about the stupidest thing to say if Baptism somehow were no different than, say, wearing a cross around your neck to proclaim you are Christian. Its particularly stupid if the whole Gospel message is “We are saved by Grace through faith alone”

A text without a context is a pretext.

In context, Peter is not talking about water baptism.

Remember, that’s the same Peter who witnessed Cornelius and friends receiving the Spirit, and then asking, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”

Philthy:

Christ includes it as his last instruction on how to “make” Christians in Matt 28:

Which you assume to be by means of water baptism. I would have much respect for you if you were to spend your days walking around with a bottle of water sprinkling passersby in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the HS, but I’m certain you don’t do that, because you really don’t believe that’s how it happens.

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

There are couple problems with this. For starters, I will acknowledge that the persons you and Henry describe in this manner do exist. But Christ is referencing "every branch in me", and we know what is necessary to be found “in Christ”.

I admit that’s a difficult passage; however, IMO, your understanding of the terms used within this allegory, which is designed to make a point concerning the bearing of fruit, excludes other possible meanings for the terms within its immediate context.

Jesus is speaking, allegorically, to the apostles after the supper, and while His betrayer is off betraying. At an earlier point in time (Jn 10), He made the clear statement that His sheep would never perish; at an earlier time than that (Jn 6), He made the clear statement that it is the will of the Father that He lose none given to Him, and that He will raise them up on the last day.

IMO, you’re interpretation says to Jesus’ earlier promises to those “IN HIM,” "No you won’t, Lord!" (That’s very Peteresque.)

guanophore:

The other problem will be easy to understand by anyone who has kept fruit trees or vines. there are many branches that are connected, growing, and appear healthy that do not bear fruit. It is these that are often pruned, to make the other parts of the tree or vine more productive. However, the vinekeeper will also prune off productive branches for the sake of the whole good.

Those branches that do not bear fruit are also often “parasitic” in nature, and actually sap the branch to which they are attached, thus interfering with their production of fruit.

They are “in the vine,” only through the branch with whose production of fruit they are interfering, and thus the vinedressers “cuts them off.”

guanophore:

Indeed, those who are marked in salvation are permanently sealed. This is why, if they spurn the Son of God afresh, their last state is actually WORSE than the first.

Those who are permanently sealed will not spurn the Son of God; that’s why they’re permanently sealed—it’s a down-payment, an earnest, a guarantee of the sealer’s ownership, and promise of future redemption.

guanophore:

The nature of sin does not change.

Neither does the nature of my God who makes many promises within the new covenant,
one of which is **when He forgives all of my sins, He remembers all of them no more
**(cf Jer 31:34).

guanophore:

Sin separates us from God. Jesus death on the cross did not change the nature of sin, only provided us the means to be free from it. God does not remove us from the right standing He has provided. But,when we choose to sin, we are no longer in right standing with God.

In Rom 8:38-39, Paul lists all of the things that will never separate His people from Him. He finishes his list with this collective statement: "nor any other created thing will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus.”

Are you a created thing, guanophore?

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

I understand Phil; only Catholics are free of all presupposition.

No one is free of supposition, I suppose.
That, of course, only admits our individual limitations and argues for the necessity of relying on something other than ourselves to declare what is meant by the words recorded in Scripture. Who’s that authority for you?

A text without a context is a pretext. In context, Peter is not talking about water baptism.

That, of course, is begging the question. So now you would have us believe that there are 2 baptisms, one which is irrelevant and one upon which our very salvation depends and that the inspired authors didnt bother to clarify which one they were speaking about. I simply dont find that even remotely compelling.

Remember, that’s the same Peter who witnessed Cornelius and friends receiving the Spirit, and then asking, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”

This does not prove your point - it barely even hints at the possibility of the interpretation that you have. Notice that he’s concerned about this “water baptism” happening. Why? You have no answer, I cant imagine anything according to your theology that would explain this very basic fact. In addition he implies that someone with some sort of authority can withhold or “refuse” to baptize another. Anyone can baptize in your theology - right? What’s this “refuse” notion? I doesnt make sense to me.
It seems pretty straight forward. This passage occurs primarily in the context of a sign that God accepted all people without distinction according to nationality. It follows Peters dream of the end of the dietary laws which separated Jew from Gentile. That’s the true primary context: The New Covenant- written in Christs blood - includes Jews and Gentiles without distinction.
They received** a** gift of the holy Spirit (“speaking with tongues”) as a sign that God wants them included. It does not mean that they recieved the gift of the forgiveness of their sins. Its possible of course, but not necessary and not definitive. Again, you are trying to force it to say something that, in context, it doesnt say.

Which you assume to be by means of water baptism. I would have much respect for you if you were to spend your days walking around with a bottle of water sprinkling passersby in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the HS, but I’m certain you don’t do that, because you really don’t believe that’s how it happens.

Of course I dont - Im Catholic. Dont be angry…