The Commandments should not be followed ... Part 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter BRB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m not ignoring them, they’re true; nevertheless, one cannot do those things unless, and until he has been saved.
Then, and only then, can he do those things; therefore, they do not save him—he was saved before them doing them, and not by doing them (Eph 2:8-10).
This corner that you always paint yourself into - that if you are saved by faith you cant also be saved by faith working through love - is not a conclusion of necessity. It would only hold up if salvation was instantaneous, complete and irrevocable at the first moment of faith. Once again, as in the baptism issue, Scripture has so much more to say than we are saved by faith apart from works, and to ignore the significance of those writings based upon the assumption that one has “already been perfectly, completely and irrevocably saved” is simply, well, something that even most Prostestants do not see when they read scripture.
 
This corner that you always paint yourself into - that if you are saved by faith you cant also be saved by faith working through love - is not a conclusion of necessity. It would only hold up if salvation was instantaneous, complete and irrevocable at the first moment of faith.That’s a difference between us.

I believe justification is by faith alone.

You believe justification is by faith + works.

I believe salvation is all of God—monergism.

You believe salvation is partum partum—synergism.
40.png
Philthy:
Once again, as in the baptism issue, Scripture has so much more to say than we are saved by faith apart from works, and to ignore the significance of those writings based upon the assumption that one has “already been perfectly, completely and irrevocably saved” is simply, well, something that even most Prostestants do not see when they read scripture.
I’m very aware that what I believe is in the minority, even among protestants; that’s because, I’m not getting my beliefs from consensus, but from what I read in scripture, and others including the fathers, and even some Catholics. :eek: (Don’t tell anyone!)

After many years, I remain persuaded that the teachings that have come out of the reformation are the most well-reasoned and scriptural of all.
 
Was the son ever not his son? Or are you saying God will cast some of His sons into Hell?
No need. They throw themselves in by spurning His saving grace. Was Israel ever not His chosen people? Yet He allowed the earth to open and swallow the disobedient and rebellious.
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.
Because we can trust in His very great and precious promises! 👍

However, I agree, there will be many Catholic and Protestant children of God not gaining their heavenly inheritance. Just because it is kept in heaven for them, that does not mean they are going to unite with it.
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).
Well, of course! If you were to apply it to what Jesus was trying to teach His disciples about saving grace, then it would disrupt the man-made doctrine of eternal security!
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?
No, not a bit. All these qualities were illustrated in the father’s house. It is true that the inheritance cannot be squandered, but the person can be, and they can throw away their birthright.
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…”
Actually, it is very Catholic of you to say this! 👍
 
You view the Truth of God’s word through the lens of the Fathers and the lens of Tradition.

OTOH, I view Tradition and the Fathers through the lens of God’s word, the Truth.

Are the Fathers inspired writers of Scripture, or infallible?
NO, that is not quite right.

I view the truth through the lens of the early Church Fathers.

You view the truth through the lens of the Protestant Reformers.

If you deny this, then you are only fooling yourself.
 
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.
I agree. He is there, holding out the promise, unwaveringly. It is we who waver. We must lay hold of that which has laid hold of us. If we do not cling to Him, and to HIs promises, then the possibility exists that we will be cut off.
 
I agree. He is there, holding out the promise, unwaveringly. It is we who waver. We must lay hold of that which has laid hold of us. If we do not cling to Him, and to HIs promises, then the possibility exists that we will be cut off.
Rom 10: 21But concerning Israel he says,
“All day long I have held out my hands
to a disobedient and obstinate people.”
 
40.png
sandusky:
That’s a difference between us…
I believe salvation is all of God—monergism.
You believe salvation is partum partum—synergism.
Does the fact that someone believes salvation is “partum partum” affect their salvation or not? If it does how can salvation be “all of God”? 🤷
I’m very aware that what I believe is in the minority, even among protestants; that’s because, I’m not getting my beliefs from consensus, but from what I read in scripture, and others including the fathers, and even some Catholics. :eek: (Don’t tell anyone!)
Correct - you are relying “on your own understanding”. That might be an effective argument if the Protestants who disagree with you (the majority) werent doing exactly the same thing. The fact is that they also get their beliefs from what they “read in Scripture” - they simply disagree with you. Go figure.
In addition, many former Protestants who are now Catholic followed their reading of Scripture right into the Catholic Church! Dont get me wrong - you must follow the dictates of your conscience to do what you believe God’s will for you is. If that is to remain where you are, I am not the one to judge that. I can however, look at your claim above and see the reality that others following that guideline disagree with you. You simply value your opinion over anyone elses. That is a relatively unique position to be in.
After many years, I remain persuaded that the teachings that have come out of the reformation are the most well-reasoned and scriptural of all.
“the teachings”? There was a plurality of contradictory ideas and theology that “came out of the reformation”. I think what you meant to say is that you embrace the ones that you agree with and reject the others as “unscriptural” by the gold standard of …yourself, no? Perhaps if I were as intelligent as you I might do the same thing…
 
For the sake of keeping you from scoring a run I hope you don’t mind if I comment. 😃
There was the baptism of John, and the Baptism of the HS, but at the moment I’m speaking concerning the “baptism” Peter talks about in 1 Pet 3.

“Baptize,” in the Greek simply means “immersion.”Mark 1:8

8 “I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

Luke 3:16

16 John answered and said to them all, “As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.So John’s baptism “immerses” people into water.
I don’t think anyone would argue that John’s baptism is the same sacramental baptism Christ instituted. (or that either was the same as Jesus’ baptism)

John’s baptism of Jesus was to reveal to humanity that Jesus came to fulfill the law, through the new and eternal covenant. At John’s ritual washing of Jesus, the Father reveals the Son and the Holy Spirit descends upon the Son, who is the true "Lamb of God’ who takes away the sins of the world.

I did not know him, but the reason why I came baptizing with water was that he might be made known to Israel." John testified further, saying, "I saw the Spirit come down like a dove from the sky and remain upon him. I did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘On whomever you see the Spirit come down and remain, he is the one who will baptize with the holy Spirit.’ (John 1:31-33)

Jesus’ baptism was a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. (typology)

**Then Zadok the priest took the horn of oil from the tent and anointed Solomon. They blew the horn and all the people shouted, “Long live King Solomon!” (1 Kings 1:39) **
Then we have Christ, who was baptized with the water ”to fulfill all righteous, using the word “baptize” with a meaning other than being immersed into water:Mark 10:38-39
38 But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”
39 They said to Him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized.
Luke 12:50
50 “But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!Does Jesus mean that He’s going to experience water baptism? No, but the baptism of the Cross and suffering for sin.
Jesus had already recieved baptism in Mark 1:9 and Luke 3:21, which was in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove.

You’re point is well recieved though. There is also a baptism by blood. The Church has always taught that baptism is a normative, not an absolute necessity.
We also have the baptism of those in the wilderness into Moses:1 Corinthians 10:1-2
1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea;
2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;Does that mean Moses baptized all of the children of Israel while they were in flight from the Pharaoh? Obviously not, their baptism into Moses indicates their oneness, their relationship, their solidarity with Moses as their deliverer sent from God (a type of Christ).
Notice as well that the people ”passed through the sea.”
The parting of the Red Sea was a miraculous events that actually saved people. They were saved through water. This Old Testament imagery is used to describe New Covenant baptism.
That’s the same thing Peter says concerning Noah and his—they were ”brought safely through the water.”
What does Peter say next?
He says, ”Correspondingly,” (Gk. antitupos, or antitype, which is a symbol or pattern of a something).
So Peter says, ”an antitype of that, baptism now saves you (not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God from a good conscience) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
Did Jesus’ baptism in Mk 10 and Lk 12 remove dirt from Him? No, because it was not water baptism.
Did the baptism of Moses remove dirt from the Israelites? No, because it was not water baptism.
Does the baptism Peter speaks of remove dirt from the body? No, because it’s not water baptism.
Pay attention to the context. Noah and his family were saved by being in the ark, as those who are Christ’s are saved by being in Him—the ark brought them through the water.
In Peter’s context, the water is not what saves, water is the instrument God uses to destroy every living thing, except for those He placed in the ark.
So too, Christ (the ark) safely delivers through their perils (the water in Peter’s context) those God places in Him.
This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 3:21)

This verse demonstrates that baptism is salvific (it saves us), and deals with the interior life of the person (purifying the conscience), and not the external life (removing dirt from the body).

let us approach with a sincere heart and in absolute trust, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water. (Heb 10:22)
The point is, baptism has more than one meaning, and Peter’s meaning of baptism in this passage is not water baptism.
Of course baptism has more that one meaning, but Peter’s meaning of baptism in this passage is water baptism. Look at the parallel between Heb. 10:22 and 1 Peter 3:21:
  1. draw near to the sanctuary (heaven) / now saves us. 2. sprinkled clean, washed with pure water / saved through water, baptism. 3. from an evil conscience (interior) / for a clear conscience (interior).
He’s concerned about the baptism because He was instructed ”to make disciples…baptizing them…” and that’s what occurred. Cornelius and his were believing disciples who had received the Spirit, and then Peter baptized them.
Redemption and the forgiveness of sins is through Christ’s blood, not through baptism (Acts 2:38; Eph 1:7, etc.).
That is what baptism is! Spiritual death and rebirth in Christ!😃

Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)

Of course there is symbolism, but the sacrament of baptism achieves what it symbolizes. A spiritual death and rebirth in Christ.

The flood waters symbolize and are an agent of death and rebirth- death to an “old world of sin” and rebirth to a “new world of grace.” Fleeing Egypt through the waters of the Red Sea symbolize and are an agent of death and rebirth- death to an “old world of slavery” and rebirth to a “new world of freedom.”

Water is used in baptism just as it is used in the above Scripture: as a death-birth symbol and agent.

Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned (Rom 5:12)

In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all. (Rom 5:18)


Through the sacrament of Baptism, the risen Jesus unites us to himself and shares with us the new life he won by his death and resurrection. Thus, the sacrament achieves what it symbolize: a spiritual death and rebirth in Christ.
 
IMO, you’re interpretation says to Jesus’ earlier promises to those “IN HIM,” "No you won’t, Lord!" (That’s very Peteresque.)
God is able. We need to be willing.
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.
But they do. Otherwise their last state COULD not be worse than the first.
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?
I never claimed God stopped loving those who choose to spurn Him. He never stops loving his own. Even when they deny Him, yet He loves them.
 
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…”
One might be able to make a case for a secondary meaning of the parable that corresponds to national Israel, but that is certainly not the primary message.

Once again, Henry’s Concise Commentary(a non Catholic source) disagrees with you. It says:
Luke 15
11-16 The parable of the prodigal son shows the nature of repentance, and the Lord’s readiness to welcome and bless all who return to him. It fully sets forth the riches of gospel grace; and it has been, and will be, whilethe world stands, of unspeakable use to poor sinners, to direct and to encouragethem in repenting and returning to God. It is bad, and the beginning of worse, when men look upon God’s gifts as debts due to them. The great folly of sinners, and that which ruins them, is, being content in their life-time to receive their good things. Our first parents ruined themselves and all their race, by a foolish ambition to be independent, and this is at the bottom of sinners’ persisting in their sin. We may all discern some features of our own characters in that of the prodigal son. A sinful state is of departure and distance from God. A sinful state is a spending state: wilful sinners misemploy their thoughts and the powers of their souls, mispend their time and all their opportunities. A sinful state is a wanting state. Sinners want necessaries for their souls; they have neither food nor raiment for them, nor any provision for hereafter. A sinful state is a vile, slavish state. The business of the devil’s servants is to make provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof, and that is no better than feeding swine. A sinful state is a state constant discontent. The wealth of the world and the pleasures of the senses will not even satisfy our bodies; but what are they to precious souls! A sinful state is a state which cannot look for relief from any creature.In vain do we cry to the world and to the flesh; they have that which will poison a soul, but have nothing to give which will feed and nourish it. A sinful state is a state of death. A sinner is dead in trespasses and sins, destitute of spiritual life. A sinful state is a lost state. Souls that are separated from God, if his mercy prevent not, will soon be lost for ever. The prodigal’s wretched state, only faintly shadows forth the awful ruin of man by sin. Yet how few are sensible of their own state and character!
17-24 Having viewed the prodigal in his abject state of misery, we are next to consider his recovery from it. This begins by his coming to himself. That is a turning point in the sinner’s conversion. The Lord opens his eyes, and convinces him of sin; then he views himselfand every object, in a different light from what he did before. Thus the convinced sinner perceives that the meanest servant of God is happier than he is. To look unto God as a Father, and our Father, will be of great use in our repentance and return to him. The prodigal arose, nor stopped till he reached his home. Thus the repenting sinner resolutely quits the bondage of Satan and his lusts, and returns to God by prayer, notwithstanding fears and discouragements. The Lord meets him with unexpected tokens of his forgiving love. Again; the reception of the humbled sinner is like that of the prodigal. He is clothed in the robe of the Redeemer’s righteousness, made partaker of the Spirit of adoption, prepared by peace of conscience and gospel grace to walk in the ways of holiness, and feasted with Divine consolations. Principles of grace and holiness are wrought in him, to do, as well as to will.
I hope this helps.
 
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.




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…”
You have a huge problem in your thinking. Scripture disagrees with your view.

Eph 5:1-7 for example says:

“THEREFORE BE imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints. Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead let there be thanksgiving. Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not associate with them,”

Have you been deceived with empty words? Is it not crystal clear that Paul is warning the believers that if they engage in fornication etc that they will not inherit the kingdom of of Christ and of God? They will obviously fall into the same camp as all of the “sons of disobedience.”

You make a huge mistake in confusing what we do with what God does. It isn’t God that throws people into hell. People separate themselves from God by leaving the household of grace. Do not blame God, blame those that turn from Him.

Romans 6:23 sums it up perfectly in this pithy statement by Paul:

“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

—the free gift of eternal life is what God does.

—The wages of sin is death and this is what we do.
 
Catholic Dude:
This is a contradiction, how can salvation be by faith and be “all God” at the same time?
No contradiction; the faith you have is a gift of God.**Philippians 1:29

29 For to you it has been granted…to believe in Him…

Ephesians 2:8

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, the gift of God;**

In Php 1:29 God “grants,” or “freely gives” belief. Granted = Gk charidzomai. You should recognize that from kecharitomene they have the same root—charis, grace.

The antecedent of a personal pronoun is identified in the Greek by the gender of each. “Grace” is feminine, and “saved” is “masculine,” the pronoun “that,” however, is “neuter,” indicating that “that” refers to both “saved” and “faith.”

Therefore, both salvation and faith are gifts of God.
 
40.png
runandsew:
NO, that is not quite right.

I view the truth through the lens of the early Church Fathers.
Yes you do.
40.png
runandsew:
You view the truth through the lens of the Protestant Reformers.

If you deny this, then you are only fooling yourself.
I’m fooling myself. I think your statement is inconsistent with another of your apologetic arguments.

I’m certain that at one time or another, and probably many times (I say that because you are using canned apologetic statements) you’ve pointed out to protestants that with the Reformation Protestantism splintered into 35,000 different denominations, so in this day and age, how could identify any consistent tradition within Protestantism, it/they’ve been splintering for hundreds of years? 😉
 
No contradiction; the faith you have is a gift of God.Philippians 1:29

29 For to you it has been granted…to believe in Him…

Ephesians 2:8

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, the gift of God;In Php 1:29 God “grants,” or “freely gives” belief. Granted = Gk charidzomai. You should recognize that from kecharitomene they have the same root—charis, grace.

The antecedent of a personal pronoun is identified in the Greek by the gender of each. “Grace” is feminine, and “saved” is “masculine,” the pronoun “that,” however, is “neuter,” indicating that “that” refers to both “saved” and “faith.”

Therefore, both salvation and faith are gifts of God.
And why cannot - or are not - works be a gift from God?
(using the same logic)
 
And why cannot - or are not - works be a gift from God?
(using the same logic)
I believe that they are (Eph 2:10), even our vocations. In fact, I believe that everything is a gift from God (Jas 1:17, 18). My life even to each individual breath (Acts 17:25, 28) is taken because He wills that I take it. When He stops willing my breath, I will cease to breath, and physically die. He is a Great God.

There is nothing I have (good or bad) that I haven’t **received from Him—Nothing (Jn 3:27; 1 Cor 4:7; Jas 1:2ff).

And, I don’t believe that my works save me, or anyone else, and I’m thankful for that, because I know that my “good works” are so imperfect. :o
 
I believe that they are (Eph 2:10), even our vocations. In fact, I believe that everything is a gift from God (Jas 1:17, 18). My life even to each individual breath (Acts 17:25, 28) is taken because He wills that I take it. When He stops willing my breath, I will cease to breath, and physically die. He is a Great God.

There is nothing I have (good or bad) that I haven’t ***received from Him—***Nothing (Jn 3:27; 1 Cor 4:7; Jas 1:2ff).

And, I don’t believe that my works save me, or anyone else, and I’m thankful for that, because I know that my “good works” are so imperfect. :o
If the works come from God and salvation and faith come from God, then why is everything else perfect except for your works that come from God?
 
So when will we know we are “true believers”?
On Judgment day?
If this is not your experience then you might have a problem:Rom 8:16 "The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,"However, according to Catholic theology (and BRB’s) Catholics are not allowed to have such Divine assurance. So it doesn’t really matter to them what the Spirit testifies. According to Catholicism (and BRB) God does not save Catholics (or BRB) through faith in Christ’s redemptive work alone (by grace). They must prove themselves worthy to the end (by works).
 
If this is not your experience then you might have a problem:Rom 8:16 "The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,"However, according to Catholic theology (and BRB’s) Catholics are not allowed to have such Divine assurance. So it doesn’t really matter to them what the Spirit testifies. According to Catholicism (and BRB) God does not save Catholics (or BRB) through faith in Christ’s redemptive work alone (by grace). They must prove themselves worthy to the end (by works).
We have the assurance as expressed in the scripture you’ve quoted, but we do not have the assurance in the errant way that you interpret scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top